osknockout

Nah, you don't have to limit development like that.You can use Notepad for just about anything.Notepad's just usually used for writing or editing source code really fast.Although people tend to to use programs like Dev C++ so that the code is highlighted.

Alright, it may not be the most original theory in the world, but it makes sense.Although I have a dying question or so: how are you getting matter to go faster than the speed of light?You might be referencing tachyons, but I'm assuming you're talking about ordinary matter.Haha, reminds me of K-PAX actually.Oh, one more thing: are you considering dark matter, or do black holes constitute dark matter?

Haha, mine's kinda strange. (my reason behind at least)Strangely enough, it used to be a nickname of mine (said "O-S-Knockout") - It just stuck.Then I would explain it away to people by saying it stands for "Operating System Knockout".

Alright, chronological postings first. Agreed then. Wow, english is a language of ambiguities. About my true/false conditional statements:I meant to apply them to absolute cases only Obviously there are many relative cases of truth and fuzzy logic is an important concept, but if we were ever to follow in Plato's ideal of universals, they would have to follow a true/false absolute, which is what I was partially attempting at, whether or not universals are possible of course... Of course, going past our ambiguity and postulate problems, I'm trying to find an answer to the original dilemma posed here. Perhaps we are limited in our search by the lack of non-logical analysis and the fact that intuition is too much of either a self-justifying item or emotion to differentiate at times. Therefore, I contest if the question is in fact impossible to answer given our current conditions. Dare I say that this one word answer could be a possible manner? Justification by love? Anyone want to call appeal to emotion on a non-justifiable argument? By all means, one could theoretically justify logic by a love of logic, a strangely colloquial statement that seems to fit a formal answer. He does have a point. There are ambiguous - and yet quite pragmatically sound - definitions of 'logic' even when we are all using the same postulates. But I suppose we are talking about justifying logic in general, not one specific case. *tangent* Ok, I'm humored. What non-natural exclusive system of math doesn't use 0?

Yeah, we're all here to help.I'd suggest using Ralf Brown's interrupt list, particularly the int 10 Vesa SuperVGA Bios sectionon how to set video mode and such.But yeah, what exactly would you like help on?

Ex contrarium , didn't I say that? All I was saying is that that statement holds only when the two systems of logic are not interdependent, at least in the case of the proposition held to be invalid, otherwise a circular fallacy is committed. E.g., there's no point of using Euclidean geometry when one makes a statement in algebra disproving the Pythagorean theorem because the two maths are interdependent (analytical geometry). The case in particular I was referencing to was that of qualifying logic in systems of justification. Hmm, let me establish a definition here to prevent a fallacy of ambiguity. When I say illogical, I refer to the plain definition 'not of logic'. I make no reference whatsoever to a lack of reason in the connotative stance. So I believe any exo-logical system would have to be illogical. Something has to be logical or illogical. There is no quasi-logic unless you speak of some phrase which contains both; these are compiled statements, I refer to a single independent thought when I state a logical true/false state. So I don't see what you mean by an exo-logical but not illogical system.

I don't think that's necessarily true. It's valid to qualify a claim in one system of justification with another as long as the two are not interdependent (or mutually exclusive, I'll have to check which one sometime) It seems you're going off a tangent of justifying justification. That would only be the case if you were doing that to every system of justification which would lie on the premise that every system of justification is completely interdependent, which is not true for we know that emotional and logical appeal are separate once we remove intuition from the equation.

To become a good all around programmer, you'd have to learn one of every type of language, e.g.low-level, structured middle-level, object-oriented high level and the in betweens like C and C++. Just saying, doesn't have to be Java. Could just be Python. Actually, I've been using C for everything from hello world (when I just started programming) to OpenGL games and math research. From my point of view, object oriented programming isn't necessary - even though C++ is a good language- and the abstraction just seems to bloat executables. So I would say C is the better language. Then again, I'm one of those people who thinks that low level languages are the solution to everything. So yeah, that's my view on the C >=< C++ debate.

Interesting question. Although, if I may, I would like to answer a question with a question myself. Can logic be justified first of all? Most likely, if you gave me a justification, it would be through logic, thereby making a nice circular argument. You would have to use some other form of argument, I would think through either pathos or ethos as you have stated, but we would need some guidelines to go by for - as you also earlier stated - we have experience in systems of logic, but not rhetoric or emotional appeal outside of courtrooms and mass media i.e. in closed, empirical systems replicable by academia. I suppose the best start of a reason I can give is the results of logic - several thousand years of the use of logic by man has transformed him from a nomadic creature at the mercy of his ecosystem to a creature of specialization that defines his ecosystem. But then again you could counter that by asking if the ends justify the means. But that would be a logical argument! Yet another end to our route of reasoning. Basically you have to justify logic illogically, or as one of my old high school teachers put it most ironically, you must have a 'faith in logic'.

