forsandifs

That's fair enough, but your lack of knowledge and posturing as some kind of knowledgeable person is very insulting, and actually hurts people.

...

you're a liar who will repeatedly change his story and say anything to cover his own ass.

That's ironic and false. Despite your most aggressive efforts you have not managed to debunk my original statement that scientists have not been able to unify the 4 forces or my later statement that superstring theory is a dubious candidate to do so.

I may have been mistaken on two particulars of a dubious, quickly changing, unfinished, and unproven theory, which isn't even certain of its own fundamental particulars, and which I haven't done more than skim the surface of (because it doesn't particularly attract my attention), but you have shown yourself to be a self admitted crackpot whose whole approach to science is actually based on ignorance, posturing, and insulting people and trying to damage their reputation.

[EDIT: the order of paragraphs from this point on has been altered for better flow]

In fact I take back my previous evaluation of your scientific ability and rate you down on that partly for the reasons above mentioned. You have no idea about proper science, and I doubt you've ever been in a proper laboratory.

In this discussion you have been analogous to a baffling, pie throwing clown with poor eyesight and slow reflexes. And ironically, again, you have harmed/pie-d no one but yourself. EDIT: I've done my best to remain polite and accomodating to you partly because that's how I always try to treat everyone and partly because you seem to be mentally unstable/infirm but I've had enough of your unwarranted attacks.

Further, what you call "lying" and "changing his story and say anything to cover his own ass" highlights how delusional you are. Your habit of aggressively pouncing on every word uttered by essentially random people in casual science conversation as if it were a legal document and an inflamatory article about child abuse tends to force being careful of wording. And yes, I "change my story" if I'm mistaken about something as everyone adopting a scientific attitude should do. That does not make me a liar, in fact quite the opposite.

EDIT: Another point I think is worth noting is that physics is massive in scope. It is often said that no one person, no matter how knowledgable, can be certain of all its particulars. That is why specialisation exsits. So it becomes less important to have perfect memory of every specific detail, and more important to have correct skills in physics.

BTW Taby, weren't you supposed to be leaving gamedev because you didn't like it here? Sincerely, I think that would be a good idea.

One question... If you are such a brilliant scientist, how come your reputation has decreased over 9 times since you've joined this thread? If I recall correctly, it was 75 only five days ago.

I think it has more to do with his erraticness and attitude than any lack of scientific prowess. I suspect his reputation would have increased rather than decreased if he had made the points he made in a calm, non-aggressive, non-insulting, and more easily followable manner.

EDIT: the style of his posts in this thread is just fine for anonymous forum trolling but not very suitable when trying to have an unanonymous, serious, and/or sensible discussion :/

...

Its ironic that you accuse me of not being able to read English when you miss the word "may" in my statement...

EDIT: It might be worth noting that Taby has a habit of heavily editing his posts even after they have been replied to without marking the edits. The consistency of the discussion is therefore not guaranteed despite my best and honest efforts to maintain said consistency.

They mean the shader error, not the debug output.

When you call the compileFromFile function (not sure which one exactly you use) it returns an error blob on DX11 and 10 (not sure how you get it on DX9).

Or you can use the fxc compiler directly from the command line window. That outputs error messages on the fly.

It couldn't be int or unsigned it because those are different among different platforms.

It is an unsigned type for sure, though I;m not sure for its bits.

Use std::vector<yourTypeHere>::size_type and not int, because if the length of the vector exceeds INT_MAX, the size you will get will be negative.That's why there's a warning.

Rather than trying to look at the code, you might find it easier to check documentation when you have a question about the standard library, such as the MSDN page for vector::size or a reference such as this page on vector::size at cplusplus.com.

Ah thanks. I did find the size_type return value but I was confused by it, due to having been looking for an intrinsic type.

Your code should be easy to read and maintain because you will be working with and maintaining it. The same is not true of the standard library -- you as an end-user simply need it to work as expected, there isn't an expectation that you will want to modify or update those files. The writers of your standard library implementation have had to produce code that is safe, performs as expected, is efficient in a wide variety of potentially very different situations, and in some cases it has to be very flexible, and have had to resort to code that is less readable than might be desired in other situations in order to do so.

Well, I guess these functions/stuff in standard libraries are meant to be used as black boxes, and not for somebody to read/modify them.

Ah right, OK. That's interesting. Thank you.

Does that help/answer your question?

Indeed it does.

EDIT:

Also thanks to the other two responses that came in before I posted this one.

EDIT:

]It's a std::vector<T>::size_type, which if using the standard allocator is a typedef for the std::allocator<T>::size_type, which is a typedef for size_t, which is a typedef for unsigned int.
UINT and UINT32 are also usually the same as unsigned int.

