z929669

We do not tolerate the advocacy or support of pirated software on this site. "Crap questions" are not punishable. Advocacy/discussion of pirated software IS. Do what you want on your own time, but any further discussion on the topic of pirated software or requests for support of any software suspect to be pirated (basically anything you use, by your own admission) ... will result in a formal warning or worse. The pot has been stirred, so best to let it rest a while.

With regard to social policy (social behaviors, not laws), even a small minority has rights that can be discriminated against (under the 1st amendment I think if not more of the US constitution ... my guess is that other Western cultures have similar constitutions). Freedom of religion and sexuality are good examples. Not a lot of satanic congregations out there, and there are relatively few transgender people; however, these groups are protected by law in most civilized countries, and unless there is almost unanimous (100%) support to restrict their non-violent/non-discriminating/non-abusive activities, then nobody should be legally advocating subjective propaganda and social reforms against these groups. Those social conservatives (e.g., Family Research Council and their ilk [including known sex offenders and apparently shamed homosexuals ... Josh Duggar, George Alan Rekers, etc. ]) that do insist upon doing so have some issues of their own to deal with before taking on those they perceive in others. I think you get my gist, so no hair-splitting please ;)

Agreed I don't think the phraseology is what you intended, so you might want to add the operative component here ... because I can rightly claim that a higher % is biologic in nature ;) Regarding Russian (and any) law on "homosexual propaganda" ... If Russian homosexuals were advertising and/or advocating the "benefits of homosexuality" to the general community or otherwise generating actual 'propaganda', then their laws are applicable to "protect the moral development of children" ... however, like many theologically-influenced laws or social positions, they are often misapplied or applied in bias by individuals/groups who's intention is not to 'protect' others in their society, but rather to 'protect' their own perceived threatened moral code out of irrational fear that they justify under the guise of their own subjective religion that they would impose on us all by law if they could. Imposing social conservatives = people that want to live in a culturally (ethnically?) homogeneous 'state' out of fear of 'other' and try their best to make that happen; intolerant hypocrites and bigots with a plethora of their own imperfections that they don't dare admit to themselves much less to others :) ... we all have bias and subjective opinions. That's fine. We should not be advocating social reforms based on our subjectivity though ... unless it is approaching unanimous support.

I have proposed this as well using GeSHi, but s4n did not like the use of JS ... I am still for this though, so will wait for him to post on this.

I agree that is is more complex than I make it seem. All I am saying is that our physiology and our behavior is formulated upon a genetic template. This genetic template defines the absolute limitations of our physiology and thus our behavioral capacities. The 'fact' is that sexuality has a very strong genetic component. This is because, ultimately, genes really do formulate the foundation for all behavior. Our physiology is the biological outcome of that foundation, and our physiology can be environmentally influenced (the extent of which is constrained by the genetic foundation). Even more complicated is our behavior, which ultimately is governed by our physiology and our sociology. Therefore, our behavior has strong genetic and environmental components. Our inherent 'drives' are almost entirely determined by our physiology. If our behaviors don't align with our drives, then the internal conflict must be very difficult, taxing, and possibly overwhelming. Therefore, it is invalid for anyone to say that sexuality is a person's choice and that said person is actively trying to deviate from (or piss off) the larger group by engaging in "socially unacceptable" behaviors. It is simply not true. Their sexuality has an enormous, genetically-constrained component that cannot be rationally denied. An article by William Byne (author cited in discrediting my own position - nature drives sexuality) adequately demonstrates the complexity of sexual orientation and its many potential biological and social determinants. My argument is that one's manifest behaviors always have a strong genetically-constrained component and that this component is particularly important with respect to latent sexuality. Manifest sexuality reasonably should be influenced more by environment in comparison; therefore, it is also reasonable to conclude that more homosexuals behave as heterosexuals than the reverse, due to social pressure (environment). So manifest homosexual social behavior is probably just as 'true' as manifest heterosexual behavior (if for no other reason than it is socially controversial) and so is just as natural and should be just as socially acceptable. The 'fact' is that those that identify as homosexuals are absolutely NOT making any kind of conscious choice to do so (except in those rare exceptions that are bound to exist). It is harder to be outside of the social norm, so I say that the outspoken religious-elitist social Gestapo ought to stick it where the Sun don't shine. Exactly: they return to their true nature :)

