potrzebie

1. If you find one or more applications already more or less specialized in what you need, with an easy to understand, fast to use, yet powerful interface, check what extensions it offers. Advanced searching options and macros are excellent time savers, but eventually you'll get tired of checkboxes or saving files with one of your apps and opening it with the other. Or you'll need a macro that calls one of two other macros, which one depending on a condition that includes basic arithmetics in the logic. All of this can, of course, be fixed in more or less (often less) portable ways with a solution external to your limited applications. Other programmers could give you thirty alternatives, some suggesting installing Cygwin or even Linux itself to use a fifteen line shell script, some may come up with a creative way to make Windows scheduler do it for you, some may recommend AutoHotkey or AutoIt, languages made for controlling other applications, if necessary by simply clicking on certain coordinates on the screen as a last resort. But only five will be bored enough, or too excited about their language, to answer you, since they all know it's a one-time temporary answer to a long-term problem: you've outgrown your box or didn't want it in the first place. Should an application have it's own language, or be designed upon an existing one to make it automatable, I recommend learning it. You'll always have use for any language when you learn or read code from another, either contemplating why the two are different when they are, or accepting it as a standard when they're not. 2. Learning a first procedural scripting language (after which learning others is "only" a matter of memorizing new names and syntax or opening your mind to some useful paradigms, for example object oriented programming, recursion or whatever Lisp programmers tell you will change your entire view of programming, which it probably will) is quite a large step, but made easier if you have a natural ability for logic, and even made fun if you're able to isolate and appreciate the details you can use in other situations. Personally I like all forms of BASIC, a language so bad and rudimentary that I get my confidence from wrtiting code in it better that the language itself. But I'm far from a productive programmer, I find patching more interesting. Python is probably the opposite - a well designed procedural scripting language with the major paradigms added, and with a load of packages because of it's popularity, that easily and effectively does anything you want. There's other scripting language, and I don't think I'm way off if I claim that Python's popularity is mostly random, or because of it's failure (?) to build it in a radically different way from top to bottom. JavaScript has it's simplified object orientation, Perl has it's many ways to do things and it's variables named $_ etc, making it easy to write very compact code, Tcl has it's simplified syntax that a child can understand. Python is boring. 3. As a _complement_ to C, no language is more suited as a scripting language than Tcl, assuming you define scripting as something fast and easy to both learn and use, and that the compiled or interpreted code on average will be about ten to twenty time slower than other scripting languages (more of a guess than a good estimate, check bencmarks yourself). As an _alternative_ to C, there's plenty of choices, all of them unholy combinations of programming and scripting. In Tcl, the number of digits in an integer is limited only by memory running out. It has been built-in since version 8.5 and includes the ** operator that does "to the power of" on integers. In JavaScript you'll have to determine if a variable or operation could exceed the processors largest type, which depends on what machine the script is running on. Or load and use a bignum library, making your code more wordy (but not less effecient), possibly something like `bignum.add(x, y);`. Or assume that eveyone has a 64-bit processor by now and that 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 is enough for anything. The only disadvantage of Tcl is the overhead. Should the two numbers be small enough to be stored and added with a single processor instruction, not an algorithm, I'm sure that Tcl does it more effecient than JavaScript, but the freedom (abstraction) to don't care about when or if an integer passes the systems limit, going beyond it or below it again, means that Tcl has to check first every time. I haven't read the source code of Tcl, but I figure that the most effective way in a simplified case could be a bit/byte/word attached to every integer. Checking that with one instruction and conditionally jumping with another, is already 3 instructions rather than 1, and has only solved storage, not operations on two random integers. Perhaps it's all done with an algorithm internally, in which case ten to twenty times slower than other languages is a reasonable guess. Part of why I love Tcl is that decisions as these are taken seriously, not just plastered on to a language that got it's 15 or 1500 minutes of fame because of one new concept. Part of it is portability made so easy that it almost becomes interesting, between character sets, line endings and more. Part of it is a minimal instruction set and a minimal syntax, with a script being defined as a string containing one or more commands and a command as a string containing it's name followed by zero or more arguments. I'll praise the documentation when it changes the definition of a script to the correct _zero_ or more commands. This makes quoting correctly, including avoiding the traps, the big issue when learning Tcl. And when you've mastered that, the command driven system is sometimes trying to resemble shell programming too much, and isn't entirely clean. Some functions treat the character ~ specially, some need -- to signal the end of switches (which all start with -). This is true in other languages too, but it should've been thrown out and burned somewhere a long time ago in a flexible scripting language with the slogan "everything is a string". The most common problem that new programmers stumble upon and ask about, is caused by treating a list as a string or vice versa. A list is one of Tcl's data types. You may treat it as a string, reading from or writing to it, but you shouldn't assume anything more about the internal structure of the storage of it's elements, than that space separates a-z and 0-9, used in source code for convenience by typing {ding dong 123} rather than . Don't use string functions on lists, don't use list functions on strings. The expression "everything is a string" from Tcl's early days, probably meant that the language was type free and did conversions automatically. Perhaps everything actually _was_ stored internally in a string of characters. `set a 2` is no different from `set a "2"`. After the parser has removed the quotes, the same two arguments are sent to the set command. And 42 in an arithmetic expression is no different than "4$a". Especially JavaScript, with it's flexible OOP, solves this in a more beautiful and sofisticated way. Integers and strings are considered to be two different types of data, with conversion methods between them built in to the language, and easily extended or replaced. Should the third argument to your arithmetic function be "eat my shorts", it's up to you what to do with it. The default method will probably cause an error that propagates down through the stack of calls until one of them catches it. Tcl will do the same, and it has the same abilities to handle it in any way but they are more complicated in syntax and program flow, often using one or more commands in the extreme outlands of the language. Because of it's original assumption that all strings (text) corresponds to an integer. Add other data types to that, for example converting a clown object to a bridge object, and you'll realize that JavaScript is more suited to write larger programs in.

