z929669

Microsoft Windows Themes (I only use Halo Reach theme and the default wallpaper on ALL computers). Both, depending on game. 16:10 usually; various res, max possible IPS O_o Certain vendors (Morrowind): "What's this about?" soda (I call it that: Illinois, USA) ... Illinois rednecks call it 'sodi', and some call it 'pop' ESET ... it's simply the best, hands down, numerous reasons. (agree with Tech about Norton and MaAfee ... total bloatware [add AVG to the bloatware list])

Admins only (including DY, SRB, & Tech). Although, I would not edit any Semantic pages relating to the project, as this could break things currently in place. This will be facilitated once we have a dev wiki finalized. For now, I would rather not modify core forms/templates and simply agree upon a consistent method for MCM options. Not sure how s4n feels about it though, but I would rather he be in total agreement prior to such an addition. Reason being that it adds more complexity and may not be worth the effort if we are implementing the paradigm shift soon enough. Form and corresponding template would both need to be changed/tested to get it all working (not to mention the Data Dictionary update for reference).

Cylindrical patches = 'iterative' patches if I understand the problem correctly ... it would seem that shurah is implying that navmesh conflicts cannot be overridden as normal asset conflicts are overridden ... navmesh conflicts behave as a composite? There should only be a single rule governing each navmesh?

Bingo! Indeed. This is the option the average power user would choose (I do it now in Win 10 to overcome some app issues I had).

Appdata\Local or Appdata\Roaming seem the appropriate place to have user/app assets stored, IMO. It is predictable and aligned with many programs.

I like this format for review purposes, but how do you plan on implementing for the Guide? Maybe create subpage to each corresponding mod MCM linked from the mod page in a standard position on the mod page?

This guy is effectively a spammer in my book. We also received an email filled with plenty of wasted energy spent on insulting the community and guide. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but when posting an opinion or a criticism, it must at least be somewhat civil. the OP was modified by one of our newer moderators, so the context is much more seemingly civil than the original OP. This is not our standard practice, so apologies for lack of proper context. (no worries mods, good intentions and all). OP'er also sent us a rather flaming email for whatever reason. Lots of energy to spend on DE-constructive criticism, apparently. Anyway, this is clearly not a member that joined for any reason other than casting rubbish about, so we won't be seeing him/her around here anymore. Closing topic and moving on ;)

Everything is subjective and nothing is 'forced'. We show you how to mod Skyrim to our liking, so use that info to mod to your liking.

Yeah, that makes sense then ... was taking advantage of a "teaching moment" on syntax in editor for those of us that maintain articles. I definitely don't dislike your changes, and it could be argued that your modified headings are 'better' than the current implementation. It comes down to user preference in the end, so I leave the final design to s4n in the context of his new skin implementation.

Agree that the letter spacing is a nice touch. Also agree with s4n on the margin spacing around the headers. I am a fan of minimal whitespace below headings (larger for main headings and smaller to absent for minor headings). I like some whitespace above all headings, but not too much, as it wastes real estate. I think the current implementation (now including said letter spacing for headings) actually looks a bit better than the proposed changes: Proposed ex2Current, ex2 (better, IMHO)Also, not a huge fan of too many borders on too many headings. I like them on H2 only and very light at that. Editor The standard format in editor windows can also have some influence on the outcome, particularly when added line breaks exist. Here is how you had the last section: ==Advanced Scripting== ===Conditions=== Conditions are instructions for the FOMOD installer to follow based upon a set state of a specific flag or flags. These conditions can be used for whether or not to display a specific page of the installer to users or whether or not to install specific files or mod options, all based upon the user's selection choices within the FOMOD installer itself. ===Dependancies=== ==Troubleshooting== Tags are case sensitive! It's important to know that XML tags are case sensitive. ===== NOTES ===== Nothing as of yet...... but the following is much less wasteful and easier to navigate IMO. I have tried hard to maintain this spacing between paragraphs and headings in the 'edit' formatting throughout the wiki: ==Advanced Scripting== ===Conditions=== Conditions are instructions for the FOMOD installer to follow based upon a set state of a specific flag or flags. These conditions can be used for whether or not to display a specific page of the installer to users or whether or not to install specific files or mod options, all based upon the user's selection choices within the FOMOD installer itself. ===Dependancies=== ==Troubleshooting== Tags are case sensitive! It's important to know that XML tags are case sensitive. ===== NOTES ===== Nothing as of yet...Lastly, as I have stated in the STEP Wiki Editing guide ... it is probably best to place any magic words, categories or inline format refs (e.g., CSS) to TOP of page, so that editors can immediately (and consistently) see what specific changes are being made to a particular article without having to scroll down.

