I did a while back, but I don't look stupid because I said 'I believe'. I didn't say 'it is' because I knew that I might be wrong and forgot key points of what they are exactly. It's hard to memorize all that technical stuff because for one, I don't code and make games like you and Bat seem to do, and two, I don't have photographic memory like you and Bat apparently do. Oh, and 3, it isn't necessary to know every detail of every technical thing out there and it wastes time to learn every single little detail of every term out there. Concur? You and Bat know a lot about it since graphics, game creation, and programming seem to be your specialties, and you probably do that as your careers, and may also have photographic memory, but you are clearly not psychic since you didn't know I read about the shaders and other spec defs on wikipedia in the past but couldn't absorb much of the info 
The point is, you just spurted out a piece of pseudoknowledge about technical matters, where you can be proven wrong quite easily. Correcting it by putting out FACTS instead of letting wrongness stand is one of the things I sort of have to do in here. I can't let your unqualified statements stand in a public place where others may take them at face value.
What you have or haven't read or understood prior to making a FACTUALLY WRONG STATEMENT is irrelevant. I do not care where you get your wrong information from, if it is wrong, it needs to be corrected, and it needs to be done so HARD. I am very blunt and insulting when doing this, because I need to get the point across quickly and efficiently.
I recall it saying that shaders had something to do with the lighting, and I will go back and read it like you suggest.
Oh, and I do like Wikipedia and read many things on it, and I assume it to be accurate, or at least hope it is, but I hear it can be edited by anyone and thus it's not truly reliable. Why recommend wiki more than any other source? I would think that a technical and authentic website about video cards and spec defs would have more accurate info.
A little thing called experience. Just like your post here, posts on Wikipedia on technical matters can be proven right or wrong quite easily. If, that is, you can read the source materials the wikipedia contributors use.
In other words, I don't trust wikipedia on soft matters, like biographies of celebrities, or current politics, or whatever the current hot topic among the masses is. But on technical matters, it is very reliable.
On a side note: just because I don't know a certain something and don't study video cards and their termanology doesn't make me look stupid or mean I'm stupid. You can't know it all and not everyone wants to read about every single thing out there, and most probably don't have time. So don't be braincentric. Why so many people here have a fascination with insulting someone's intelligence and using many words to put down their intelligence is beyond me. Maybe many here have been picked on a lot in the past. I know you were very mild about it, but still. Please don't be braincentric.
My response to this is simply that, while not knowing something is perfectly understandable, even expected, and of course tolerated, posting something that can be proven wrong with 10 seconds of cursory research is not. Saying "I believe...." does NOT make it better.
In closing, there is just one more thing to add:
Locked due to increasing irrelevance to the subject of FSO support.