I'd like to point out that one's 'nature' insofar as one's instinctive drives/urges/tendencies can be markedly different from one's 'behavior'. The 'fact' is that all of one's purposeful behavior is ultimately dictated by choice (which also has nature/nurture components); however, how one instinctively 'feels' with respect to basal drives/urges is almost wholly dictated by one's physiology. So a gay person could behave as a heterosexual, but this would amount to enormous internal pressure, since it is acting in contrast to that person's nature. Humans are uniquely capable of altering their behavior against their nature ... but at great cost. The alternative cost (social pressure) can also be great though, but probably not as great as going against one's genetically-programmed nature. Thus, I say that if a person identifies socially as homosexual, it is almost always authentic and not some sort of 'deviant' choice they are purposefully making (but I do acknowledge taht it happens in rare cases). That would be much harder a choice to maintain, and it would be inherently inauthentic to the self in favor of (or sometimes contrary to) the society. Gay people are almost always 'gay' by no choice of their own, and to disagree is to deny the powerful influence of genetically-determined physiology and a body of research that is far more prevalent, consistent, objective, and credible than the body of 'research' that refutes it (the latter of which is contaminated largely by subjective religious fervor ... like arguments against climate change, age/shape of the Earth, evolution, etc.).

You need to download the installation media and create a bootable thumb drive or DVD ... then do a fresh install on your system. As long as you performed the upgrade first, this should fresh install as Activated Win 10. Your issues were most likely due to inevitable config issues that come with a major OS upgrade like Win 10. Fresh install will almost surely resolve. Also, you might stop using IE, especially under Win 10. It is heavy handed and feature poor in my opinion.

Not practicing anymore. I left academia due to how crappy our society deems the worth of academics ($$ sucks for the effort put in) ... much as the public views scientific research, as certain posts here allude. To anyone that wants to pick at terms like 'fact' and 'proof' in a philosophical sense ... that's fine, but almost entirely nit-picking semantics. Certain schools of philosophy logically argue against the reality of 'truth', 'fact' and 'proof' ... but we all have a good sense of what these concepts really mean in terms of logical conclusions. I use these terms here as they are typically intended and interpreted. I just won't stand by and let people say things like "my religion is the only True religion" ... or "climate change is a biased 'opinion' of the entirety of the functional scientific community" ... or "sexuality is a person's choice" ... or "reality is not real" ... without crafting a retort to openly dispute for the sake of posterity

Nature versus nurture largely does not apply to basal drives like hunger and sex drive (or innate sense of smell, intelligence, etc.). These have genetic/physiologic determinants much much more so than environmental ones (although these can be, to more or lesser extent, modified by the environment). These are governed predominantly by nature, not nurture. One is not taught, nor does one learn to be gay ... same as one is not taught to like the opposite sex. It is a raw fact of nature that begins with no environmental component. Science supports that nature is by far the strongest predictor of basal/fundamental drives. One does not 'choose' their sexuality. It is an innate component of the person that is predetermined for that person at birth. Only in rare cases of extreme environmental pressure is a pattern of behavior chosen (but your sexuality is set, regardless). I said 99.9% and 0.1% because i was illustrating my point. The nature versus nurture argument stands for almost all things except that which the environment cannot affect. A creative person suddenly does not lose his/her creativity based upon that person's experiences (aside from traumatic brain injury, maybe). He/she may not behave creatively for whatever environmental reason, but creativity is an innate aspect of that person's character as dictated by that person's physiology. Twin studies have clearly shown that even patterns of behavior have a very strong genetic component ... we are talking about sexuality. It is NOT a choice even in the least bit any more than my own heterosexuality is my choice. These are facts, not opinions. saying that something is wrong or not is an opinion ... what something IS or is NOT is simple fact. Off i go now, because I 'choose' to be hungry even though i really don't want to eat :/ Agreed ;)

Being gay is in almost all cases 99.9% nature and 0.1% nurture (there is no 'never' and there is no 'always' in biology) ... for the same reason that compels heterosexuals to inexplicably go mentally insane after the opposite sex. It is genetic, and the genes dictate the physiology, which in turn (largely) drives the psychology. Those few exceptions are cases of other unrelated personality/psychological disorders (and in those cases, the individual is not really homosexual anyway). Reproductive compulsion is deep-rooted in our basic, genetic-driven instincts. Some of us simply have a physiology that deviates from the general norm. Nobody 'decides' to like (or not like) sex or other relations with any gender class. They just 'do' as the victims of their physiology. It isn't 'propaganda' it is scientific fact ... like climate change, the reality of which is also up for 'debate' by the misinformed and fearful. I could say the same about any religion or socially-conservative viewpoint. Although, I do agree that many groups shove their agendas down our throats on both sides (liberal and conservative social agendas), and it annoys the hell out of me. Your personal conviction on this issue (like others') is swayed by subjective opinion and preference, not fact. You have the right to your own opinion, and I will like you no more or less for it; however, I cannot stand by and not call out any kind of subjectivity expressed as objectivity. For the record: I am a relatively old, heterosexual biologist with an unrealistic penchant for idealism and justice. ... and I am fine with Boris if I don't have to be subject to his subjective social opinions/actions to any unrealistic degree. However, if he begins waving any socially superior banner as his site or brand logo, I will happily stop using his products ... so please let me know if that is ever the case.