Welcome, Fanto ;)

I am glad that it was meant positively in that case, but I honestly did not know how you meant it. Thanks for the kind reassurance though ;)

How rhetorically aloof? Thank you? ... I am not sure if I should be offended or gladdened. Either way, I am pleased to offer you more fodder for your inexhaustible intellectual exercise elenhil & onlookers, please excuse the thickness of my earlier-referenced post

@Sparrow Thanks for posting this topic, and merry holidays to you! @Audley Hang in there, and good luck to you! @SRB I love the warm drinks (cocoa and glögg), holiday alcohol (Frangelico and irish cream), hearth fires, pine smells, lights and coziness ... but also hate the retail-capitalistic bombardment that usurps it all :/ @all Happy holiday season!

This seems a bit of a goad to incite a discriminatory action Of course your not going to be banned for your posts here! Your methods of argument and certain of your views are a offensive (to me), and you do present many fallacies in your arguments (as do we all to more or less extent), but you are civil and apply your offenses in general rather than attributing them to a single person (or overtly to a single group). As long as you remain civil and not overtly offensive, you (and all) are entitled to express your views and arguments here, however much I or others may disagree with them. At worst, in some of your posting in this thread, you come off as controversial, scathing, aloof and arrogant ... but I would entirely disagree with myself were I aligned with your views. Rest easy, because we administrate these forums in alignment with our political and world views :D Literal "sexual preferences" cannot be bundled within the domain of inherent sexual alignment. One's sexual alignment to same or different gender is mostly biological programming, which influences manifest behaviors. Sexual alignment is almost entirely driven by one's physiology (with all arguments of epigenetics and environmental influences on physiology aside ... the template and propensities are genetic and genetically dictated, respectively). Now, if you spent time with a gay friend who constantly pointed out the merits of the relatively muscled male rump and swagger and found yourself becoming more and more attracted to men to find that one day you have fully converted from hetero- to homosexual, THEN I would indeed be impressed into advocating for an alteration of the the prevailing biological hypotheses on the matter! As I mentioned previously, there is no clear scientific evidence that states 99.9% nature and 0.1% nurture ... for posterity: I was simply exaggerating the fact that sexual alignment is indeed physiologically (and thus biologically) driven (apologies, that was a bit disingenuous on my part!). It is almost never a manifestation of one's environment (excluding some traumatic life event, hormone augmentation, or inherent psychological/personality disorder), and underlying sexual alignment is almost certainly not inherently or fundamentally influenced by the environment outside of the context of physiological environmental response (unless you are a 'lower' vertebrate of certain phylogenetic classification). I do see and agree with your argument concerning sexual preference though, as that changes over time like food or general aesthetic preference. This is a behavior that I attribute to elenhil as I previously mentioned ... taking bits out of general context to disingenuously illustrate a subjective viewpoint. Although, others of the opposing viewpoint have also done so (not me!) ... but most of these do not seem as disingenuously cherry-picked (but that is only my opinion). Nobody in here is name calling or being overtly offensive AFAIK. That is definitely a forum-rules offense, so do let me know if I missed something. @Sparrow (AKA, Firestarter) ... your are now being watched carefully throughout these forums

@elenhil I believe that you, sadly, spend much of your time weaving semantics and jumbling statements out of context ... O_o ... You debate much like the scientific creationists that I have dealt with in the past ... Like them, I believe you understand my points and that you full well know that they are not contradictory when taken into the larger context within which they were originally presented (although I admit to a bit of exaggeration in my "teaching moments"). I don't think your positions are contradictory at all, but I do think they are rhetorically supported by cherry-picked 'facts'. There is clearly nothing more I can teach you, and only if I lacked any sanity would I continue in my attempts at enlightenment of one so fully enlightened as yourself. I leave you the floor to proselytize as you see fit, and I concede to your tenacity ;)

I totally agree with everything in EssArrBee's last post. Thanks for adding in a bit of objective reality ;)

No, in writing the UDHR, I think the crafters purposefully used language that would not impose upon the social beliefs of a great many individuals amongst a great many cultures that have contrasting beliefs to that of those crafting the UDHR. “securing the continuous succession of generations and enabling the preservation and development of our multinational people ” “perverted notions of traditional and non-traditional conjugal relations being socially equivalent” ... is itself a biased statement in supposing that anything other than (law writers') opinions is 'perverted', which is entirely subjective. ... yes, please explain. It is all really simple: You have your subjective beliefs, and I have mine. Your rights extend to the point where they do not detrimentally impact my own. Therefore, you can think whatever you like, and it does not have any detrimental bearing on what I think ... unless I let it. Same goes for Boris and other contemporary Russians, IMO. ... and your manifest sexuality is a complex amalgam of your biology and your past experiences, but your inherent sexuality is almost certainly a product of your physiology as dictated and modified by actual physical factors (like genes, temperature, and hypoxia), but not by ideology or information.

