TheCaptn

I can't figure this out. I have both the Steam and GOG versions of SSE installed now, and I wanted to build the GOG version specifically for Skyrim Together Reborn... But I can't figure out how to create a separate managed instance for it in Vortex. It seems like all I can do is change the game location on my original Steam instance, but that's not what I'm after.

Gear before bewbs my dude... We need guns. Lots of guns.

On the one hand I'd promised myself that I would finally commit to premium when Fallout 4 released (even though I'm unemployed again despite committing to an interstate move for a supposed new job right before the company went into receivership)... But a couple of months down the line it was those auto-playing ads that finally made me follow through on that self-promise. They're one of the most obnoxious things on the internet amd they've driven me entirely away from other sites... So even though it no longer directly affects me I'm really glad you folks are trying to put an end to them. Forcing users to close down all their Nexus tabs before they play the mods they've just downloaded doesn't seem like sound business practice for you -or- the advertisers.

My brother and I grabbed NWN2 during the Steam christmas sale, but neither of us can stand to play it with the godawful camera controls... Since we're expanding into this community I figured it'd be an ideal time to ask, are there any mods which fix that? All I'd really want is the standard always-on mouse rotation with WASD oriented on the camera rather than the character (turning is so slooooow) but I could never get any setup like that to work.

I'm working on my own player home but it's gotten to the point where in testing (i.e. when I enter it ingame) I get a pretty radical framerate drop and mouse lag kicking in. I'm on a fairly powerful system and it's still navigable, but only just... I'd like to share this home when it's ready, but I want it as streamlined and optimised as possible, so I'm hoping someone can provide me with a checklist for things to do or clean up. - Is there an preferred triangle count, and how do I check? - How big a performance hit are shadow-casting lights? I have three of them filling the floorspace as much as possible without overlapping. - How big a performance hit is mist? I have quite a lot of it, starting a little above the height of the player and rising to fill and obscure the space. - How careful do I have to be with unseen geometry? I'm using Dwemer square tables as floor tiles, which I'm sure isn't ideal but they look so damn cool. There's more, but you no doubt get the idea. It's a good looking, but poorly optimised space, and I really have no idea where to start cutting back.

I can't help thinking that maybe this mod would be more popular if it had a more meaningful title. Hot Files and Latest Files both get truncated, possibly other parts of the site as well. It seems plausible that many people don't read past the "CHSBHC body mod and BBP" to the "Breast and Butt Physics" part that actually summarises what the mod does. So it could use a title that quickly describes the mod, but is also more catchy. I'm leaning toward something like More Alluring Bouncy Bits (and possibly More Alluring Dangly Bits if you're planning on doing the same thing for males)... But perhaps it's better brainstormed. :D

Perhaps I missed it in the guide, but I presume that we're adding weights to the armor so it can scale appropriately with the breast and butt slider; is there an additional way to make them no-weight or half-weight in regards to bouncyness? I mean a metal breastplate shouldn't be flexing at all, and some stiff leather armor should have reduced flex compared to, say, a barmaid's tunic.

Yeah, I do tend to agree, but I also made the point that the game company behind -our- game isn't the only one with a potential copyright stake. A competing game company could conceivably push through a claim against Nexus based on, say, their game textures (Triss Armor?), or a media company for something like those Colleen Delaney audio captures that were my previous example, or a piece of music, etc.

