Have you ever seen an integer subscripted by a string?
e.g.
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int a;
a = 4["JasonIsCool"];
printf("%d\n", a);
scanf("%d", &a);
return 0;
}
This code compiles and runs fine, and gives you different values depending on what you put in as the string and or/number. (3 and a give you 100 for example)
What it does
Find the "4th" character n the string. Interesting eh?
A while back, I had a rather interesting dicussion with a person on facebook regarding an assumption that was made about my "religion status" which I have set to agnostic Specifically, there was some confusion that his meant I was "atheist", which is a completely different term alltogether.
This audio file helps explain better the difference
Essentially, I sort of feel "forced" into agnosticism. In truth, I am a believer in God. There are many reasons for my belief, most of which rely on the cosmological argument for the existtance of god. I also prefer to follow notions of darwism over traditional creationist theories. Although Darwin's theories never contradict the notion of a "uncaused cause" or a "designer" that put to into motion a specific trend. Though it theorizes that life can evolve without the necessity of such a creator.
Anyway, one of the problems I cannot simply state "I am a theist", or "I am a Christian", or I am [insert whatever]. Is because once stated, it means I must subscribe to the particular views of that sect of society. I force myself to commit to serveral basic principles. And from my research, I have yet to discover (and perhaps never will discover), a set of principles that I completely agree with. (There are some that are close)
If I had to pick the one, I suppose it is closest to the notion of Pantheism. The idea that God is present it all things, that in fact "God is all things", or the sum of all things, and I try as much as possible to remove myself from anthropomorphic god.
I think, for the most part, most religions have it "right", not "perfect". But the general notions, the general principles of doing good towards others, of loving others, (and ourselves)
The problem is that we are human, we are rational, free beings, who interpret things, who hold our own views. We can read a sentence and have multiple interepretations. Truthfully, it doesn't really matter who is right and who is wrong as much as it matters that we work together to make the world we live in as good a place as possible.
Would you consider yourself a perfectionist? Do others call you a perfectionist?
Many us stive for perfection (at time, even I myself am guitly of it).
One of the oddities/paradoxes of this however, is that I'm not sure we should strive for perfection or that we would ever really want to acheive it.
A lesson "taught" to us from all the "Bad Guyes" in stories, comic books, and movies. (The one's that want to take over the world). Is that to be a perfect socieity, is to surrender all free will to something (or someone) else.
The socieity without crime, without problems of any kind, achieves this state by relquisining individual control for socitiy control.
I was reminded of this fact, by a recent ZigZiglar blog post regarding the US medical system, those apposed to this system often state the basic philosophy "Don't let the government control our lives". If the government regulates, the government takes control, which means less individual freedom.
Do you want less individual freedom? What would you rather have a "perfect" world, or a "free" world. Is it really possible to have both? I'm not so sure!
Some standardizations are good, some are bad. If you could standardize anything, what would it be? Here's a funny list of humorous standardizations which will probably never come true but might just get you thinking!
Could you have passed the Eight Grade in 1895? Probably not . . . take a look:
This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 from Salina, KS. It was taken from the original document on file at the Smoky Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, KS and reprinted by the Salina Journal.
