All I see there is calling some method to do something complicated. It's not 2 lines of code of the actual meat is hidden somewhere.
Do you count the code that drives the compiler or interpreter as part of your program? What about the code that drives your database?? If it's abstracted away into the language then it's not "actual meat" as far as the programmer doing the work is concerned. It is two lines. And unless you're writing all your code in machine language you have no right to claim otherwise.
I don't see how the depth of the hole matters at all. The width, however, matters a great deal.
Sinkholes better than 100' wide are not unknown in that area. The largest cavern system in the world, Mammoth Cave, runs under that city and stretches out to the northeast.
There is only ONE book you need. The Holy Bible. King James translation.
The original 1611 printing, or the 1820's printing currently in most wide use?
As for the fallacy of such divisive faith - in 1611 there was one Anglican protestant church. Now there's well over 1,000 denominations due to squabbling over interpretations of the text and the sinful pride of "ministers" who will not submit to any authority at all. In that same time frame there still is only one Roman Catholic Church.
The difference? The true church does not subscribe to the heretical teaching of Martin Luther known as sola scriptura. Our faith is in God himself, not the idolatry of a book.
CGI stands for "Common Gateway Interface." It's not a programming language. Many web services are or at least can be run using this interface, such as PHP. While its true native webserver modules offer better performance, if you have a reason to write a webpage using C the like you'll most likely need to use CGI to do it.
In the future, when you go for the "funneh", try to know what you are talking about.
From what I understand of the link: Segura made multiple minor league baserunning mistakes in this play.
Segura was leading off second base and could have attempted to steal third base regardless if the pitcher threw the ball home or not, he just made his first baserunning mistake and went too early for third and saw that the pitcher could have easily thrown him out at third, so then Segura ran back to second before the pitcher could attempt to pick him off at second. Braun made it to second base, and in that situation Braun is automatically called out because two baserunners cannot occupy the same base at the same time.
Braun should not be called out. Once you advance, the base is yours. The runner who was previously on the base (Segura) must advance to the next base before being tagged out. You are right about two runners not being allowed on the same base, however it is the lead runner who is to be called out when it happens. This is baseball 101, the sort of call little league umps like myself see all the time. I could give the major league umps some slack since pro players don't make such a rookie mistake hardly ever, but it still doesn't excuse the fact this is very basic rules knowledge in the game.
Incidently, once Braun takes second, Segura can be forced out by tagging the ball at third - no need to chase him down.
The umps are wrong. Each runner has an entitled base. They are only safe at that base, and no others... If the runner behind you takes your base, you must advance to the next to be safe, you aren't safe anywhere else..
The correct call, Seguro, not the runner from 1st, was out at second. The moment that runner touched 2nd base it was his, seguro's base became 3rd and he's out if tagged anywhere else on the field.
This is very, very clearly spelled out in the rules of baseball. You can't run backwards, it's against the rules, and whoever supervises the umpires needs to pull that entire team in for review and suspension for blowing a series of calls that severely.
It "only" says that if you manage to do that you can violate causality and create paradoxes.
How? I've read the descriptions - they all hinge on the principle that for something to exist it has to be observed. To me that's as stupid as a man claiming the sun doesn't exist when he can't see it in the sky.
First point - If we as a species perceived everything by sound I'm quite certain the same statements would be made by us regarding breaking the sound barrier. And yet, we have
Second point - Who was it that said that when an esteemed scientist tells you something is impossible, he is most likely wrong?
Final point - The arrogance of modern physicists never ceases to astound me. Compare what we know about the universe to what can be known, and I'm fairly certain you'll find that it would compare unfavorably to what the cavemen understood about the universe as compared to modern man.
Why is it so hard to say, "I don't know, let's find out?"
To make that claim is to profess that you do not understand what sola scriptura is. I was born in a Baptist family, a family which believes every word in the Bible is literally true and cannot begin to fathom the very possibility that any of it was false. When I did, my faith flew apart until I converted to Catholicism some years ago.
I would then ask you to try to explain then why Chapter 1 uses the word "Elohim" for God, and Chapter 2 uses the word "Yawyeh". That alone is proof to me that the stories are from two different writers from two different traditions. But in resorting to vulgarity you have shown the worth of your tongue, the span of your mind and made manifest your ignorance. Good day.
