Every time a programmer downloads Dev-C++...
So, you've pointed out the bible contradicts it's self. It does that a lot. Doesn't change the fact that it shows god as all powerful. That's kind of a caveat of the abrahamic religions. A single, omnipotent being that created and rules the universe. I'm not saying they never show him as non-omnipotent, because they obviously do, I'm just saying that they claim him to be so.
That said, I'm an agnostic atheist, and while I cannot dismiss the possibility of a god or gods, I'm pretty damned convinced the abrahamic religions have missed the mark.
aaaand, bronze age really refers to the old testament and the whole of hebrew holy texts. I am aware quotes I gave were new testament.
That said, I'm an agnostic atheist, and while I cannot dismiss the possibility of a god or gods, I'm pretty damned convinced the abrahamic religions have missed the mark.
aaaand, bronze age really refers to the old testament and the whole of hebrew holy texts. I am aware quotes I gave were new testament.
closed account (1yR4jE8b)
Holy shit, I go to school for the day and now people are dissecting the freaking Bible.
NO. Bad programming forum members. BAD
NO. Bad programming forum members. BAD
closed account (o1vk4iN6)
I wonder how many people the bible's been through, how many languages it's translated into for you to read it in your native tongue just so you can point out discrepancies. Anyways, I take it as that, a collection of stories interpreted by man. If you think the bible is the word of god that would mean he wrote it and didn't play telephone with human beings that I guess you could say were less evolved although it would depend on the viewpoint. Just as an example, for some reason jesus is white, but during that time period and the location he wouldn't be. If he was, then there is no mention of it, that I know of, people being racist against his different color of skin. While calling also himself the son of god.
@BHXSpecter
It may be derived from it but it still doesn't imply blood being shed; there is more then one meaning. As with your quote, the first definition makes no mention of blood.
@BHXSpecter
It may be derived from it but it still doesn't imply blood being shed; there is more then one meaning. As with your quote, the first definition makes no mention of blood.
blood·shed noun 1. destruction of life, as in war or murder; slaughter. 2. the shedding of blood by injury, wound, etc. |
Last edited on
@xerzi
Umm.. 'Imply' is not limited to one instance, you know. Something can imply multiple things. As per the definition you quoted from BHXSpecter; bloodshed implies both the destruction of life and the shedding of blood. But according to your posts you're trying to suggest that since bloodshed implies the 1st definition it can't imply the 2nd definition, which is entirely incorrect.
Umm.. 'Imply' is not limited to one instance, you know. Something can imply multiple things. As per the definition you quoted from BHXSpecter; bloodshed implies both the destruction of life and the shedding of blood. But according to your posts you're trying to suggest that since bloodshed implies the 1st definition it can't imply the 2nd definition, which is entirely incorrect.
"Peanut butter and jelly sandwich" implies that it is a sandwich composed of bread, peanut butter and jelly, but can also imply a form of martial arts used by those who do not understand the way of the hot dog. Both are incorrect, because the 0th definition states that orange does not rhyme with cow, and cows do not eat bananas.
@xerzi:
Actually it does, but you will be surprised how many people think like you do that it doesn't and use that first definition as proof, but war, murder, and slaughter in the general sense it is used there are very bloody and have blood being shed. In fact, the origin of the word says:
You can see now why I said what I did, knowing the origin of the word shows that in fact shedding of blood is implied, but just lost in translation due to all the other definitions that have been finessed into it.
Actually it does, but you will be surprised how many people think like you do that it doesn't and use that first definition as proof, but war, murder, and slaughter in the general sense it is used there are very bloody and have blood being shed. In fact, the origin of the word says:
| etymology wrote: |
|---|
bloodshed also blood-shed, c.1500, "the shedding of (one's) blood," from blood (n.) + shed (v.). The sense of "slaughter" is much older (early 13c., implied in bloodshedding). |
You can see now why I said what I did, knowing the origin of the word shows that in fact shedding of blood is implied, but just lost in translation due to all the other definitions that have been finessed into it.
But from your own quote we can see that it originally meant slaughter in general, and that the implication of blood being spilled is more recent.
I don't honestly know how you can look at the word and say "blood being spilled is more recent." Look at the damn word, yo.