C is basically portable assembly. The closest thing to programming actual processors (they're all the same and have always been, only minor details differ), not a model. With only the abstractions considered absolutely neccessary, enforced or conservatively added as a recommended alternative, preferably to a separate system, to keep the core language clean. It's simple interface to current and historic hardware makes it the fastest language. It's simple structure, restricted to functions calling other functions with one or no return value, and the use of pointers to solve the rest, makes it the language most easy to connect with code written in other languages. That's what you get. And a language carefully designed to be portable across different hardware, platforms, processors and whatever, without sacrificing memory use or speed. Of course, the price is that you'll have to do everything yourself, and I don't just mean writing the code. You'll have to deal with preprocessing syntax, compiling, linking, etc, etc... C takes the lego-building approach even farther than Unix, with it's advantages and disadvatanges. It has a collection of standard libraries, supposed to contain functionality considered neccessary for everyday programming but not in a processors instruction set. And it's worthless. The free downloadable libraries that attempt to replace it, is better, but a generic library kind of defeats the idea of C. You're better off using a language with these things already incorporated into the syntax, object oriented programming probably being the most important example. In C, you're riding the lightning as long as you don't call a function you can't trust. I wouldn't recommend C as a first language, mainly because there's no decent input/output functions in it's standard library. How are you supposed to learn a language practically when you can't communicate as a user with your test programs? Some of them are mastodont functions, almost a language in itself, too complicated to learn and frequent bug makers. Input functions require you to allocate a memory block for them, restricting the length of a line to a fixed size. Some of them are described as having an undefined return value in certain cases, some even worse as having undefined behaviour, for example when a user types too many digits to scanf() excpecting an integer. So what's the proper way to do it? Well, you can't allocate an infinite number of bytes, or even a block that grows and shrinks freely in memory. It could potentially, or will eventually, hit another block allocated by another program or your own, and has to be reallocated (moved to another place in memory). In C, the generic way to solve it is too decide a reasonable amount of bytes to initially allocate, for example 256 bytes for the input of a line of characters, and a multiplier, for example 2, and write the code yourself. Should the input (or really anything else exceeding a fixed limit, not many things are restricted nowadays, like max 255 coins in Zelda) reach the end of your block, you multiply it's size, send a pointer to it and tell the operating system that you need more space, reallocating if necessary. Other languages, even C++ with it's vector type, do this automatically for you, and probably chooses the initial allocation and the multiplier better than you in all but the extreme cases. I suppose you can say that C is for the extreme cases. As a language it has some value in standing on solid ground, and the confidence which that brings, but I estimate that to about 20%, and the other 80% just bringing solutions from different companies together. It may be very interesting for someone sitting in a standardization commitee, but not that much for a programmer. After a week of reading up on processors and hardware, you can write your own C language. If you find a good history book, starting with C=64 and it's chips doing work simultaneously with the processor, Amiga taking it further with it's blitter and copper, multitasking and other stuff made safe with virtual memory implemented in the actual hardware, and much more, let me know.