Look, we're talking about legends handed down orally for at least a few hundred years before being written. It's uncertain how much they morphed in that time, when the story of Lilith was coined, when it split off. For all we know it could have started as one tribe's alternate name for Eve.
It's folk like you that Alexander Pope alluded to when he wrote, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
In brief, you're wrong. But I don't have the time to explain it to you, and you likely lack the intellect to comprehend that you are wrong due to the Dunning-Kruger effect
The original language is quite clear that the creation of the two was simultaneous. Indeed the very word for "God" is different in the two chapters because they are drawn from two different oral traditions. They were not originally meant to form a narrative together.
True, but that's the most glaring one. Also, if you can't make it to chapter two without a discrepancy, what hope is there for the rest of it?
Biblical scholars (as opposed to the nutjob putting up this award) theorize that the books of Moses are assembled from at least three traditions. This becomes more clear when looking at the original Hebrew - the words used for "God" change where in English they are translated into the same word. As a Catholic, disproving the Bible means little to me since it is only a part of my faith, not the whole foundation of it. Protestants however must frantically fight to prove the book entirely correct because of their subscription to the sola scriptura heresy which separates them from Catholicism.
To me, Genesis is a collection of myths with a spiritual truth to be discerned from them. They are instructive stories, not a literal chronicle of events.
Every time I see a picture of the cosmic background radiation I can't help but be reminded of the patterns sunlight makes on the bottom of a swimming pool. How much of what we are seeing is a glimpse into the origin of the universe and how much is distortion introduced by various sources?
Slashdot Mirror
All I see there is calling some method to do something complicated. It's not 2 lines of code of the actual meat is hidden somewhere.
Do you count the code that drives the compiler or interpreter as part of your program? What about the code that drives your database?? If it's abstracted away into the language then it's not "actual meat" as far as the programmer doing the work is concerned. It is two lines. And unless you're writing all your code in machine language you have no right to claim otherwise.
I don't see how the depth of the hole matters at all. The width, however, matters a great deal.
Sinkholes better than 100' wide are not unknown in that area. The largest cavern system in the world, Mammoth Cave, runs under that city and stretches out to the northeast.
Sinkholes are common in that area, but it really doesn't matter if you have a 12' thick concrete slab foundation if the sinkhole drops 100' or more.
There is only ONE book you need. The Holy Bible. King James translation.
The original 1611 printing, or the 1820's printing currently in most wide use?
As for the fallacy of such divisive faith - in 1611 there was one Anglican protestant church. Now there's well over 1,000 denominations due to squabbling over interpretations of the text and the sinful pride of "ministers" who will not submit to any authority at all. In that same time frame there still is only one Roman Catholic Church.
The difference? The true church does not subscribe to the heretical teaching of Martin Luther known as sola scriptura. Our faith is in God himself, not the idolatry of a book.
While Google needs competition, I sincerely doubt a search engine under the control of Chinese censors will make any headway in the free world.
CGI stands for "Common Gateway Interface." It's not a programming language. Many web services are or at least can be run using this interface, such as PHP. While its true native webserver modules offer better performance, if you have a reason to write a webpage using C the like you'll most likely need to use CGI to do it.
In the future, when you go for the "funneh", try to know what you are talking about.
deserves what they get. Worst Telcom in history (and that's an achievement considering how rotten all of them are.).
From what I understand of the link: Segura made multiple minor league baserunning mistakes in this play. Segura was leading off second base and could have attempted to steal third base regardless if the pitcher threw the ball home or not, he just made his first baserunning mistake and went too early for third and saw that the pitcher could have easily thrown him out at third, so then Segura ran back to second before the pitcher could attempt to pick him off at second. Braun made it to second base, and in that situation Braun is automatically called out because two baserunners cannot occupy the same base at the same time.
Braun should not be called out. Once you advance, the base is yours. The runner who was previously on the base (Segura) must advance to the next base before being tagged out. You are right about two runners not being allowed on the same base, however it is the lead runner who is to be called out when it happens. This is baseball 101, the sort of call little league umps like myself see all the time. I could give the major league umps some slack since pro players don't make such a rookie mistake hardly ever, but it still doesn't excuse the fact this is very basic rules knowledge in the game.