Oy, that's only practical when using the gravity of large planets - e.g. using the gravity of Jupiter to swing out to the outer rims of the solar system. And it's already used for moving current satellites in space, so that option's eliminated. Hmm, and solar sails are still experimental I think, despite what NASA says about trying to pull off a solar sail a few years from now. Using power from photons... you'll need quite a few googols of them to counteract motion of flying debris and such to get it started... I don't know, seems kinda hard to pull off to me. And I think the periodic proton bursts from the sun would harm the sail. I think you need to find some material that is light, can absorb as much interstellar radiation as possible, and can withstand flying debris going at large percentages of the speed of light and ion shocks. ... seems kind of expensive to me still. But hey, interesting ideas.

Wow. Harsh. Even for that type of logical fallacy. True, there is the nationalist minority problem, but it's just more accentuated now. Only thing is the rate at which they're allowed to deal with it with international media coverage. With Putin around, seems like it's slowly reverting to the tried and true Soviet methods... e.g. that ban on non-government organizations that almost passed... so I don't know if that's just a short-term change of government thing, cause things like that happen in most transition phases.

Just one point. That isn't always true. E.g., the US is not making war in the middle of Iraq for territory. Sure, maybe who's controlling the territory, but not for territory itself.

OK. The original idea was that war makes sense because it creates economical benefits, right? I'd say that wouldn't be the case in the long run. Think about it. What is economics besides the study of the laws of supply, demand, their effects, and factors? When you make a war against a capitalist nation- and I mean a total war here, e.g. I don't think that Germany and USA will have a limited war. I mean an actual 'real war' per say, not some Gulf War where you can overwhelm an army by numbers, technology, and expertise making it a bit of bomber practice- what you're doing is reducing the total demand in the region. Sure, you've made the nation enter a kind of economic boom because of the giant growth in demand, and sure you'll also get high demand for reconstruction after they're defeated, but you've reduced the number of people and the properties of the state to rubble. You've reduced demand for everything except population - and that doesn't get an economy flowing - so you've decimated net world trade. Of course most people here are writing from the US experience of wars - Americans have never had major military turmoil on home soil since 1865. They've never had to experience the economical roller coaster that comes from having their buildings bombed to rubble and their cities set to inferno mode. All they've had really is invasion and bombing campaigns. Of course that could be seen as economically successful. Everyone gets employed and industry's booming. How's that NOT beneficial? It's relatively easy too from a military perspective. No home front to worry about having to defend. The point is that the USA never had to feel the direct effects of major war on home soil, but that doesn't mean the world hasn't. When it should have been rolling smoothly from the effects of the Great Depression, Germany spent years rebuilding, not to mention the turmoil of having to forge a new national identity in the Cold War world. And Japan. I'm sure the effects of those 2 A-bombs can still be felt today. Imagine if someone A-bombed New York or San Francisco in the 1940s. Economically beneficial, anyone? brainless, if you were trying to say that limited wars such as the Iraq war today are economically beneficial, I'd say it's only temporary. Sure you spend maybe $2 dollars something at the gas pump instead of 6 euros if you're an American. But your government pays more than $5.8 billion a month for it. And who pays? It's surely not the oil companies last time I checked Exxon-Mobil's profits. It's the taxpayer at the end. It's the taxpayer who pays for allowing oil companies to spike demand for a limited supply of oil - not economically smart in ANY sense, you're asking for a stock crash. It's the same taxpayer who pays for maintaining those F-16s - hey, if we didn't have wars every few years, we wouldn't need those would we? And it's the same taxpayer who forces *ahem* certain governments to use loans from other nations so that they don't complain about higher taxes during a war. That's not net economical benefit, that's an allocation of economical resources that could be put to better use elsewhere AND is used to lower world trade - the same stuff that allows for economic gain. I don't know if you're an oil company executive, politician, or just an 'Average Joe' taxpayer. But hey, if you think that a war is economically beneficial for you, well that's your take of our world situation.

What type of noob asks and then says I know? Improper groveling I say...If you look at the function again, you can tell that strlen() already computes the number of characters in your string for you. Actually, that would be your char pointer there Dagoth Nereviar, place your char or char array variable or whatever with characters you want to manipulate in that something. But of course, you already knew that. In case you don't...

Lol. Basically you define it once and call it over and over again.take that example code from that site again.The function's centerstring right?You'd put the definition of the function anywhere [even outside int main()]-which is the code on the site- (even in a header file if you think you'll use it often enough)and call it whenever you wanted to, e.g. code...centerstring(something);...code.Nice code Tsunami, though I actually prefer just using strlen()and a bunch of manual stuff instead of adding (more like using) apstring.

