Scientists create artificial life

This is a discussion on Scientists create artificial life within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by C_ntua There are so many answers. What is wrong with evolution and the big bang theory (provided ...

  1. #151
    Programming Ninja In-T...
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    There are so many answers. What is wrong with evolution and the big bang theory (provided its initial state existed from ever). They are not my favorite theories, but why can't they be true??

    And does space has a beginning or an end? For us it seems endless, infinite. So not everything has a beginning and an end.

    The meaning of infinite is less appealing than having a beginning or an ending, I don't disagree on that. But it is not beyond the human imagination.

    Your argument that there has to be a creator for everything is rational. They point is why is it not logical for you the argument of something existing from ever. I find both arguments reasonable.
    Its not logical, because things don't change from a state of "being around from eternity, with no beginning" to now dying (or "ending"), and bringing forth seed which has a beginning. Yes, there are things that are infinite, but infinite things do not change to finite things over time, because infinite things neither have any beginning or end.
    In case you think evolution is not reasonable, still God could have partially created the world, not necessarily everything.
    Right...
    So now we're using a "selective creation" theory. This gets better and better....
    Thinking out loud, if God only created some things, how did the things He didn't create get here??...

  2. #152
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,183
    There will be no harm done for me to believe I will become a millionaire overnight.

    I still don't.

    If you have the ability to freely choose what you will believe in, that's good for you.

    The rest of us find it quite difficult.

  3. #153
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,596
    So now we're using a "selective creation" theory. This gets better and better....
    I make a personal choice to believe in absolute creation theory. However I cannot prove that to a believer from the Bible nor can I prove it to a non-believer scientifically. In essence it is a personal choice of mine. It is not something I could go an create a new religion off of or create some doctrine off of. There isn't enough evidence in the Bible to support it. So coming from the mindset of a former pastor it is not something I would preach from the pulpit b/c it does not have enough grounds in Scripture.

    I think the issue here is often we so-called religious people turn away more people by our attitude and 'churchiness' than we do by the idea of believing in God. Everyone believes in something and a choice not to believe is still a choice to believe in something. The problem I see is with the attitude of those who should know better. I believe that people are turned off to God not by the idea of God or by the idea of believing what the Bible says but b/c those who say they do believe act worse and have less respect for others than those who do not believe in anything. And that, my friend, is a sad accusation on the church but one that I feel is quite accurate and true.

    Often Christians feel they can brow-beat or Bible beat people into believing and while that works to an extent the end does not justify the means. I want to ask you why do you want others to believe in your and my God? Is it for your own personal satisfaction or is it because you genuinely believe it will better their life? I mean why all the fuss? What you are conveying with statements like:

    So now we're using a "selective creation" theory. This gets better and better....
    ...is pure Biblical ignorance of the facts. I'm actually ok with a divinely guided evolutionary theory but I'm also ok with everything just...happened. Either way it does not detract from my view of a very powerful God nor do I feel it is a battle I must fight. Early on I felt as if every battle was one I had to win but wisdom and maturity have taught me that is not the case. As I said Genesis purposely does not give enough information about creation or the processes involved in it. Therefore it is isogesis to read into it seven literal days as it is to read into it there is no evolution. Do I feel that God creating cellular life and guiding it along the way to create humans is any less powerful than God creating people from the word go? Absolutely not...and this post is the reason for that. Scientists have not been able to create life from non-life so it is a very powerful statement to say that God indeed did do that just as much as it is to say he created everything as we see it in seven literal days. So you see the point of the early chapters of Genesis is not to be a scientific timeline of what happened but more to convey the power and the majesty of God. Genesis does not give much airtime to the creation story b/c it does not need to b/c that is not the point of the book. I invite you to read some commentaries about Genesis and do some research as to the true intention and goal of the book as well as the author, his background, where he comes from, etc., etc. It is only then that you can truly understand what the author is trying to convey. So I'm not sure if you are in Bible college right now or you are just quoting phrases you've heard but I invite you to a deeper study of your faith. Be like the Bereans and study your faith and question those things which are told to you by your pastor and your leaders. Measure them by the Bible and what it says and stop relying on what you have heard or what the new catch phrase in the church is. You will be much more effective at communicating to others just what your faith is and what it is not. I assure you the intent of our faith is not to turn people away from God but unfortunately the approach you are taking to discuss faith and the tone you have with others is going to do just that.

    I want each person here to know that I both respect you as fellow programmers and as people. I may not agree with your decisions not to believe in my God but I do respect your right to choose one way or the other and none of you are any less or more in my eyes for choosing to believe or not to believe.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 05-24-2010 at 11:30 PM.