I suspect that has more to do with pigs being butchered, which, by the way, usually involves exsanguination, than a bloodless "slaughter in general."
| The sense of "slaughter" is much older (early 13c., implied in bloodshedding). |
I suspect that has more to do with pigs being butchered, which, by the way, usually involves exsanguination, than a bloodless "slaughter in general."
Slaughter is derived from the old Norse "Slahtr"" which basically meant "a butchering"
As xander337 pointed out:
Scares me that someone can see the word bloodshed and honestly think it doesn't imply blood being shed. It scares me even more that someone could see the history of the word and still not realize bloodshed absolutely implies the shedding of blood. Slaughter I thought was pretty obvious too, which apparently it wasn't. Guess it is a good thing programming doesn't demand an understanding of vocabulary.
| etymology wrote: |
|---|
slaughter (n.) c.1300, "killing of a cattle or sheep for food, killing of a person," from O.N. *slahtr, akin to slatr "a butchering, butcher meat," slatra "to slaughter," and slattr "a mowing;" related to sla "to strike" (see slay), from P.Gmc. *slukhtis. Meaning "killing of a large number of persons in battle" is attested from mid-14c. |
Scares me that someone can see the word bloodshed and honestly think it doesn't imply blood being shed. It scares me even more that someone could see the history of the word and still not realize bloodshed absolutely implies the shedding of blood. Slaughter I thought was pretty obvious too, which apparently it wasn't. Guess it is a good thing programming doesn't demand an understanding of vocabulary.
| BHXSpecter wrote: |
|---|
| Guess it is a good thing programming doesn't demand an understanding of vocabulary. |
@BHXSpecter,
You're sounding ridiculous now. As if deliberately taking your quote literally means I don't understand vocabulary. And it scares you? Really?
You're sounding ridiculous now. As if deliberately taking your quote literally means I don't understand vocabulary. And it scares you? Really?
This is beginning to remind me of World of Warcraft trade chat.
"I said something that sounded obtuse? HA! The joke's on you! I'm not obtuse and I didn't believe what I said! You are ridiculous!"
At least the grammar is better here.
"I said something that sounded obtuse? HA! The joke's on you! I'm not obtuse and I didn't believe what I said! You are ridiculous!"
At least the grammar is better here.
| chrisname wrote: |
|---|
| @BHXSpecter, You're sounding ridiculous now. As if deliberately taking your quote literally means I don't understand vocabulary. And it scares you? Really? |
Okay, so you just don't understand the word bloodshed, but have an extensive vocabulary :P.
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| C++ is turing-complete and allows for template metaprogramming, virtual inheritance, and polymorphism. It is a strongly-typed language with support for namespaces and scope resolution. The Standard Template Library contains generic classes to handle data using templates. C++11 introduces standardized threading and better support for initializer lists and adds constructor inheritance. Any questions? |
Just one, how do I know you know what the vocabulary means? That just basically quotes half the C++ sites I've seen when it describes the differences between C/C++ and mentions C++11 :P. Though, knowing programming vocabulary doesn't mean you know vocabulary, I know a guy on Allegro who has a terrible vocabulary, but can program circles around me without trying. Come to think of it, he doesn't even know half the terms for programming, he still refers to inheritance as father and child (parent and child) classes.
Vocabulary is a standardized set of terms relevant to a specific context. Use of nonstandard terms within the same context can result in poor communication.
| LB wrote: |
|---|
| Vocabulary is a standardized set of terms relevant to a specific context. Use of nonstandard terms within the same context can result in poor communication. |
So...does that mean you don't know what they mean? ;) Though this thread shows that to be wrong. Bloodshed is a standardized term and yet several people on here showed they had no idea what it really meant.
Everything I wrote in that post was something I am familiar with. I know what they all mean. If you would like to ask specific questions, I'd be happy to explain. (This of course means that if you ask a specific question but you don't like asking it, I will be unhappy to explain).
Last edited on
Programmers don't download Dev-C++, so all kittens are safe. Sure some idiots who think they're programmers will download it, but the simple act of downloading it forever prevents them from earning the title of Programmer.
| but the simple act of downloading it forever prevents them from earning the title of Programmer. |
That may be harsh. The intro CS course at my uni uses Dev-C++, so I'm sure most people here have at least downloaded it, unfortunately. I'm just glad I was allowed to skip past the intro course, so I've still never downloaded it :D Though I have used it once