Saweet ;)

Sexuality is a right. Print that on stone and never doubt the fact. With 2/3 votes, amendments to the US constitution can be proposed ... then it requires 3/4 of state legislators to ratify ... this is all if there are no legal blockers, which there would almost certainly be many if it were as controversial as anything involving moral rights ... therefore ... essentially, unanimous support is needed to amend the US constitution, and that is why nobody has been able to change some of the most controversial existing amendments and why the US Constitution has only been modified 27 time of the 11,623 proposed (0.23%) since it was written in the 1700s. That is of only those proposed after 2/3 vote. Some of us look through the clutter of semantics and banter to see the real pattern. Nice try though ;)

@elenhil I am no legal pundit or rhetorician, but ... There is no justification in UDHR 16(3) for state-driven mandate that it (morally) protect the family unit. It is pretty obvious that the intent of this Article is to recognize that the family unit be treated with rights attributable to the individual. It is a major subjective stretch to interpret these words to encompass the moral authority of the state to impose its own (i.e., your own) subjective over-interpretation of these words to include that the state may legitimately hold jurisdiction over the mechanics of the family ... or that it is any way related to existential survival. I emphatically disagree that any misguided human law attempting to limit the composition of the family unit could have any lasting impact on human reproduction or survivability (Family Research Council, anyone?) Similarly, Russian law --if citing Article 16-- is also subjectively over/mis interpreting this Article. Where is the evidence that homosexual families are undermining traditional families? ... and it is entirely reasonable (IMO) to accept homosexual families as legitimate families (without quotes, TYVM) having all of the analogous benefits of the traditional family. This Article actually goes through some purposeful effort (IMO) to avoid any reference to gender or class with regard to the people engaged in marriage. It allows for homosexual marriage as well as polygamous marriage. The family is entitled to 'protection' (by the State) from entities that would break up the family or otherwise compromise the integrity of an existing family unit ... not the State's subjective opinion of the composition of the prospective family unit. No, Russian lawmakers would no doubt suffer a loss in a rational debate on their interpretation, if your assumptions/facts are correct.

... 'love' is one way to look at the attraction, but I would argue that 'lust' is where it all begins. Lust for members of a gender will possibly lead to 'love' with a member of that gender eventually, but it is unlikely that we will fall in romantic love with a member of a gender for which we do not lust. I think evidence supports that nature is by far more in control of what we lust after than nurture (my subjective interpretation of the 'facts'), but nature is very complex and is also subject to environment (to some extent, even at the heritable genetic level). It is factually false that a person can be compelled into becoming homosexual due to propaganda, even children. I'll admit that children (and weak-minded adults) may (in very rare cases) find themselves potentially doing homosexuality in order to identify with a group, but I contest that they will actually become homosexual. Let's strip all of this intellectual argumentative banter to its core generalization: Socially conservative-minded people tend to be less tolerant relative to more socially liberal-minded people, and this probably stems from relatively more "insecurity of self" and "fear of other" of the more conservative group. At the same time (and for similar reasons) certain socially-liberal groups can be tiresome as well if they constantly pile on their world views ad nauseum. Russia is obviously dominated by the "fearful & insecure" and has some serious evolution to go through in order to catch up to other societies. Same can be said of many other countries. This is likely due to historic governments' implementation of social policy ... ? Democracies promote rights of the individual (to the extent that greed takes over society) and social evolution (except where it threatens the interests of capital) ... and now the USA has Citizens United, so that our delicate corporations can be treated as individuals, too . ... and Russia's democracy is still young and much more infused with theocratic 'ideals' than most Western cultures (Central/South Americas being notable exceptions). Anyway, some things are 'fact' and other things are opinion, and I'll bet it is a 'fact' that Russia has more homosexuality-related casualties than Western countries ... all because likely more of them (including those in government) have a general irrational fear of homosexuality largely driven by shame and religion ... and it is my 'opinion' that this is a rather silly state of affairs (wherever it exists) with no logical justification :P

Policy dictating changes to rights/ethics that are covered within a constitution would require amendment of that constitution, which requires near unanimous public and political support (for good reason). What we do or do not legally tolerate in terms of "free speech" is a moot point. You can say and think whatever you want ... you just cannot DO whatever you want. Russia (and all civilized secular nations) must have some constitution addressing free speech concepts. So lawfully imposing a subjective moral position of any individual/group on all other individuals/groups should be unconstitutional without unanimous support by amending the constitution itself. Sexuality is a moral/ethical right, and I would guess that it is unconstitutional to prevent a certain group from thinking and saying (and in many cases, doing) what they want/believe ... even in Russia. What we see in the documentary linked previously is illegal action of religious zealots against those they morally disagree with, and the government looks the other way when they should be admonishing those that are "misbehaving" out of a moral superiority that happens to be more common within the populace.

I don't understand the logic that the speed of a drive would have any impact of a file being successfully saved out or not. Could someone explain or point to the explanation?