In our youth, me and two close friends were just walking around the living areas of a mid-size swedish town and ended up in an apartment talkning to some foreigners that turned out to be christians. Not long after we walked in the door, one of them hurried to another room, kneeled at his bed and started to pray in what I suppose was his native language. Actually, I may have imagined that he kneeled, and that it was in front of his bunk bed, I could've added that to the memory later. But why would I do that, I wasn't an easily impressionable person, I wasn't in an emotionally strong situation, and I certainly had no interest in anything christian being true 'cause eventually I'd discuss it with my mother and she'd get one right. Considering my personality, It's more likely that I already needed to pee. When we sat down in the kitchen I thought that five minutes is enough before you ask to use the bathroom. And I had a look to my right when I opened the door. No freedom, no responsibility. I could tell that it wasn't "the tounge of the holy spirit" though, that sounds like jibberish and christians scare their kids with at meetings. A couple of decades later, an acquaintance with drug habits visited me in my 25 square meter apartment. I had lost my driving license and was about to sell the car, so I simply gave him the box from the trunk, with a new axe, start cables, etc. Stuff that meth users love. In retrospect, I could've put some extra stuff in it first, for example bought some food cans. Was there a quality rope in the box? Anyway, later in the evening, after he left, I suddenly felt a lot of love for him. More than I have experienced earlier or later. Of course, this means nothing, I suspect that normal people could walk around with this feeling everyday. You've learned to handle it, it's routine. My response was to ask myself what I should do to avoid wasting it (not the feeling, the situation). Without any God answering, I reluctantly went down on my knees and even did some of the other silly things, because that's what you're supposed to do. No more than ten seconds though The next day, I read in the paper that he was almost killed that night. Two guys put his head on the front of a car and used the hood to bash his head in. Add to this the fact that my mother often has told me the day after I've been in deep sh-t, that she woke up and knew that I had put myself in danger. The percentage of failure is more interesting than the number of successes, and it's a low number. Add other minor miracles in my life. Adding people that's believing/religious is harder, even if they're reasonable, and loving, is harder. So, the question, what is "praying"? In swedish translations of the bible, our word means "to ask for" in the simplest way, no different from asking for more food or a cigarette. Negative if there's a deeper meaning and "praying" captures it better, positive if "prayer" is a way to make us sound better in front of God when he want honesty. In the same way "having faith" is translated to just "believing". My best conclusion, based on my own experience and the bible which says that that no man seeks God, he seeks man, the wind (sometimes translated as "the spirit") blows wherever it wants, that faith in God/Jesus is a gift in itself, is that "supernatural" things happen and when they do we try to control them. Of course, the quote that whenever two or more people gather in my name, I'll be among them, could be true. You'll have to ask a christian about that. In that case, the best way to find out is having the courage to try it. Sometimes christian books, and the bible, don't even call it courage, but foolishness. In a passage, Paul praises God that he chose the one's that are as children, to put the wise to shame. In another one, Jesus says that you have to become like a child to enter the kingdom of God. I would have asked him if I was there: aren't children supposed to be curious? In others, God says that all knowledge will be gone when it has filled it's purpose, and all that will be left is hope, faith and love, the biggest of them love. Before my attempts of decent logic get too bad (too late), i.e. rambling (too late for that too), I'll end with a last comment. Generally, you turn to Jesus when you have no choice. This could happen in at least two ways: 1. You're life is so down the drain to the point where you have to put your blind trust in him. It could be the last moments of your life. What he requires, everything, isn't that important anymore then. 2. You meet him, he shows himself to you before you take this step yourself. I suspect that all religious people have a combination of more or less of those two, not caring about 1 enough according to God, trying to make 2 happen themselves, and that the rest, to get to 100%, has to be filled with the unability to reason, easily turned into worse thing. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. An interesting question becomes if there's a God that helps these people more than others. Another interesting question, part of the other, is if they deserve it or if they're just spoiled. Or anti-human to begin with. For ordinary people, learning to break free happens with more or less magnitude, and more or less frequently, while you're growing up. Revolt, the knowledge to know when to do it, and how much, sticks in your reflexes and makes you a better person.

