| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3
Comments:
<0> but after that break I've just been greedy
<1> hell i've even stopped taking vitamins, and i've given up on pain killers all together.. i just suffer with my headaches .. apparently the pain makes me look constantly pissed off and people dont talk to me
<0> good example about the increased ***ual desire: the chick I ran into on my way to the snack machine... I think she's a statistics grad student
<0> but of course, I didn't do anything about it. I never do :/
<0> great, now there's some Asian bitch in the lab that keeps talking
<2> smoke her
<3> just go "SHUT IT, CHINKYBITCH"
<3> lol
<1> and threaten her with the tenticles of hentai if she keeps it up
<3> and offer to give her a nice bukkake
<0> what's so cool about "tentacle porn"?
<3> no idea
<3> tentacles?
<4> hentai genre
<4> cute manga-girlies disturbed by tentacles ...
<1> those monsters always get the hot chicks
<3> often represented to being far too young for those tentacles.
<1> the japanese are weird
<3> yes
<3> scalar
<3> can you explain to me what this word means:
<3> Schchtelchen
<4> a little box
<4> tiny even
<5> How can you check the size of a type at compile time and throw an error if it's not what you were expecting?
<5> Oh I see... everyone shuts up when I ask a question.
<5> Bastards.
<5> :p
<3> lol
<3> I don't know?
<4> whatz wrong with sizeof() ?
<5> grr
<5> Doesn't seem to work.
<5> Unless I'm using it wrong.
<5> #if sizeof( uint64 ) != 8
<5> fatal error C1017: invalid integer constant expression
<4> evil
<4> BOOST_STATIC_***ERT(sizeof(uint64) * CHAR_BIT >= 8*8); ?
<4> BOOST_STATIC_***ERT(sizeof(uint64) * CHAR_BIT == 8*8); ?
<5> hmm
<5> ****ing Microsoft cunts!
<5> I've only wasted a ****ing day tracking this bug down.
<5> And where was it? In Win****ingSock2.****ingH
<5> You're lucky.
<1> so what relation does a .****ingh have to .h and .pch ?
<3> Hmm
<3> Win****ingSock2. Heh
<3> Advice: stop using ****ty compilers.
<5> It's got nothing to do with the compiler. It's part of the platform SDK.
<3> Stop using ****ty platforms. ;)
<4> def is too young to know that there's a world outside of windows
<5> hahaha
<5> I wish
<5> Just so people know, if you have a project which includes winsock2.h but doesn't defined WIN32 in the project settings, winsock2 changes the structure packing to 4 bytes.
<5> They've fixed this for VS2005.
<6> Hey guys hows it going
<6> Just have a quick question about the comment my instructor left
<6> http://cpp.enisoc.com/pastebin/6703
<7> ewwwww
<7> "IT" cours?
<7> e
<6> haha yes sir
<6> IT210
<6> i need it for my major
<6> blah
<7> ugh
<6> C++ is very ... interesting
<7> that's not even legal C++
<7> main can't return void
<7> C++ is great, but it's made for certain tasks and not others
<6> haha yea you should see me in cl*** im so lost
<7> :P
<6> and theres not hotties in there
<6> really pisses me off
<7> same with my university
<8> Ok, maybe this sounds crazy, but is it possible to sent a function over a network? I was thinking taking a function pointer and copying to a buffer and sending?
<7> hotties dont like computers
<7> IndirectX, oh, please :P
<6> hhaha exactly
<6> do you know what my instructor meant though
<6> about that comment
<8> Xiphoris: impossible, eh?
<7> IndirectX, consider what a pointer is pointing to
<8> Xiphoris: I figured it could be hacked to work similar to a buffer overflow exploit
<7> a pointer only has meaning within your *process* on your computer
<7> no, because it refers to all kinds of other things
<7> you need to understand how machine code works to understand it
<8> I do.
<7> the function's code also depends upon its position in memory
<7> and the state of the stack, and tons of other things
<8> obviously every function would not be able to work like this
<7> .NET has a technology where you can send a proxy'd object over the wire
<7> and when calls are made on it on the remote machine, code is executed on the sending one
<8> i did consider that, but it wouldn't be very feasible for what I'm trying to design
<7> why not?
<7> it's the easiest way for you to do things, probably
<6> typecast numerator is ?? :-(???
<7> there are other technologies
<8> I'll explain
<7> alternatively you could send the ***embly to the other machine
<8> I made a particle system that the user specificies a function to generate each particle
<8> so for a 5000 particles system, this function is called 5000 times
<8> in this case remote execution wouldn't be necessary - I could just generate all the particles on my side and then send them over the wire
<8> So how would I accomplish sending the asm over the wire?
<7> eh, i dunno
<7> I wouldn't do that
<7> just send a DLL across the wire
<7> then call a function in the DLL
<8> I thought about that
<4> IndirectX: distributed computing is what you're looking for
<8> and it seems like the only feasible solution now... but sending a file across just seems so... hack
<8> Bebabo: go on
<4> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_computing
<8> Bebabo: as far as I knew... distributed computing refers to just p***ing different data sets to different computers and having them crunch number and returnt he results
<8> but my problem lies in that the remote machine must use a function that it does not possess to do the crunching
<4> then send the function to ur remote
<4> what's the problem there ?
<8> scroll up
<4> i do that all day
<8> ok, how do you send the function to your remote
<4> i type them in bash
<4> that is putty
<8> well, you're almost useful
<4> occasionally also with the browser
<4> browser though for all automated sends
<8> Xiphoris: thanks for the help
<8> adios
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
#allnitecafe
What makes it easier for different networking vendors to design software
#india
#kl
#chat-world
#allnitecafe
chindi chor meaning
#c++
#allnitecafe
#india
|
|