Awesome! I look forward to your input then. Ok, lets say that for argument's sake the legislation would work as intended in a technical sense (I don't believe that, but since you're a lawyer and I'm a historian we're better off sticking to the academic problems). So hypothetically it would work in targeting the folks it wants to target, the torrent sites, the purveyors of counterfeit products, etc. The main fears still remain: 1) Scope for abuse: That the definitions of "deliberate theft" are broad enough to threaten the Safe Harbor provisions in the DMCA by making not only content hosts, but even portals which only link to content, and search engine directories responsible for constantly policing that content (driving costs up) lest they open themselves up to that label? 2) Guilty till proven innocent: That an entire domain can be targeted when the alleged infringement may only be occurring in a single subdomain, webpage, file or even a link. And that sites blocked on such an allegation bear the burden of proof in establishing their non-infringement. Also that PIPA still allows industry to take what amounts to independent civil action through the Justice Department (i.e. there's no protection against rubber-stamping) 3) Income risks: That the ad revenue and other forms of income can be targeted on an allegation rather than established infringement, and that recovery of lost revenue in cases where the site is able to prove its non-infringement require that site to go on and prove that the allegation was known to be false at the time it was made (an almost impossible task). 4) Whoops! Jail: That the definitions of commercial and non-commercial conduct are so vague that they potentially criminalise activities that the law currently protects, such as creating video content that doesn't quite meet the Fair Use provisions, despite complying with appropriate legal directives such as DMCA takedown notices. I'm taking this one separately because again I immediately think of Zenimax's DMCA notice to Skyrim Mods Weekly. Since there's no way that they could have mistaken the Fair Use nature of gameplay footage with an audio commentary track, I think the speculation that they knowingly submitted a fraudulent complaint for the purpose of removing 'killable children' from the public eye during the game's peak media exposure is quite fair. The reason they didn't also target Nexus (the source of the mod) may simply come down to it's 2+ million members versus the 500-1000 subscribers that MMOxReview had at the time, coupled with that video's unexpected popularity.. The files aren't sold, but the site clearly depends on ad revenue. And how much of that ad infrastructure is based in the US? For Fallout: New Vegas I made a follower mod for my own use that included audio captures of Colleen Delany (now featured in Skyrim) sourced from Deathlands series of audiobooks by GraphicAudio. I believe I was within my rights for personal use, but clearly if I'd distributed that it would have been a copyright infringement. If I'd uploaded it to Nexus then the site may eventually have received a DMCA notice from GraphicAudio, or perhaps the file might have been unpopular and simply slipped by completely unnoticed. Imagine the same scenario under the proposed laws. The moment I upload that file I'm potentially putting Nexus at risk of being labeled a 'deliberate thief', and the longer the file is available the more deliberate it looks. Nexus bears the responsibility for policing all of its content for that kind of infringement, so are the staff going to playtest every single mod before making them available? That's a tall order. In that situation, say the media corporations or DoJ are looking target Nexus for whatever reason (unlikely in truth, but an example that may be of much greater concern to other legitimate sites), all they'd have to do is monitor Nexus better than it can monitor itself. As soon as something slips through, like my follower mod, and if the site were hosted in the US (which it's not) they'd have the grounds they need not only to remove that mod, not even to shut down the Skyrim Nexus, but to take down the entire Nexus network offline for a time. However, since apparently Nexus is UK hosted, they'd have to resort to cutting off all the possible revenue streams that they have jurisdiction over. That's still potentially a huge hit to the finances of a site which may, based upon later legal proceedings, not have done anything truly wrong. Since it's the job of the MPAA legal team to find a way to get these laws passed, which presumably includes some attempts to manage public opinion, no I don't consider them a credible source. They don't even need to lie, indeed I don't expect they would, but it's far too easy to obfuscate... However I do realise I've put you in a bit of a tight spot, since I really couldn't find any contrary academic opinions; so perhaps we could agree that legal advice sought by and provided to elected representatives or media outlets is reliable enough (and I didn't specifically look for it, so maybe it's out there)? No bill ever states, in a nice, clear fashion "this bill will be ineffective in its implementation, and have negative long-term outcomes"; and yet from time to time we still end up with poor legislation that demands repeal... This is why we need the scrutiny of legal academics with a long experience of the practice of law, since they have a great deal of insight into the potential pitfalls of unclear language, broad definitions and insufficient oversight. It's true, that academic analysis can get hyped in the media reporting, and then again in the public rumor-mill, but simply pointing out that the hype exists doesn't actually contribute anything towards answering the original concerns of those academics. That's why I try to cut through the hype and go direct to the academic opinions (and in this case the specialist technical opinions too). You might want to take another look at SOPA Section 102 and PIPA Second 3. For obvious reasons these laws can -only- apply within the US, since that's all the US Government has jurisdiction over. SOPA targets US sites and US sites that link to foreign domains. PIPA targets foreign sites and domains by cutting off any potential relationships or transits through US sites, and in particular financial relationships (such as Google Ads and Amazon or YouTube partnerships). Also, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't new legislation override the rulings based on the old legislation, forcing the process to start over in establishing a new precedent? The 9th circuit ruling protects a site which "passively displays content that is created entirely by third parties", but that's the exact Safe Harbor protection that SOPA sections 102 and 103 seem to be targeting. Maybe the 9th Circuit will again cement that protection, or something similar a few years down the track, but do we really want to rely on that during the legislative draft process? Only because you weren't bothering to qualify your opinion with any reasoning more sound than "it's just my opinion". That's an intellectually disreputable method of protecting one's position from critical analysis, and it rubs me the wrong way... The good news is that now that you're presenting a case based on referenced material, like that 9th Circuit Court ruling, we can have a proper debate, like gentlemen.