Incidently, once Braun takes second, Segura can be forced out by tagging the ball at third - no need to chase him down.
I'm amazed the major league umps missed this.
The umps are wrong. Each runner has an entitled base. They are only safe at that base, and no others... If the runner behind you takes your base, you must advance to the next to be safe, you aren't safe anywhere else..
The correct call, Seguro, not the runner from 1st, was out at second. The moment that runner touched 2nd base it was his, seguro's base became 3rd and he's out if tagged anywhere else on the field.
This is very, very clearly spelled out in the rules of baseball. You can't run backwards, it's against the rules, and whoever supervises the umpires needs to pull that entire team in for review and suspension for blowing a series of calls that severely.
It "only" says that if you manage to do that you can violate causality and create paradoxes.
How? I've read the descriptions - they all hinge on the principle that for something to exist it has to be observed. To me that's as stupid as a man claiming the sun doesn't exist when he can't see it in the sky.
First point - If we as a species perceived everything by sound I'm quite certain the same statements would be made by us regarding breaking the sound barrier. And yet, we have
Second point - Who was it that said that when an esteemed scientist tells you something is impossible, he is most likely wrong?
Final point - The arrogance of modern physicists never ceases to astound me. Compare what we know about the universe to what can be known, and I'm fairly certain you'll find that it would compare unfavorably to what the cavemen understood about the universe as compared to modern man.
Why is it so hard to say, "I don't know, let's find out?"
Again. A pity the first amendment doesn't apply to corporations.
Well, you haven't checked very thoroughly and instead content yourself with propagating lies.
Well, just add this line somewhere in your CSS file.
blink { text-decoration: blink; }
Yep, they're there - though I think they didn't show up until 5.1.
Two word summary: Russell's Teapot
Both support views and stored procedures and have since version 5.
To make that claim is to profess that you do not understand what sola scriptura is. I was born in a Baptist family, a family which believes every word in the Bible is literally true and cannot begin to fathom the very possibility that any of it was false. When I did, my faith flew apart until I converted to Catholicism some years ago.
I would then ask you to try to explain then why Chapter 1 uses the word "Elohim" for God, and Chapter 2 uses the word "Yawyeh". That alone is proof to me that the stories are from two different writers from two different traditions. But in resorting to vulgarity you have shown the worth of your tongue, the span of your mind and made manifest your ignorance. Good day.
Maybe.
Look, we're talking about legends handed down orally for at least a few hundred years before being written. It's uncertain how much they morphed in that time, when the story of Lilith was coined, when it split off. For all we know it could have started as one tribe's alternate name for Eve.
It's folk like you that Alexander Pope alluded to when he wrote, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
In brief, you're wrong. But I don't have the time to explain it to you, and you likely lack the intellect to comprehend that you are wrong due to the Dunning-Kruger effect
The original language is quite clear that the creation of the two was simultaneous. Indeed the very word for "God" is different in the two chapters because they are drawn from two different oral traditions. They were not originally meant to form a narrative together.
True, but that's the most glaring one. Also, if you can't make it to chapter two without a discrepancy, what hope is there for the rest of it?
Biblical scholars (as opposed to the nutjob putting up this award) theorize that the books of Moses are assembled from at least three traditions. This becomes more clear when looking at the original Hebrew - the words used for "God" change where in English they are translated into the same word. As a Catholic, disproving the Bible means little to me since it is only a part of my faith, not the whole foundation of it. Protestants however must frantically fight to prove the book entirely correct because of their subscription to the sola scriptura heresy which separates them from Catholicism.
To me, Genesis is a collection of myths with a spiritual truth to be discerned from them. They are instructive stories, not a literal chronicle of events.
Chapter 1 - Male and Female are created simultaneously.
Chapter 2 - Adam and Eve are created in that order.
One of the two accounts must be false - they are mutually exclusive factual statements.
Genesis is a collection of myths with no more truth to them then the parables.
Every time I see a picture of the cosmic background radiation I can't help but be reminded of the patterns sunlight makes on the bottom of a swimming pool. How much of what we are seeing is a glimpse into the origin of the universe and how much is distortion introduced by various sources?