This is fine, but one of you is tasked with clearly and succinctly writing up a very brief general "Navigation Basics for the STEP Guides" article to be linked in an updated standard header for all guide pages ... IF we ever decide to change this behavior in the main guide :) Either way, there is a lot of room for error in updating those links, particularly those for the 'W' wiki links within the mod table template. This cannot be tested for verification in the dev guide, because it too relies on the universal template. This is a dev wiki task. Page history will reveal the proper change for those adventurous enough to delve into that, as I don't want to change what I think is a perfectly good thing at present. There is no practical reason to change now other than adherence to best practice, as nothing at all is broken. It works just as intended and is currently not in anyone's way (and [almost] everyone is happy with this behavior). If that changes, I will happily do the work.

Yeah, I get it, but the current implementation will ultimately provide a better overall user experience (appeals to the less browser savvy), so I think it is worth it ;)

OK, see that now; however, this shortcut is likely even less known to most users ;) Remember, most of our users are not going to be as browser savvy as you are, and they will not even think about opening in a new tab versus same window. I have made it easy for the ignorant (most users). I will try to form the habit, but old habits die hard (like simply left clicking on a link).

I'll agree to emphatically disagree then, s4n ;) Your points all make sense, but we will not be migrating (and if we do, fixing links containing "step-project.com" is pretty simple), and most people don't use the context menu to open new tab (and would agree that it is more of a pain; See DY's previous post!) ... and even if one knows about this, it is a PITA (4 clicks) compared to simply using external links. Follow the guide as a new user, and you will quickly see what i mean. It is much simpler to use for a much larger user base as it now stands (including me, and I understand how to force pages to open in new tabs, but I hate navigating around 4 clicks and context menu each time). I get your point about wikidev site though, so that is something to consider in that environment. The best solution would be to have an internal wiki link shortform that uses target="_blank" attribute, but that may not be possible ... ?

'best' practice is to use either external links or intra-wiki links. Use external links where it makes sense on guides and intra-wiki links everywhere else. maintenance is not an issue either way unless links change, which is not applicable to any links to our wiki, be they internal or external links, because we use redirects. Do what you want on the wiki in general and your own guides if you want (where they are unrelated to the STEP guide), but use external link format on the STEP guide(s) please, because following that guide requires movement all over the wiki whilst the guide itself remains primarily relevant. That is how it is set up in the guide presently and in guide templates containing links to internal wiki. People should not be expected to right click on links, open a context menu and then click again to open tab and then click on the tab that opened up (4 clicks). External links to internal wiki pages require a single left click, which opens & focuses on the new tab, leaving the original guide page and position intact. It's a no-brainer that requires zero added maintenance. This is the norm for the guide(s) and not the wiki (or other wikis) in general. Our guide is a special case, and it is the expected/preferred behavior. EDIT: this is OT in this discussion and we should end and refocus on the OP.

It is very simple to create/use various look/feel templates, but it is almost just as simple to use standard look/feel if it works (as neo does). Templates are useful for article elements that use a specific format that employs wiki code reuse. Normal text and wiki code lists and such are not good candidates for handling via template. Repetitive custom layout and/or look/feel deviations are. For example, it is not necessary to convert the followign to template: some information: * bulleted listHowever, it may be convenient to use a template for the following: some information: : {{Fs|0.9em|{{Fc|white|'''Exceptions to said info'''}}}} *bulleted list