Ah I see, so it boils down to an unsigned int. Sweet. Cheers.

TBH I think men in general just need to step up their own game without holding women back. EDIT: Also I think it would be healthy to stop thinking about this as a competition... Men and women are both essential parts of the world, and it would be wise to work together EDIT: taking advantage of our different strengths.

For my sociology class, I plan to study white people.

"..."

Who agrees w/ this quote? I plan to write a research paper on the subject because I find it extremely interesting. I am trying to find if anything can be defined as "white culture"? If anyone has any opinions on the matter, please speak because I would like some input and perspective from white individuals.

An interesting question. Do "white" people have a culture? Do they feel confident about it? I think the answer is no to be honest. In my experience we tend to identify and feel confident with our nation's/state's culture more than any other.

EDIT: For example European "whites" have quite different cultures within each nation. And these in turn are all very different from American "white" cultures.

And yes, real change only comes through violence. Nat Turner had the right approach.

Nono, Ghandi, for example, had the right approach. He achieved real and lasting change without violence.

I remember a song that was in a video game when I was younger. It was a high energy song I think that had the word "hole" in the lyrics. I have figured out it's not Whole by Flaw, Black Hole Sun, Whole in the Earth, or Whole in the World (Eagles). Can't for the life of me think of the song though. I feel like it's right on the tip of my tongue though since I played the game for days with a friend.

If anyone can think of a song that fits that has "hole" in the lyrics can you please tell me the name. I know this is vague, but it was a pretty well known song at the time.

Its not http://www.youtube.c...h?v=zmjmN1qQLuY is it? ("Place your hands" by Reef).

EDIT: If it is, then you might be interested to know that I've just found out it doesn't say hole, it says hope (but it really does sound like hole).

EDIT: umm, apparently this song was released in 1996?! Really?! O.o Damn, time flies. Well, I could have sworn it was popular around 2000 or so, so it might still be the one you're thinking of. EDIT: yup, further research confirms it was popular around that time due to a re-surgence.

I agree, mostly. I can agree that all those events you mentioned were horrible, horrible deeds. Intentions only come into it after the people responsible are gone. If you can ask yourself the question "Is there likely to be less death and misery in the world now that this person is no longer in it?" and the answer comes back "yes", that seems like a good enough reason to be happy. Do you not think? That's why I celebrate (if you can call it that, I'm not cheering in the streets, I simply admit that it makes me feel a little happy) Bin Laden's death. Not because I think it is justice, but because I think 'he can no longer orchestrate and fund attacks that kill thousands'. I don't see what part of that attitude is such a bad thing that people find reprehensible.

The hipocrisy of it.

"HURRR DURRR, HE'S DEAD, HURR DURRR!"

Unemployed people don't have capital. To create businesses you need capital.

Not all unemployed people lack capital. EDIT: And unemployed people can ask for investment from investors to help start their buisness.

heh you sound like my coworkers. One is married at 24 and the others have girlfriends. Also that's not a solution to the problem. If anything it causes time commitments.

Something I noticed though reading this thread. It's been 4 years since I've had a best friend. Kind of odd not having one for so long.

Oh, I'm not suggesting it's the solution to your problem, well not directly. I am suggesting, as you did in the sentence with the rolling eyes smiley, that it is the reason for your problem. And once you understand the reason for your problem then you might understand your friends a bit better and that should help with your problem.

Emm, Kanon, Eralp, Sirirsian, I'm pretty sure I have the answer for you...

GIRLS.

I'm just suggesting being kind to another. Show mercy. Be good.

I agree with the sentiment but I would phrase it in a less value dependent way as follows.

To the best of your ability avoid violence, destructiveness and the causing of suffering. To the best of you your ability try to be kind, merciful, and productive. Why? Because we do not live in isolation, we are very connected to our environment and to the beings in it. Every torture, violent or destructive action we perform makes the world a worse place to live in for us even if it comes with a much desired reward. And every kind, merciful, or productive action we are able to perform makes the world a better place for us to live in. If we do not self-check our behaviour in this way we will end up in a veritable hell, a hell on earth. But if we do, we will end up in a heaven indeed, a heaven on earth.

And if the god is evil? I think everything would be destroyed by now if that was the case. Knowing the concept of evil, it doesn't waste time. I find it a hard to believe a god would spend its time constructing a universe and all of the properties about it at such a specific level just to piss off the homosapiens.

An intelligent evil god would not be content merely with destruction of everything. He would want profitable and enjoyable enslavement of the masses. Assuming the existance of a god do you really discard that possibility?..