Absolutely, you can read it that way and you're probably supposed to. Jesus as a rebel came to complement the law, not disqualify it, it was a temporary solution needed until his arrival. The perfect lamb that makes it possible for anyone to have contact with God directly without going through priests or rituals. That's what the ripping of the curtain when he died symbolizes. From now on you go through him and him only... No need to paint your door with the blood of a lamb anymore. Personally, I like rituals. It symbolizes respect, and I prefer closing in on others, and they closing in on me, carefully. I'd rather take a woman out to dinner, than finding the closest bush and jumping each other. He always welcomed the priests that had taken the old laws too literally (how were they supposed to be interpreted) to ask questions, and eventually let those that still wasn't convinced, crucify him. And we still do. Paul said that "everything is allowed, but not everything is good (or builds up)". But that's a stupid catch-all that anybody can say to someone with for example a gambling problem. Without follow-up, it's worse than useless words, and I can't find a single quote in the bible with good practical advice. It's just "ask Jesus". So Paul writes "I've been everything for you... etc", and if we believe the bible, gets crucified too. A karate student in a USA prison said to his teacher: - Master, I can beat ... - I know, but I wanted you to find out for yourself. What would Jesus have said? Maybe "One thing is missing for you. Sell all your belongings and give the money to the poor (don't start a shoe factory and employ them), then come follow me. Well, good luck with that. From the tree, you will know the fruit.

When I'm too afraid to communicate with God, which is all of my life because once you start anything can happen, and most importantly life is over so you've got nothing to work for anymlore, that's what I use. It's probably God that made me slightly schizofrenic in young age, and subsequently caused my psychological problems. I had to put away a part of my brain to deal with him, a complicated procedure. Because he wanted to have a relation with me. There goes free will.

On topic: We join groups to be a part of, on different levels, preferably with an enemy, sometimes we're so desperate that we make up an enemy to strengthen the group and feel conected. Man and women marriage, countries waging war on each other, potheads vs skinheads and everything in between. Eventually we get tired of it, get a divorce and look for another partner or group. Freechurch christians are extreme in that they believe that following Jesus is the only, and ultimate, answer. That's what we were created for, that's what were looking for in the end. While we're scatterd like lost sheep, by someone that uses all means possible, the good sheperd goes out to find every last one. Salvation is free if you just ask him. However much this could be true, it obviously doesn't work, because only a few people will be saved, and the bible even says that nobody (zero) seeks God, he seeks us. So what do you do in the meantime? Muslims believe that we need to make a better effort to keep pretending, by being disciplined. Turning to Mecka, washing our hands at certain times, clothing women in full armor to avoid thoughts of infidelity, and so on. To please God. I see no reason why this is wrong, but christians don't approve of it, with the argument that Jesus is freedom, not demands, backed up with some nice quotes in the bible, but contradicted by many more. In christianity, love creates good deeds. It works as long as love is supplied by God, and he wants blind faith in return. In Islam, good deeds create love. Whether it works or not depends on how you define love. Christians define it as something we can never produce ourselves, claim that we're all sinners from birth, every last one of us, that one sin is enough to make us total sinners, and that Jesus was the complete opposite, free of all sins. No grey scales... So what can you do as a human with such demands and the bar set at impossible. Nothing, of course, that's the point. You can only trust Jesus with all of your questions, worries and your whole life. You're actually already doing it every day, but you're restrained for some reason. When some people realize this, it manifests itself by doing crazy stuff like talking jibberish or shoving each other to the floor in meetings, hoping to meet Jesus even more one day so that they can dance on the streets. It's just another way of missing the target. Christians say to others that the sin is still there, you're only covering it up, because you have a need to cling on to it. Well, of course. Try to take the bone from a starving dog, and most of them will bite you, some of them really hard. Give the dog a bigger bone and some of them will happily let go of the other one and start to trust you more, some smarter ones keep both. Keep promising the dog a better one, still assuming that you don't know it (blind faith), and after being confused for a while, the appropriate response is to kill you. Which we did with Jesus.