  4. #154
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,239
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    That is sort of where I was going with my question.
    My personal opinion is that it makes more sense to define good/evil in a way that it gives you a reason to be good/evil.
    In that case, the reason why is more than just "my momma taught me." The reason is that because my momma taught me, I feel mentally wrong when I do something that goes against that teaching. I tend to want to avoid those feelings.

    I've tried for a long time to find an explanation for the good/evil distinction in a way that does not appeal to a supreme being, and I've never found one.

    Ultimately, I think morality is simply what is passed down through the generations. The tendency for morality to achieve a coherent form which is generally agreed upon by the majority of people, is simple Darwinian selection. Those versions of morality which lead to the deaths of their proponents do not survive for very long.

    This is a simple way of explaining why most people believe that killing is wrong. Those who kill others are usually killed themselves, simply out of a need for self-preservation on the part of their enemies. These peoples' moral concepts die with them.
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

  5. #155
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    The crux of the matter is this: Anyone can believe and trust in something they can prove, test, reproduce, etc. That is a cakewalk. However it takes a different kind of trust or fatih, if you will, to believe in something that has little or no proof, cannot be tested scientifically, and cannot be proven scientifically. Hence this is why I never attempt to prove God b/c it just is not possible. There are one thousand or even one million perfectly sane and valid rebuttals to whatever proofs one would offer up. God cannot be proven to exist. It's just not possible. But that's how it is supposed to be. For someone to trust in God when they have no earthly physical reason to trust in God is exactly what God wants. That is faith.
    Yeah, that's the only sensible, non-hyperbolic defence of faith I've heard, I think most of the world's clergy do tow this line -- it's more of a fringe activity to pull out the Shroud of Turin or claim that "there has to be a first thing of everything that is in our world of reality" therefore that is God, which is just reasoning backward to a first cause. The big bang would could be naively interpreted that way.

    Beyond cultural imperatives tho, I don't see how that could happen. I think it is a reasonable "choice" to make if your Church does good things for the world. When I was homeless, I got a lot of assistance from Churches and religious organizations like the Salvation Army and individual citizens who obviously were acting on a moral code that they found expressed in religion (from Evangelists to Rastafarians). And to their credit, those people seemed less likely to make personal judgements about me than anyone else (esp. government types, who are often terribly spineless) -- I was just a human being to them.

    This is why I find it strange that on another level, the Christian religion, almost as much as Islam, seems to be a public purveyor of the most disgusting, draconian, mean spirited politics in the world. They are just barely ahead of the Nazi's in terms of the palatability of their program.

    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    In that case, the reason why is more than just "my momma taught me."
    That's why I called you an unreflective bumpkin before There is an obvious logical/rational basis to morality and it's observable in all social mammals. If you cannot get along with anyone (ie, you cannot distinguish "good" behavior from "bad", or you always choose "bad"), you do not survive.
    Last edited by MK27; 05-25-2010 at 08:26 AM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  6. #156
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    I've tried for a long time to find an explanation for the good/evil distinction in a way that does not appeal to a supreme being, and I've never found one.

    Ultimately, I think morality is simply what is passed down through the generations. The tendency for morality to achieve a coherent form which is generally agreed upon by the majority of people, is simple Darwinian selection. Those versions of morality which lead to the deaths of their proponents do not survive for very long.

    This is a simple way of explaining why most people believe that killing is wrong. Those who kill others are usually killed themselves, simply out of a need for self-preservation on the part of their enemies. These peoples' moral concepts die with them.
    I agree. I believe good and evil is relative, thus they don't really exist. Unless you define them yourself in some way. In other words, they can exist in a personal level, but anything good can be bad for someone else and vice verta.

    In any case, society plays a major role in morality. For one, if you are taught something, you more likely believe it. Second, there is a great social pressure if you have an idea that is not "socially acceptable". Third, society will decide which ideas "survives", increasing the chances of you hearing that idea in contrary of others.

    But we are talking now about a universal good/evil. Something that would apply to everybody. And we are talking about morality from the universal point of view.
    Individually, you can have whatever beliefs you choose to have. Thus you define good and evil yourself and truly believe in it. Your beliefs are made based on a lot of things.