Hmm... That would depend on how wide your window screen is - as in how many characters it will allow per line. I refer you to this page. The code on the page assumes that you use a standard 80 character wide line. If you want to use a different one (for whatever reason) just change the '80' value in the code and you'll be fine. Isn't it fun when you don't have to reinvent the wheel? Do tell if you have any problems.

To name some off the top of my head, that would be at least Switzerland, Israel, and Finland, St. Michael.And I'm pretty sure you can opt out to do 'civil duty' instead in some of them. Which is the same thing as service hours really.Personally, I don't like the system either. I mean, I've done like maybe about 200 service hours participating in fundraisers for cancer research, but I don't think service hours should be an institutional requirement if they're supposed to be voluntary.And they already are an 'extra way to get accepted to college'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but colleges take into account whether you're in a service club like Key Club or some honor system like NHS which require service hours. It's not like these clubs do anything real besides giving required 'voluntary service' to the community. And half the people I know in NHS are in there for the college resume, not volunteering, so the system is still corrupted in the sense that a lot of people are doing it for themselves.The only reasoning I can see for service requirements is to shortcut a way through the maintenance budget by using a bunch of high schoolers to do various jobs for free. So I see no reason why we should bump up service requirements. Unless you're talking about the US government saving taxpayer dollars of course.

I have a slight disagreement with one of your premises, but I'll get back to that later.Suppose that indeed pity was taught or conditioned from parent to sibling. Because we are assuming - if my interpretation of the implications of your statements is correct - that animals do indeed have some sense of pity for their own species - which seems to follow from the corollary that animals do not feel interspecies pity, the logical derivation is that your premise is that they do indeed then have intraspecies 'pity' or some equivalent emotion. Then it is fair to say that there is some relative form of 'pity' existent in humans as well, assuming again here the premise that humanity is affected by the same forces as other creatures in this context. So your assertion would then amount to the statement that pity is inherent in the human, but must be developed by parental conditioning. I beg the question how human pity originated in the first place with this idea. I think it is only fair to say that it cannot be truly controlled - and I mean control in the manner that some sort of 'activation' is required to relegate pity in the child - by parental conditioning, to say that suppose that you or I grew up without parental sympathy taught to us that we could develop it by ourselves because it seems to be one of the more fundamental aspects of humanity - that is, the ability to forge idea and emotion in relation to its environment.Now for that premise I contest. Going by the sole principles of 'survival of the fittest', it would seem that the offspring that are most likely to survive will indeed be those that are best able to arouse sympathy from its neighbors. This is no calculation, this is random chance, trial and error of natural selection. Sure the end result may appear to be the same, but to assert reason to an unreasoning process seems illogical.Either that or I'm reading wrong from lack of sleep.

Hmm... interesting points. When you say instinctual concept do you mean some sort of idea that has been preconditioned in the mind and is just activated by the teaching of our parents, or are you saying that the communication of the ideas of guilt and pity are simply passed on to the child? It's a somewhat strange idea to say that we have something preconditioned in us outside immediate scope of a possible explanation through some sort of evolution. I wonder if that case is applicable. You're isolating a social animal to a somewhat contained environment. He has to make rules for himself. As a social animal, he learns to observe the nature of other such creatures and emulate them. So if we have some Tarzan in the wild, he will fight for every little scrap he can get and be compassionate with that he calls his own because that's how he sees everything else react in such cases. You could say that it's just a simplified case of a human society, but compassion can be seen constantly in such societies and would therefore be emulated. If we're going to try and simplify man's nature in order to determine our model of how he determines things, e.g. selfishness or otherwise, we have to take into account his premises of natural existence, notably that fellow-society which we role model from. Oh, and I don't know about the 50 nature / 50 nurture thing, but I'm with jhsmurray on this one.

I see. So indeed I have made a semantic error. Although I'd say the wording was a bit ambiguous. I still see the need for the question however if a tendency to do something negates an initial opposing state. You state - and for this argument, I assume - the premise that many religions assume that humans have a tendency to do evil. We have three possible starting positions however when taken from an absolute context where neutrality is allowed:Evil - humanity is evil to begin with and has a tendency to do evilNeutral - humanity starts neutral in respect to good and evil but has a tendency to do evilGood - humanity starts good but has a tendency to do evilNow these are all positions of perception. Whether they're actually true or not in any standard doesn't matter, this is a purely pragmatist approach.Correct me if I'm wrong here. Most of the religions that state humanity's tendency toward evil assume that people want to do good. Somewhat reminiscent of the whole "I believe that people are good at heart" argument. From this perception, the corresponding starting position relative to the three positions I indicated above would be that of 'good'. This would be the equivalent of stating that 'people want to do good, but will eventually sin', which is the same thing as stating 'good'=starting position, as time increases, the chance of having sinned increases. To go back to my coin analogy, it's like flipping coins and repeatedly getting heads. As the number of flips increases, the chance of getting tails (in cumulative context) also increases.If this happens to be the case, then there's no dilemma involved. It's just a case of theological statistics. Otherwise, I'd say that your argument is valid and plausible morosophos. -without accounting for any other semantic ambiguities I have misapprehended - although I think that most of these religions do not assume a starting tabula rasa or evil intent towards morality.