I grew up with a (still) completely self centered mother. A power hungry misantrope with no dick, that respect nothing else but power. Interested in me and my sister only for the purpose of showing us up in front of others. Always around (she prides herself that she didn't work like other people because she wanted to be home taking care of her children). Interfering and taking over at the first sign that we started to connect with another adult, and still is doing. Or each other; she's said too me plenty of times that "It's wtitten that Satan turns your children against you". She sent a letter to one of my friends, that happened to be female, asking her to take care of me. She visited rehab homes that I was at, but never asked me "how's it going", instead she ran around hitting on the older inmates. Use your imagination to make the list twice as long, or think Carrie after removing Stephen Kings unfortunate alcoholic blanket over the books text. I separated and started with the bad stuff, so that your answers won't hurt too much. Now to the good stuff. I'm sure that all children go through this in one way or another. Maybe they didn't have a parent that continued to touch them after trying to tell her twenty times that you don't appreciate it, yelled at her twenty times, tried to be allowed a key to your own room twenty times, or choose your own clothes for that matter, and eventually resorted to just trying to walk to another room, and she (kind of comical, actually) simply followed me. A parent that failed for 40 years to see that your eyes turned dark every time. A parent that didn't remind you of returning library books until she saw you proudly coming down the stairs with them, then she mentioned it. And has told you many times how excited she was when the local church ran out of bread and it seemed to multiply. link to YouTube channel removed by moderator Oh, the positive suff... I hid in computer programming, books, electronics and numbers, where I could be left alone because she didn't understand it. I was sent to various christian institutions, and what better way to try to revolt than studying the bible. No, I don't believe I thought that way at all, it wasn't an attempt at revenge, neither hope of something, it was just me swallowing educational books of high quality at an enourmous rate, obviously (though I'm no psychiatrist) because my mother wasn't teaching me anything, but rather tried to prevent me from learning anything unless she considered it to be christian and gave her approval. Hence: The Bible. That leaves me where I am now, finding an enormous amount of contradictions in the bible, analyzing what christians want to be true and how long they are prepared to hurt others to keep the illusion, realizing that the bible wants to be everything from drama and poetry to fact, eventually giving up when losing to an 80's porn movie and then declaring it the word of God himself, with a threat of hell on top. And at the same time I'm what Paul unflatteringly describes in one of my favourite quotes from the bible, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 13&version=NIV. Another favourite is https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+17&version=NIV. Dawkins, Harris and Peterson aren't popular because they're scientific. People listen to them because they care, which churches generally don't. My natural reaction to watching a good soccer player, even though it's a stupid game and ice hockey is better, should be to enjoy it, maybe incorporate it in my life somehow if the opportunity shows up, which it probably doesn't but I don't really care that much and I have the memory. A civilized christians reaction (extreme christians simply label soccer as a sin) is to ask the player if he's been saved, tell him that he should give Jesus all glory and honor for his talents, pray for him, etc. When they manage to get a catch - most of the time it's drug users that don't have a choice anyway - the person will be in their newspage and sent up on stage every meeting to tell about what a wonderful change he's been through. Which I'm sure that he has, and I don't want to take any of that from him. I want to take it from the church. Besides, everyone can get happy by throwing their brain, with their responsibilities in it, in the lake. link to YouTube channel removed by moderator That's where I'm coming from, my standpoint. It's from where I judge other christians, 'cause you can't discuss with them. If I had to carefully give a scientific opinion, it would be that they're nothing more, or less, than ordinary people. They go to their meetings to see friends that also had an encounter with Jesus sometime, whatever that is. It's no different than a motorcycle club. Besides the problem that pushing Jesus down others throat is easier than other abuse, for cowarldy people, I'd like to add that punching someone one time in the face can be more love than verbally abusing him or her for five years. Inshallah.

Until we find the next turtle. If there is one. Or discover that the last turtle is standing on the first one. For an absolute nothing to exist, relative to everything unless I've misinterpreted the words, our world has to be finite one way or the other. And whether quantum foam is the last turtle or not, please rename it nothing. I have no problem originating from monkeys, but quantum foam, seriously?

"Now", "never", "before" and "always" assume/require that time exists or existed. If you consider time to be something, the answer is already in the question. If not, the question is true in it's own little bubble, but infinitively pointless. Cicular reasoning? Hmm.. I think I got that 30% right at least. Apologies in advance for my ignorance and mostly shooting from the hip. To define nothing, wouldn't you have to enumerate all possible "things", with an infinite cardinality? And that cant't be done. If there's no such thing as "(absolute) nothing", using the opposite "something" kind of loses it's meaning, unless you're religious of course.

Or that spacetime curvation causes mass/energy.