    So, concluding I say that there is no universal good/evil, but there is a personal one (my point of view)

  7. #157
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Programmer_P View Post
    Its not logical, because things don't change from a state of "being around from eternity, with no beginning" to now dying (or "ending"), and bringing forth seed which has a beginning. Yes, there are things that are infinite, but infinite things do not change to finite things over time, because infinite things neither have any beginning or end.
    So the World can be infinite then, since it hasn't have an end, I can say it hasn't have a beginning, thus its state hasn't change. It can be infinite and change infinite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Programmer_P View Post
    Right...
    So now we're using a "selective creation" theory. This gets better and better....
    Thinking out loud, if God only created some things, how did the things He didn't create get here??...
    God can have created the things that have a beginning, but not have created the things that don't necessarily have one. If you believe everything necessarily has a beginning then you can skip that part.

    So we assume that
    1) Infinite things cannot change state to finite things and vice verta
    and I say "The World can be infinite and its state not change", so the 1) doesn't apply to the World.

  8. #158
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    So, concluding I say that there is no universal good/evil, but there is a personal one (my point of view)
    You're wrong. The meaning of the words "good" and "evil" as polemic terms (one being the opposite of the other) is universally understood and I'd bet money they exist in all human languages.

    You are just saying what counts as one or the other may vary from individual to individual. That is certainly true, and part of the reason I believe Christianity is a corrupting influence: most of what they claim is "good" is just repeating common wisdom (it was not invented by Moses) and much of what they claim is "bad" is not bad at all, unless you use the bible for your definitions.

    So again, it is religious thinkers who would like us to believe in "the relativity" of morality because they are the biggest pervayors of extremely relativized (to the point of nonsense) morality. Without religion, I am sure there would be a much more homogenized, reason based understanding of "good" and "evil" as empirically obvious. But religion opposes this with the claim that sense and reason are not sufficient authorities. Hence "God" is just a figurehead for POWER.
    Last edited by MK27; 05-25-2010 at 11:15 AM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  9. #159
    Programming Ninja In-T...
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    I want to ask you why do you want others to believe in your and my God? Is it for your own personal satisfaction or is it because you genuinely believe it will better their life? I mean why all the fuss? What you are conveying with statements like:
    Hmm...a good question. Perhaps I should question my own motives more. I think the reason for saying all that I said was sadly more for personal satisfaction than anything else. I guess I like debates and winning arguments, though I probably shouldn't carry over that mindset when talking about God to people.
    I want each person here to know that I both respect you as fellow programmers and as people. I may not agree with your decisions not to believe in my God but I do respect your right to choose one way or the other and none of you are any less or more in my eyes for choosing to believe or not to believe.
    As do I. I have respect for everyone here, and some of you have helped me with my programming difficulties. I do not wish any ill on anyone, even if they do not believe in what I believe in. Ok, I guess its time to adjust my thinking a little...
    One of these days I'll get older and wiser (I hope...), and stop going about things the wrong way. In my defense though, I can say I am only 18...

  10. #160
    Programming Ninja In-T...
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    827
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    So the World can be infinite then, since it hasn't have an end, I can say it hasn't have a beginning, thus its state hasn't change. It can be infinite and change infinite.
    Depends on what you mean by "World"...
    The Bible says that there will be an end to this world, a very graphic one. And there will be a new heaven and a new earth. So, even though we have not seen this end yet, doesn't mean there wont be one...
    God can have created the things that have a beginning, but not have created the things that don't necessarily have one. If you believe everything necessarily has a beginning then you can skip that part.
    Yes, I agree with that reasoning. It could be the things that don't have a beginning or an end, and are infinite, are just *here* and have always been here, and God didn't create them. But He definitely created the things that have a beginning.
    So we assume that
    1) Infinite things cannot change state to finite things and vice verta
    and I say "The World can be infinite and its state not change", so the 1) doesn't apply to the World.
    Only if by "world" you mean "earth" and you believe that the earth is infinite.
    I believe the earth is finite, had a beginning, and will one day have an end also.

  11. #161
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    You're wrong. The meaning of the words "good" and "evil" as polemic terms (one being the opposite of the other) is universally understood and I'd bet money they exist in all human languages.
    That doesn't mean I am wrong. If everybody has its individual definition of good/evil everybody understands the concept of them. As everybody understands the concept of a favorite color. Doesn't mean we have the same one.