In the guide in particular (all guides, actually) and all pages relating to a person that is following our guide(s), all links should be external link format rather than internal link format [[page|text]]. The reason is that it is much simpler to follow the guide from a window that never changes so that one can avoid using the back button and potentially getting lost and frustrated while following the guide. (I know from several trial runs following the guide myself as any new user would) ... when one will continuously be referencing a given page, it is not useful to navigate away from that page in order to follow-up on ancillary info, only to have need to go back to the original page. This is disruptive behavior. Standards aside, we need to continue making it simple to follow the guide(s) and keep once's place in the guide while referencing ancillary info. It is FAR easier on users this way. That said, external links are not always best on mod pages ... only when there is a common scenario of needing to keep reference info up whilst investigating linked info that may or may not be applicable to what the guide follower may be reading at the moment. Scenario: User is following the guide and clicks on ANY link ... it should open in another tab 100% of the time, and we need to assume that most people don't know the nav tricks and will always left click links (all links in guide must be external ... ALL of them).User follows "Detailed instructions available" link in guide for a particular mod (opens in new tab 100% of the time; driven by template, same goes for 'W' links)User follows a link from instructions in that new-tabbed resulting mod page (opens a new tab if "Forum" link is followed, but opens same tab if Nexus mod link is followed ... it is probably not such a big deal on mod pages, since the original guide tab still exists at the point the user began "clicking out" of the guide, but we do have some inconsistency in our mod template with respect to forum/nexus link behavior).

Actually, the details you want are in the guide itself. you just need to read the guide just as Tech pasted above: https://wiki.step-project.com/STEP:2.2.9.2#Nomenclature ... this also links to a description of Core versus Extended. I added a bit of clarity to this section of the guide. The guide table legend also specifies Core mods: https://wiki.step-project.com/STEP:2.2.9.2#Mod_Tables_Legend

Yep, you are good, so have at it ;)

I fixed by adding an 'n/a' fallback where there is no Baseline stated. thanks for letting us know

np, man ;)

Can't really beat that in terms of bang for buck. Seconded.

OK, so several of the preceding posts have been updated, so suggest anyone that was here about an hour before this post re-reads the last few posts :P Start here and read on ... feedback/confirmation would be appreciated! Could we have confirmation that what we have actually does preserve the setting as one would expect? I don't trust either source 100% at this point! EDIT: oh, and I don't trust the ini value (65) at all and never did. Until I have your confirmation (after testing however you see fit), the only sure way to check/set the fov is via the console ... some have reported that the game adds either 65 or 75 as the INI value, depending on hardware detection, but I am not sure.

arrgh. I just discovered my own dyslexia at work ... it is confusing, and I got it wrong again. 16:10 FOV should be lower FOV than 16:9, duh. I had it backwards so updating the post to reflect (read it again if you have not seen this post!) EDIT: ... turns out that my original advice on the wiki was correct, just confusing and left out needed context. I will update once we have more feedback from a few others on this thread.

I wrote it and provided the links ... 'default' FOV depends on your monitor aspect ratio. Purportedly, it's 65 for 16:10 and it's 75 for 16:9 ... but I am not sure it that is absolute fact (can't remember my findings). 16:10 and 75 look best (so after conversion, 16:9 and 81 are analogous). 'Proper' conversion is 81 (if changing to 16:10 from 16:9 where the original is 75) and 60 (if changing from 16:9 to 16:10 where the original is 65) .... but those conversions ONLY matter if you want to keep the Skyrim default FOV when switching to a new monitor with a new aspect ratio in either direction stated, AND you want to preserve the analogous FOV to either of the Skyrim default aspect ratios. (many people agree that the defaults are not 'ideal', because they are more related to the console version of the game and not the LCD of most PCs)). I tested various FOV exhaustively using various scenes and motion in game and measured the relative differences in object sizes as those objects got closer to the edge of the screen (higher FOV results in a larger view field at the expense of linearly-proportional inflation of relative size as objects approach the edge of the screen from center i.e., fish eye). After much testing, I found that one could get slightly more 'immersed' into the content by slightly increasing the view field (seeing more) from the default. For 16:10, increasing from "whatever the default was" (probably 65) to 75 was a good result without obviously deforming the scene (fish-eye look). This corresponds to 81 for 16:9. What is wrong in that description is that I recommended an increase for 16:9 (from 65 to 75) when it actually should be a decrease relative to my assessed 'ideal' for 16:10 (75 to 81). So I recommend using 81 in that calculator for 16:10 and using that value for 16:9, which should actually be 75.1. It is all subjective, but I think that increasing the view is something that everyone wants (reality is 360 ... well, it's really 180 I suppose for those that don't have eyes in the back of their head ), so why not increase it in a way that does not cause any obvious deformation? Makes sense, and I did the work, so may as well share the (corrected) result of that labor. Naysayers, please test default FOV by entering the console and typing ' fov ' then see what it looks like when changing by entering console and typing either ' fov 65 ' (16:10) or ' fov 75 ' (16:9). If there is no change, then you have just confirmed the default for your Skyrim/monitor. Now change using ' fov 81 ' (16:9) or ' fov 75 ' (16:10). If everyone agrees that the difference is an improvement, then this is good advice ;) Also of interest: Preserving FOV in Skyrim