That's like asking why people should take low-end jobs in which they have to work hard for low wage? Why do people want to become firefighters or policemen in this day and age? I think the idea is that you do it because you feel obligated to. Communism might assume a different view of work - you work because you should and not because you feel like it. Hence why you only get as much as you need. And I don't think any government assumes that everyone is equal. At least economically. It's just that in communism the government treats you like you are.

Hmm... the way I see it, communism has such a bad reputation -especially in the West- is because people tend to view different forms of government from themselves as potentially hostile. Especially when two countries are equal in power. I mean think about it: Rome vs Carthage, Athens vs Sparta, Poland vs Teutonic Knights, Ottoman Empire vs Europe, Napoleon vs the Sixth Coalition, Axis vs Allies, USSR vs USA. These were all major conflicts that arose because these nations believed that their form of government and culture was superior and irreconcilable to the other one, and therefore the other had to go or security against it had to be obtained at all costs. Also, people tend to associate communism with dictatorship. Although it's strange to me how a country like America could lambast Khrushchev and Andropov and yet support Franco and Mobutu. Hmm... if I'm right, Stalin was so ignorant of war as to purge nearly all of his General Staff before WWII, yet the Soviet Union fought all the way to Berlin knocking on Hitler's door. And did the Soviet Union lose a single war besides the Polish-Soviet War? - WWI not counting, they weren't fighting it and it was practically civil war soon afterwards. And please don't tell me it lost the "Cold War". I'm talking about actual warfare. I mean it's nice that a lot of people here are patriots of their fatherland, but you can't assume that just because a country is communist means that it's automatically inferior. Give it a chance. Most countries never got that chance because of some dictator or some power-hungry individual. Look at Czechoslovakia during the Prague Spring. "Communism with a face". And then Brezhnev came and rolled tanks through it when he thought it was becoming too liberal. Honestly, I'd say communism never got a real chance. It supposedly started in the largest and most backward country - which it wasn't supposed to do - and never did spread to an advanced, first-world country - which it was supposed to do. I'd say just going by Marxist theory that true communism never came, just gleanings of it. Kind of like the roots of democracy. Athens had a system where only men of property could vote, was practically an oligarchy, and yet is called the founder of democracy. Even though it fell and democracy never came till the time of USA. Perhaps the same will be true of communism. But still, you can't say "case closed" because the case is not done. Communism hasn't spread to a leading, first-world industrialized nation yet, so you can't say it'll never work because its conditions were never realized.

Hey Cerebral Stasis, nice pragmatism. Although I still don't think pulling my hand away from the fire when I feel hot is evil. I would argue over the nature vs. nurture part of humanity out of my own bias honestly. Your points make sense, but they do not explain certain behaviors in the modern world, e.g. one man murdering dozens of people he doesn't know without reason. I understand you could argue that he is being instinctually aggressive and displacing this aggression, but this sort of displacement is unnatural in the sense that it only results in decline of the species, so I wouldn't really call that instinct. Your definition's the best model we've got so far but I don't think you could explain behaviors like these with it. Anarchy? Seems more like despotism to me... If you care to look at history, most primitive groups of mankindwere small groups under a leader of some sort, and most social animals have a hierarchy system. Aside from that, I'd say your ramblings make sense.

I'm pretty sure you can only put CELLSPACING and CELLPADDING in <TABLE> unless you're being recursive and putting tables in tables... so yeah, not in <td> or whatever. Oh btw, I learned from http://www.htmlgoodies.com/, specifically just playing around with the 'Master List' Link on the front page. Fun stuff, answers questions in a nice easy manner. Oh, - heh, hate to have like 3 different extra statements, but try using the w3.org docs for seeing what attributes you can have and what not, like this link for the tables for example.

Lol, you're kidding right? Microsoft losing all its customers to the Macintosh? I don't think that would happen even if they did make a farce releasing viruses. Anyway, Microsoft has enough trouble handling viruses affecting its giant base of source code, I don't think it would waste its time making them.