Yes, it does help my argument. That's how an argument works, one person sets sets out their case, then the other person either discredits that case or presents a more compelling one... It's not my job to perform both sides in a debate when I'm only convinced by one of them. And you're suggesting that legal experts don't know the law, so they should leave that up to technical experts? So then presumably we can put the lawyers to better use building our internet infrastructure? Please do, I'll wait. When I looked I could only find snippits, apparently from the MPAA's legal team, but without any full-sentence quotes let alone a full text reference. I'd actually really appreciate it if you'd present a well researched challenge. I'm open to the possibility that I've got this all wrong, but when I tried to falsify my own position I couldn't find any credible sources that were against it. It's not really the same at all. History only has one objective truth, but it's largely obscured. As historians we're forced to constantly debate standards of evidence and the merits of social history versus recorded history, etc... The law is a series of subjective truths founded on (what some argue are objective, but I tend to disagree) fundamentals. It changes frequently in interpretation and application and demands a completely different skill set to stay informed. I made a very clear delineation between legal experts giving legal opinions, and technical experts giving expert technical advice. How did you miss that? You're not actually referring to the bill, you're just waving it like a flag. A reference would be, say a quote from Section 103 a (1.B.ii), hopefully accompanied by your explanation for why that -doesn't- create an unreasonable demand for a site like YouTube (or Nexus) to constantly police every piece of content for copyright infringement simply to avoid being labeled a 'Dedicated Thief'... Y'know, for example. And if you're going to go ahead and do that, since you've already stated that your position is based on a reading of the bill and not independent, qualified analysis; then I'd like a little more information on your qualifications vis à vis interpretation and practice.

Really? And you're arguing this based on a careful reading of the full text, backed by a long academic career as a respected legal expert? I'll be honest, I did my best to read the bills, and while I'm no stranger to long-winded and esoteric academic texts, I found them to be completely impenetrable. That's why, when it comes to making up my mind on something this complex, I'm happy to defer to independent experts. Who, incidentally, strongly disagree with you... On the legal issues: Mark Lemley (Stanford Law School), David Levine (Elon University School of Law), David Post (Beasley School of Law) Laurence Tribe - Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard University Law School Marvin Ammori - Stanford Center for Internet and Society Jason Mazzone - Gerald Baylin Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Lateef Mtima - Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice, Howard University School of Law And on the technical issues: Steve Crocker (CEO, Shinkuro Inc), Danny McPherson (Chief Security Officer, Verisign), Dan Kaminsky (Chief Scientist, DKH), Dr. David Dagon (Georgia Tech, School of Computer Science), Paul Vixie (Chairman and Chief Scientist, Internet Systems Consortium) Dr. Leonard Napolitano - Director, Center for Computer Sciences & Information Technologies, Sandia National Laboratories

