mrchrismnh

Members
  • Content count

    263
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

82 Neutral

About mrchrismnh

  • Rank
    Member
  1. [quote name='Eralp' timestamp='1316169727' post='4862383'] I can't understand why the thread creator referred as a troll here. I exactly thought the same thing, maybe we will play car racing games where the fuel goes to the engine and burns there due to chemical laws everything is calculated in atomic size, or maybe FPS games where enemies have circularity systems, lungs etc. and when you shoot them everything is realistic. Of course they don't seem reasonable right now since Moore's law won't be valid for too long, maybe we need quantum computers or a change in the silicon material to achieve that. Concerning the AI thing, if we COULD compute ALL atoms' movements. It is the same thing as AI. Your neural network, brain, and its decisions may look like VERY COMPLEX to you but we have been kinda training them for years and years without many people trying to understand the basics behind our decisions and movements. But before going up to the most complex neural network, lets think of a one cellular living. When you are aiming to understand 5th dimension it is better to start with understanding the transaction between 2nd and 3rd dimension. WHAT is exactly giving life to that cell, can anybody explain that? In my opinion all the things it makes are due to physical forces between atoms & molecules. The DNA can be treated as brain of the cell but as far as I know they created an artificial DNA and put it inside a cell and it continued "living". What if we replaced all the molecules in one cell? Or samely what if we copied all the molecules in one cell to another place, will it be cloned or won't they live due to lack of "soul" I think it will live. And then it goes up like what if we copied all the molecules in a human, what do you think it will be? To sum it up in my understanding of the world and universe, EVERYTHING is based on physics, and physical laws. I am not talking about the ones we modelled right now, our laws can be wrong but afterall there is something according to which particles are "moving". We know that Newton's approximation was false, maybe Einstein's will not work under some conditions too. When the forces are about atoms & molecules, we created chemistry to make approximations and create straight-forward rules, sometimes not so straight-forward but compared to simulating and calculating everything in sub-atomic particles they are very well straight-forward.When we taught chemistry we generally hear things like, under normal conditions this is true but else this law will fail. This is because as I said they are approximations but that is not something bad because we need to do them to actually achieve something and make use of chemistry. Nothing in chemistry can contradict with physical laws, and every chemistry law can be derived from physical laws, I think everybody agrees with me here. Quick example: Law: Polar and Apolar liquids do not resolve in each other. When a question is asked you can use this law to answer and to back your thoughts. But you can very well derive it from physics. Since polar molecules have + and - poles, because an atom's protons is closer they pull the electrons to one side, they pull themselves like magnets and they stick with each other this makes the other liquid's molecules go up or down. When we needed to examine the interaction of very big numbers of molecules and atoms we created biology. One of its basic laws: The cell membrane is waterproof, of course not fully but in a reasonable way. This is due to molecular interaction between the molecules of the cell membrane and water molecules. You can go up the hierarchy till physics to explain this. [/quote] Maybe someone already made that car racing simulation and it's us. Newton so call "science" do not predicts this either/
  2. I would suggest some gui coding in java; you'll have better luck rolling your own gui components oce you've seen how they implement theirs.
  3. I was discussing Portal once with a coworker. He said "I didn't finish it but I got almost all the way to the end; you know, when she tries to drop you in the fire pit".
  4. Voted 20, which is a massive underestimate but to say "never" is absurd, because it means after the heat death of the universe Lovecraftian horrors will be programming in C++.
  5. After I play angry birds for awhile (a few hours) on my mobile phone, I often find when using a desktop PC that I get a seasick feeling when looking at the various windows, as though they are rocking back and forth like the boxes and structures in the game. I also get this with vertical text or long stretches of horizontal text, which I begin to feel is buckling. I think that when I am playing the game my sense of balance is adapting to the fact that everything in the foreground is dynamic, and then I get thrown off by the fact that text and images on the pc are static. The mobile phone may also have something to do with it; I know that I had terrible eyestrain when I first got it and started messaging, which I adapted to.
  6. Welcome back.
  7. "Pro linux: * My beard will grow thicker." Naw bro I've been using it since 2000 and can't grow anything that doesn't look like armpit hair.
  8. I may have to give it another shot; I tried it over a year ago and found that it was running some service constantly in the background bringing me up to 100 percent cpu usage.
  9. Everquest before instancing, before Wowification. I want the training, camping, griefing and blocking back.
  10. Protagonists backround: Jasticer Sundeath is an army time agent. He was named Zeus beacuse only he was given the tehnology to travel space and time. Shouldn't his codename be Mercury then?
  11. Best bet: fill out a gdnet help wanted template cause the best help anywhere is to be found on this very site.
  12. For a plane normal you need a third dimension. Then you take two edges of the plane that share the same corners, make vectors of them, take the cross product of those vectors and then normalize the cross product. So let's give your plane a z axis... and put them in a vertex (pseudo) class so the data can be manipulated by us... vertice plane_a[color="#666600"]([/color][color="#006666"]700.0f[/color][color="#666600"],[/color] [color="#006666"]500.0f,0.0f[/color][color="#666600"]);[/color] vertice plane_b[color="#666600"]([/color][color="#006666"]720.0f[/color][color="#666600"],[/color] [color="#006666"]500.0f,0.0f[/color][color="#666600"]);[/color] vertice plane_c[color="#666600"]([/color][color="#006666"]720.0f[/color][color="#666600"],[/color] [color="#006666"]300.0f,0.0f[/color][color="#666600"]);[/color] vertice plane_d[color="#666600"]([/color][color="#006666"]700.0f[/color][color="#666600"],[/color] [color="#006666"]300.0f,0.0f[/color][color="#666600"]); vector a(a,c); [/color]vector b(b,c);//these constructors are defined as head - tail so the vector here is going to be c.x - b.x, c.y - b.y, c.z - b.z vector crossvec = crossprod(a,b); //crossprod is: // C[size="-2"]x[/size] = A[size="-2"]y[/size]B[size="-2"]z[/size] - A[size="-2"]z[/size]B[size="-2"]y[/size] //C[size="-2"]y[/size] = A[size="-2"]z[/size]B[size="-2"]x[/size] - A[size="-2"]x[/size]B[size="-2"]z[/size] //C[size="-2"]z[/size] = A[size="-2"]x[/size]B[size="-2"]y[/size] - A[size="-2"]y[/size]B[size="-2"]x[/size] //now you want to normalize the crossproduct you do that via sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + z^2) and then divide each of its coordinates by the value obtained. Last but not least you add the resultant vector (which is going to be 0,0,1 or ideally close to it) to one of the planes four vertices. Yeah, the normal here is one along the z but the method I described works for any plane orientation.
  13. You progress by writing programs. In the process, you will refine your technique.
  14. Make sure your plane normals for the prism are all facing in the same direction and then use the dot product. If all dots return > 0 or < 0 they are all on one side of all the planes, and hence within the bounds of the prism. If they all return 0 you are in a dimension other than R3. There is another way that uses pluckers but pluckers you use a ray, not a point.
  15. Blahblahblah() not defined sounds like a linker error. I always set aside some time and take a few deep breaths before I bring a new library into a project I am developing on Linux, especially when using c++. The seventy errors rlating to an abstract method sound like you zigged where you should have zagged OOPwise; I think if MYSQL wouldn't compile properly under any flavor of Linux that error would have been caught before the software was Sudo-able.