Non-English compilers(was: RM COBOL with ISAM files
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: and possibly offensive to sensitive souls - don't read this if you are offended by language. WAS: Re: Anyone feeling poetic?
Next: Test request (for Enter;prise COBOL)
From: Howard Brazee on 20 Jul 2010 10:53 On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:31:29 -0700 (PDT), Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >Would those creationists be the same ones who quote science to support >their case when it suits them and yet they deny other sciences when it >doesn't suit them? Or who pick and choose which part of the Old Testament are still valid (by comparing the scripture to what they already believe)? -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Alistair on 21 Jul 2010 06:45 On Jul 20, 3:26 pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > In article <a49ec6f8-084e-44e3-8179-26d0daa1c...(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > >> What follows, Mr Maclean, might not be 'the explanation' but more of 'an > >> explanation'. > > >> Life, by definition, is an organising of particles; consider embryogenesis > >> from haploid gametes to diploid zygote to morula to blastocyst (two > >> primary cell cell types) and so on, through the Carnegie stages. ?Each > >> change is towards greater order, greater differentiation and growth, quite > >> the opposite of entropy (a tendency towards disorder). > > >My understanding of the ins and outs of Entropy is limited but I > >understand that the application of that law to the non-chaotic > >ordering of life-forms is in error as Entropy applies to limited > >closed systems and not to the Universe as a whole (or any > >insignificant small blue-green planet on the edge of a spiral arm of a > >minor galaxy in the middle of nowhere). > > Note that the example given above, Mr Maclean, deals off with two haploid > gametes and a working uterus; this might appear to be more of a 'limited > closed system' than 'the Universe as a whole (etc)'. > Hardly limited as those items garner nutrition from a wider environment. > >Regrettably, although I have > >seen the explanation for this (Scientific American I think) I am > >unable to repeat the proof. Sorry. > > No need to apologise, it can be considered as discarded due to lack of > substantiation. > But it doesn't stop you from researching the document.
From: Alistair on 21 Jul 2010 06:47 On Jul 20, 3:28 pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > In article <58814b9e-b2ed-48e9-8a91-b83db3ca1...(a)k19g2000yqc.googlegroups..com>, > > Alistair <alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >On Jul 19, 6:24?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: > >> In article <rd09465s2i337t38ur6n479ordjc0ov...(a)4ax.com>, > >> Howard Brazee ?<how...(a)brazee.net> wrote: > > [snip] > > >> >Maybe you're a doctor the same way the protagonist of Dr. Who is. > > >> I had to research that one... but no, I have never been proclaimed thus > >> by a crew of scriptwriters. > > >Whoa! You had to research the great Dr. Who?! Where have you been the > >last 50 years? > > Among other things... watching different television program(me)s, it > seems. > > DD Don't forget the films. The last one bombed (although it was good) but you must have heard of the Daleks?
From: Anonymous on 21 Jul 2010 08:19 In article <4fb21569-66ed-457e-990d-1a24662782b4(a)x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Jul 20, 3:26?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: >> In article <a49ec6f8-084e-44e3-8179-26d0daa1c...(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, >> >> What follows, Mr Maclean, might not be 'the explanation' but more of 'an >> >> explanation'. >> >> >> Life, by definition, is an organising of particles; consider embryogenesis >> >> from haploid gametes to diploid zygote to morula to blastocyst (two >> >> primary cell cell types) and so on, through the Carnegie stages. ?Each >> >> change is towards greater order, greater differentiation and growth, quite >> >> the opposite of entropy (a tendency towards disorder). >> >> >My understanding of the ins and outs of Entropy is limited but I >> >understand that the application of that law to the non-chaotic >> >ordering of life-forms is in error as Entropy applies to limited >> >closed systems and not to the Universe as a whole (or any >> >insignificant small blue-green planet on the edge of a spiral arm of a >> >minor galaxy in the middle of nowhere). >> >> Note that the example given above, Mr Maclean, deals off with two haploid >> gametes and a working uterus; this might appear to be more of a 'limited >> closed system' than 'the Universe as a whole (etc)'. >> > >Hardly limited as those items garner nutrition from a wider >environment. Mr Dashwood, the description was not one of absolute limitation but of quality-of-limitedness (perhaps an inverse of 'richness of infity'); I believe that possibility might have been covered by the description above of 'a working uterus... might appear to be more of a 'limited closed system' than 'the Universe as a whole (etc).' If you're trying to slip in a nigh-Buddhist 'all is connected' viewpoint then perhaps the well-gazed-at Navel Reserves might be called out. >> >Regrettably, although I have >> >seen the explanation for this (Scientific American I think) I am >> >unable to repeat the proof. Sorry. >> >> No need to apologise, it can be considered as discarded due to lack of >> substantiation. >> > >But it doesn't stop you from researching the document. 'The document'? What 'the document' (note the definite article) is 'Scientific American I think (sic)'? DD
From: Anonymous on 21 Jul 2010 08:20
Correction - in my response I erroneously addressed Mr Maclean as Mr Dashwood; this is mine own error and I offer apologies to all and sundry who might feel them necessary, appropriate or worthy of saving-and-trading. DD |