I'm sorry you took offense at that, because it wasn't intended to be offensive. I have the utmost respect for the work you put into the site. I've been coming here for years, and although I've only recently been motivated to post I think I've done reasonably well in maintaining an articulate and considered level of discourse. I thought it was obvious that I was casting a judgement on the act, and not the actor, although perhaps that wasn't as clear as I'd intended. I still maintain that actions (or lack thereof) are a fair target for criticism, and don't think it's the appropriate time to start slinging around ad hominems in response.

You can still contact him directly through the YouTube messaging system. He's quite approachable... Anyway he got a takedown notice on the video. Zenimax apparently didn't want their product presented in that way, so they knowingly submitted a fraudulent copyright complaint despite the video clearly falling within the Fair Use guidelines.Anyway he decided to fight it, and the video has since been restored. I think the process took about six weeks, but you'd have to ask him for the specifics. He talks about the DMCA Takedown in a later video, . [Edit] I do just want to address this, because it does strike me as a bit of a cop-out. If you're convinced of the importance of an issue, even provisionally, there are alternatives to wading through stacks of peer-reviewed literature for the purpose of decision making. Find a strong source that you feel like you can rely on and read that (wikipedia is quite a good source in this case, since the article is so well vetted and still accessible)... If it's absolutely a time-critical problem, then find someone in your admin/moderator team whose impartiality you feel like you can rely on, and ask them to look into it for you and provide the Executive Summary version. If you're honestly not convinced that this is an issue worth looking into then at least just say so without prevarication.

I'm surprised and a little disappointed to see that Nexus -isn't- participating in the blackout. The Skyrim community has already been subjected to fraudulent DMCA takedown notices in the case of MMOxReview and the Skyrim Mods Weekly series. Something he now needs to challenge in a long-drawn-out "guilty until proven innocent" style fight if he ever hopes to apply for a YouTube partnership program. As a content producer in Second Life I've twice had to fight groundless DMCA complaints that were powered by drama-bombs rather than any legitimate concerns over content. It was such a draining experience that I lost all my enthusiasm for that virtual world, even though the legislation and not the world itself were to blame. DMCA is bad enough, throwing the burden of proof onto the very people who lack the resources put up a proper defense. SOPA/PIPA make things even worse by removing the Safe Harbor protection that ALL content hosts rely on. In practice that means a host, or a portal that links to a host, is no longer considered compliant if they act on DMCA complaints in a timely fashion. Any or all parts of such sites can be forcibly restricted immediately upon a complaint being made, without any part of the complaint first being validated, and with the burden of proof then placed on the blocked site rather than the entity making the complaint. And such conditions for unblocking having finally been met, the site still receives no protection against the exact same complaint being made again immediately upon its return. And the real kick in the nuts is that, unanimously, the network architects responsible for creating this wonderful tool we're all using have made it clear that these laws won't do anything to prevent actual piracy and content theft. In answer to the question "why should Nexus bother joining in", it would simply be to raise awareness. These laws will eventually effect us, regardless of where any of us are in the world. The existing laws already have, and we're still a community without a full set of mod tools (for Skyrim at least)... Only a small proportion of the 2.5 million members ever venture as far as the forums. Hell, it's really only this issue which brought me back for my third-ever post. I would strongly urge the administrators of Nexus to participate. It's one day, in fact it's really only 18 hours left now, and it's a chance to spread the message to a community which may not be as aware of this issue as we should.

Nice, because the boss informs me that I can't have this until she's got "hunky blacksmiths walking about with their tackle swaying in the breeze". :D Practical question though: From the standpoint of a modder who might want to use your rig as a basis for animations (and who wouldn't?), are there likely to be major changes once the Creation Kit is released? Of a sort that would require major revisions or complete restarts?... i.e. Is there much of importance that you just don't have access to for now?