It is fine in My Computer or Windows Explorer. But in the save box of any program, file lists are always sorted in reversed even after correction.
Solution: Correct the sorting again in the dialog box and then hold the control (ctrl) key while closing the dialog window (the X button).
Thanks to: superuser.com
It is a question that has stumbled me since long time ago. Perhaps one of those obstacles that discouraged me from pursue of quantum mechanics.
Let there be 2 stars, stationary. Thus, should any star moves toward another, there are 3 possible frames of reference: star A, star B...and the third frame is the story teller's frame (or an outside observer of A & B, perhaps regardless of his location).
It would seem that should any star moves toward another, there will be 1 frame of which its observer will have his detection of the 'crisis' delayed, unless this frame belongs to either the story teller's frame or the frame of the star that initiates the move: In other words, I called it the active frame.
If that is the case, unless I'm missing something, how does it not matter in identifying which star that moves? As to the notion of either star could be the moving ones.
When we all understand science is chiefly to KNOW, that which pertains to truth, it is interesting when someone from Isaac Asimov 2011 memorial debate said:
Science is not about what's true or what might be true; Science is about what people with originally diversed view points can be forced to believe by the way of public evidence. - Dr. Lee Smolin
When we only perceive ourselves as merely academic observers of the cosmos, it is still a form of path of seekers nonetheless.
Grace is free, but is not cheap. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer
After coming across one of John MacArthur's talk on salvation for suicide, I looked into another preacher's take on such topic.
MacArthur, like his take on infant salvation, easily opened to the possibility that one could be saved if one is a "true" christian, even after suicide.
Dr. Stephen Tong's answer on this subject is basically: No. Based on one of his talk I found online...seems to be from an only source, so I pasted here (as comment), in case it gets taken from there. I believe the source but I wish I knew more of the authenticity of it. I have indicated the pertaining subject with a ### ruler but copied the entire article just so that it is better than less.
And after reading John MacArthur's answer to the subject, I'd ask "a true Christian would commit suicide in a time of extreme weakness"? and re-emphasize his statement: ...But we question the faith of
those who take their lives or even consider it seriously--it may well be
that they have never been truly saved."
Granted, suicide and murder can be equivalent making it also a sin, but Colossians 2:13-14, Romans 8:38-39 & Jude 24 don't justify a "true christian" to be in a condition of such extereme weakness that they commit suicide, because although all forgiven sins could include future sins or nothing could separate believers from God's love or the protection against stumbling block, it cannot justify something lack of repentance (unless of course, one might argue one is given a chance to 'repent' the second before death, to which I could only say only if it's genuine which most of us are easily be fooled of), I can tell MacArthur also attempted very seriously in explaining the sinful act of suicide.
I notice John MacArthur occasionally seems to 'over-emphasize' on comfort. Not that he's like the other self-proclaiming of having great love christian psychiatrists. But I fear he sometimes approaches these things from an emotional state and then into scriptures later. I conclude this based on his take on infant salvation...but I haven't finished his book "Safe in the Arms of God" yet.
As for some slightest justification of suicide, my conclusion is: No matter how in a time of extreme weakness one is suffering (though God will never burden one more than one could bear), one can never justify one's suffering greater than Jesus'. And if Jesus didn't commit suicide...
After a brief review of my past emails, I've come across this one, a last email I received from Rev. David Chen in 2009:
"...Well, the only reason for me NOT to contact anyone from the Gospel
Church or Student Fellowship(except two occasions) is that I don't think
it right or good to keep in touch with your former church. As long as
you left the post of your previous ministry, you should cut any tied.
You have no right to intervene any part of it. Don't call any of them.
If any of them call for help, then you help. AND THAT IT IS MY PRINCIPLE
AND I FOLLOW. I am not interested in at all what other people do..."
I had always thought Rev. Chen was talking only about himself...but I'm amazed how slow I am at realizing another possible variable...that he was also pointing at Rev. Serena Lin...that would certainly make a lot of sense, judging from his after reactions like not talking to Serena.
Many love to use the term "love offering". Some oppositions called it "guilt offering", I applaud.
Offering is the offering of something that is a must in recognition of a superior office.
The "love offering" I've seen is usually done in the guise of charity towards certain pastoral family members or giving of unwanted second hand products to that which pertains to churches, and fearing rejection...thus, replacing "donation" with the word "offering" it somewhat guarantees better acceptance of the gifts.
What then, should not others have the right to reject our charity? Whether it is their lost or not. If we are right to be rejected, should we not accept our guilt rather than covering it up with pride or sugarcoating terms?
Charity is not offering, offering is not charity: One is of compassion or gratitude; the other of duty.
Knowing how to get saved is not the same as getting saved.
When it comes to child geniuses, I'm less skeptical on mathematicians than those of other fields favored by others, since I see mathematics as the academic subject closest to truth seeking.
So when I came across this article, all I could think of is that this just proves that cuckoo psychologists who come up with terms like Asperger Syndrome, are pathetic.
If a school like CMU is dissing O-O for other type of programming (functional and imperative), I better catch up.