    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    You are just saying what counts as one or the other may vary from individual to individual. That is certainly true, and part of the reason I believe Christianity is a corrupting influence: most of what they claim is "good" is just repeating common wisdom (it was not invented by Moses) and much of what they claim is "bad" is not bad at all, unless you use the bible for your definitions.
    So, its a good thing then, since what Christianity says as "good" is common wisdom, i.e. things that you think as good. You can say the same for most bad things. Does the bible say anything about these morals being different, or unique or god-made? If I tell you "not to kill" I don't claim to have invented the moral of not-killing.
    As said before, the main goal of Christianity is not to provide moral rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    So again, it is religious thinkers who would like us to believe in "the relativity" of morality because they are the biggest pervayors of extremely relativized (to the point of nonsense) morality. Without religion, I am sure there would be a much more homogenized, reason based understanding of "good" and "evil" as empirically obvious. But religion opposes this with the claim that sense and reason are not sufficient authorities. Hence "God" is just a figurehead for POWER.
    [/QUOTE]
    Think of a world that people had homogenized morals. Now think of a new religion coming in place saying "believe those morals and go to heaven". Instant success. Think of a world that there are 10 sets of morals. Then a new religion comes. "Believe in set #1 and go to heaven". 10% success. The reasons of accepting a religion are a lot. One of those is that you see its morals as good.

    History demonstrates that religious were essential for people throughout history, as a uniting factor and provide them a reason to keep certain rules. History also demonstrates that religion can be halt progression and conserve a bad situation. Religion has help give power to people and oppose their tyrants, as well as gain and abuse its power and become a tyrant.

    I don't see any logical reason or any fact that shows that we are better of without a religion. Or that Christianity is about power. That doesn't mean I have any reasons or facts showing that it is not, so this is mostly a "convincing" game which won't conclude anywhere. Just to clarify that.

  12. #162
    Registered User C_ntua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,853
    Quote Originally Posted by Programmer_P View Post
    Only if by "world" you mean "earth" and you believe that the earth is infinite.
    I believe the earth is finite, had a beginning, and will one day have an end also.
    I don't mean anything in particular. Lets assume matter, energy and space. Or one of those. I don't have a personal belief in the matter.
    I am simply pointing out that there are reasonable arguments that suggest that the world was infinite. Most scientists believe that matter and energy are infinite, in the sense that they are not created from void nor they every disappear into void. There might have been a starting point, there might have not. I don't really see anything that is convincing suggesting one of the two.

  13. #163
    spurious conceit MK27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    segmentation fault
    Posts
    8,300
    Quote Originally Posted by C_ntua View Post
    That doesn't mean I am wrong. If everybody has its individual definition of good/evil everybody understands the concept of them. As everybody understands the concept of a favorite color. Doesn't mean we have the same one.
    No, but everybody understands what "a color" is. That means that while favourite colors are subjective, color is still objective. Blue is not red. Favourite colors are supposed to be a matter of individual preference. What is "good" and what is "bad" is not supposed to be that -- the only reason anyone would think of them this way is because during the history of philosophy, religious spindoctors have entered the picture and said "Wait -- without God we are all free to make up our own subjective morality". No one would have thought about it this way if they were not already forced to swallow absurdist interpretations of already largely absurd texts.

    And, just like IMO no one really believes in God, when it comes down to fundamental issues, no one really believes that morality is actually arbitrary or subjective. That's why people are willing to kill one another. Because either they like to do wrong, or they understand very clearly when it is being done to them. It is empirical and rational, meaning, like math, there is almost always ONE correct answer to a moral question and a host of wrong ones. I am pretty sure these are simple enough for most normal adults that you can work outward from the simple and obvious questions toward the more complex ones and you will still be looking at the same situation: there is ONE CORRECT answer, altho these may require some consideration and an understanding of "abstract" rational tools like analogy (which is still concretely definable and universally understood). Unfortunately, modern western society is a horror show from this perspective and people prefer to live in denial because that is less stressful for them.

    Instead of teaching people these things directly, the Church prefers to mire minds in a lot of BS. So you are correct, "the main goal of Christianity is not to provide moral rules" -- I've been saying that all along. The main goal of Christianity is to provide a hegemonic framework for the exercise of political power. The "Tower of Babel" is religion.

