EtherealN

No it didn't. ;) Well, unless you picked some very dodgy client to install and this one came loaded, but basically - it doesn't have access to that kind of stuff. The operating system does however have access to that stuff, and when you install something that introduces new file associations Windows will rummage through it. It's exactly the same thing that happens as when you install an mp3 player or get VLC installed. I've gotten blank desktop icons from all kinds of things (for example, installing WinAMP). Got them back through eeither forcing an Explorer process restart or simply starting/stopping a fullscreen application. Caused windows to reload it's icons and to do it properly that time. Reinstalling the OS for some shortcut icons is also a bit weird, just change them back. Now, seriously, unless you've gotten your machine infected by something nasty through downloading a bunch of less-than-legal torrents that came with payloads, there is no way for a torrent download to damage anything - and even then it would be highly unlikely simply because such virii aree out of fasion. The proposition is akin to saying that tuning into a specific AM radio station will cause your radio to catch fire...

SHAMEFUL DISPRAY!!! ;)

Now this one looks familiar... :D

Long post? Ask people about my posts when I get going... :) Anyway, some reactions that might help give nuance here: View distances is a fidelity issue mainly, not an optimization issue (though optimization can the come into play after, regarding performance). "Main screen" and MFD's etcetera are actually separate 3D renderings with partly their own parameters. (They have to be.) But something being visible on TGP does not mean it becomes visible on "main screen" as a side effect. However, there are multiple ways where graphical configuration can cause unrealistic results: for example, aliasing can make something much more visible than it should be. But if you adjust for aliasing, suddenly things that should be _barely_ visible will be absolutely invisible if you have good antialiasing. As an example. (And similarly, someone playing at a lower resolution can in some situations have an easier time spotting things than someone playing at a higher resolution, simply through "dat pixel" being so much bigger. Similar things can happen simply through monitor size, as well.) Basically, until everyone has identical computer setups, that type of fidelity issue will never find a perfect solution. There is still work to be done there though, this I will agree with.

Interesting point to highlight: (Yes, Fox News, but this is a quotation of the producers so it should work.) What I want to highlight with this is: _statements_ of some of the investigators _prove_ X and Y. Nothing strange with there being dissenting opinions in an investigative panel, but by asserting _proof_ this movie's PR department has certainly set high expectations for itself. :)

The C isn't particularly useful if you want to simulate a 1980s Fulda Gap scenario. (Well, you can approximate things through restricting payloads etcetera, but you get the point.)

From my read he said the opposite?

Sell it as a server? It's a supercomputer. It'll sit in their labs doing whatever calculations their armed forces, univsersities etcetera task it to do, just like all other supercomputers. (Though they just might sell time on it, just like is done for most non-military (and even some military) supercomputing centres across the west.) Anyone (almost) can purchase time one the supercomputing centre in Solna, Stockholm, for example.

Assuming this was what happened: 1) User A purchased the license. 2) User A unlinked the license from his account, and gave you the serial number as a gift. 3) Did you use said serial number yet, and did you do this in MP? If "no" on #3, please try this. If "no" on #2, please ask him to do this. If he can PM me the ticket number I can look at it.

A-10C and P-51D are Eagle Dynamics products for DCS World. The F-35 is not. Also, there is a key difference between the F-35 and the MF or Tie Fighter: The F-35 exists in reality. It will be interesting to see what KI can do with it, but apparently they were able to persuade the powers that be that they are indeed capable of making a good representation of it. I'm surprised, but they're the guys that make a living off of doing stuff like that, I'm just a moderator. :P Your suggestion would be that ED should block development of aircraft based on some sort of concept where all DCS aircraft should be "fair fights". Well, ED already stated more than a year ago (indeed, I think it's closing in on two years now) that this is not what DCS is. DCS will offer aircraft (and indeed not only aircraft) from a wide variety of eras and locations. Then you, as the user, get the freedom to do whatever you want to do with those. Within that freedom is, of course, to NOT place a given unit into your mission. Thus your argument essentially is one where you are complaining about third parties giving you a choice. I certainly do not agree with that.

The prenneially difficult concept: Then don't make a mission that pits them against each other. Not a difficult concept. ;)

Simple way to understand this: The Chinese own it. Thus, it is a Chinese supercomputer. Easy. ;) Otherwise you'd start saying that, for example, the Norwegian air force isn't Norwegian since component aircraft thereof are american. Well yes they are, but the planes are still Norwegian. What's important isn't the complex supply, manufacture etcetera chain, what's important is who owns the thing and thus makes use of it.

Careful with the nostalgia there. Remember the bugfest? :) You can do a lot of cool stuff if the survival of your company is not considered a requirement. :P

Doesn't matter. bOR38552MJA

Suggest you reread those announcements carrfully. First release is simplified, but what did it say after you stopped reading? ;)

So you missed the fact that ED has a flanker in the pipeline? ;)

There is no way for a torrent file to screw up an HDD. It might spread files too much (then defrag) and it might task the HDD heavily while in use, but you have to have a monster connection to run into that problem. (Or have an ancient HDD.)

A deal was already made: Ubisoft permits the FC products, but on condition of requiring LOMAC. So yes, a deal can always be made. :) I guess the alternative would be to putchase the rights to lockon, but that would probably be prohibitively expensive.

This is called rigging the game. Kickstarter has not existed long enough to see the kind of product you are describing through its devrlopment cycle. Also, excluding indies similarly rigs the game: it is already proven quite useful for indies. (And would you notice, the people we talk about here are indies...) It is proven useful for larger projects too - star citizen part.financed eith it to show investors that there is demand. This was successful. Kickstarters dont have to completely replace traditional project funding to proove its value.

Only in some very operation-intensive scientific applications. For games, the tests I have seen indicate a 1 to 2 percent performance boost - within the margins of error.

Inspur doesn't seem directly relevant, can you elaborate? We're seeing a chinese company with investment money from the US (same thing again) involved in the driving of the project. But, again, the argument I responded to was that since the CHIPS are INTEL they are US "tech". If you want to argue against my point, start with arguing against my point: I was responding to one specific claim. If you want to argue that there are several nation's tech involved... well duh! Of course it is. ;) I'm not arguing against the multinationality of technology, that's obvious today, I am responding to the very specific claim that this is "US tech". Do you have any objection to me objecting against that classification? If so, please explain it. :) Illustration: what is my computer? American-owned tech developed in Israel, manyufactured in malaysia, on chinese materiel. Add Taiwanese tech manufactured in china on chinese materiel. Probably some Korean in there as well for the displays. And since I built it myself, from your example of the assembly - I guess it's "swedish tech"? The point is: you can't just take one part of a project or machine, look at where the company has it's HQ, and then decide that the project or machine has a nationality based on where that HQ is located.

Except he said "tech", not raw materiel. Of we tslk raw materiel, most of your electronics is Chinese. :P

Can illustrate like this: by your logic Volvo is "Chinese tech". Except development and production is (mostly) in Sweden. So is it Chinese tech because they bought the company, or Swedish tech because it was developed by swedes, in sweden?

I think you mean Israeli tech... The company is american, they are produced in Malaysia, they are developed in Israel. :) The stock market handles finance, not tech. And the tech for these was developed at Intel's Israeli labs.

Know what would have been awesome? If this year's Bilderberger conference took place in Perm. Imagine how loud the X-files theme would have played! :)