    Think of a world that there are 10 sets of morals. Then a new religion comes. "Believe in set #1 and go to heaven". 10% success. The reasons of accepting a religion are a lot. One of those is that you see its morals as good.
    Certainly, I doubt that religion is the origin of this "babylonic" situation. But if you are trying to claim 10 mutually exclusive "moral" codes -- and here the word "moral" just becomes a rhetorical sham -- merely represents a bunch of otherwise decent people confused by cultural relativity, you are a real holy fool. That is an evolved political situation, which religion exploits. For example, the violence and war in the world today IS NOT due to misunderstanding of some sort. Sorry. The Taliban and the KKK really are malicious, evil, religious twisted people. All your weak minded malarky about "relativism" only gives credence to their EXTREMELY TRANSPARENT attempts to justify themselves in a public context. The fact that these attempts convince almost no one is testimony to what I was saying before: EVERYBODY (normal human adults) understands what wrong and right are, and when push comes to shove they will demonstrate that understanding. People who do evil things are not "morally confused". They do evil things intentionally. Then they lie about it, surprise surprise. People can be evil. People invented evil. Just like there's no god, there's no devil. And one of the safest, most useful places for evil to ensconce itself -- intentionally -- in our modern world is the Christian faith. Why? Because Christians are "unfriendly" to evil doers? Looks the exact opposite way around to me. For the most part, you are laying a welcome mat out that says: "Enjoy hypocrisy? Join Us!!!". Then you put the gun in their hands and tell them you won't stand in the way -- you're gonna help out!!!

    The net result of religion, C_ntua, is to make hypocrisy and dishonesty an acceptable (even "pious"!!!) social norm. All your whining about how it provides people with "a sense of meaning" etc. is (excuse my language...) pathetic and juvenile. Y'all need to grow up and recognize -- out loud -- that you are not coming back, there is no afterlife, and this is it. Life is real. Take it seriously.

    I don't see any logical reason or any fact that shows that we are better of without a religion. Or that Christianity is about power.
    You must have a real talent for "looking the other way". Christianity is about power, and the world would be MUCH better off without religion, and I won't give up trying to convince you of it either. If religion had a positive role to play in history, it was CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY OVER a long time before we were born. You and a lot of people in this world need to experience a "crisis of faith" (or call it whatever you want) and start behaving like rational adults instead of indulging fairy tales which have a catastrophically negative impact on the natural world and the other people in it. Now that would be OBJECTIVELY GOOD.
    Last edited by MK27; 05-25-2010 at 02:47 PM.
    C programming resources:
    GNU C Function and Macro Index -- glibc reference manual
    The C Book -- nice online learner guide
    Current ISO draft standard
    CCAN -- new CPAN like open source library repository
    3 (different) GNU debugger tutorials: #1 -- #2 -- #3
    cpwiki -- our wiki on sourceforge

  14. #164
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Quote Originally Posted by MK27 View Post
    Christianity is about power, and the world would be MUCH better off without religion [...] If religion had a positive role to play in history, it was CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY OVER a long time before we were born.
    If you don't mind I'll echo Bubba's argument here, only the other way around:

    The thing that troubles me about some atheists is their extreme prejudice towards religion and the role it plays in a society. They do more to undermine the understanding of what it truly means to be an atheist, than what any religious fanatic can ever.

    As you have guessed by now, I totally and completely reject your reasoning, MK. But man, you have no idea. Like... utterly!

    My own choice as an atheist really doesn't put me further away from religious thinking. I hope to keep fully understanding as many doctrines in the world as I can. And, respecting them for their intrinsic moral values as well as their social, cultural and historical significances. Now, this may mean little to you. And I would partially agree. After all, religion does not hold the capital on moral and ethical values. It is possible to observe these without the help of faith or anyone ringing them in our hears through fear or promise of rewards. But I said I would only partially agree... Keep reading.

    Mankind social structures are still pretty much unchanged since when we were monkeys. Our survival instincts still dominate over what could be a collective interest. i.e. Man is still a complete egocentric arshole. Religion, through its institutionalization, has being quiet effectively filling that gap. Not as one would fully desire of course. But I have no doubt in my mind that in our still retarded and medieval societies, religion has been one of the things that has moved us forward, one step closer, to a collective mind.

    Furthermore, religion, as a whole, has been the biggest contributor to the ease of suffering in the world. That to me counts as something. Both through the spreading of its "fairy tales" and through proper action, churches around the world have contribute more to bring men together to common values of love and respect than any other organization is human history.

    And this only proves that we are still not ready to build our societies outside of religious influence. Were we to do that and our worst vices would run rampant.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 05-25-2010 at 06:53 PM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  15. #165
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,438
    Besides, without it, you wouldn't never get perfection.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Can't create child windows
    By OnionKnight in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-10-2011, 04:13 PM
  2. Computer Scientists and Hacking
    By TheDan in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-04-2006, 08:44 PM
  3. Create a file from c++ program
    By Dan17 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-08-2006, 04:25 PM
  4. Button handler
    By Nephiroth in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-12-2006, 05:23 AM
  5. Satan
    By Unregistered in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 12-03-2001, 10:31 PM

Tags for this Thread


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21