One of them, sure.

I don't think there's "enthusiasm" so much as overly-diligent defense of something people don't hate. I've used Win8 and noticed two things:

Farscape is streaming on Amazon (and it's free - all four seasons - for anyone with Amazon Prime).

He didn't really make anyone's point, to be fair. You nearly-literally asked for that response.

I know there's some hyperbole at play, but speaking as someone whose job it is to work with "1990s flight simulator(s)," (actually early aughts, but the point even applies to those), not a single one of the textures in there look like they're from a flight sim (i.e. none of them are that bad). Not even close.

Psychologically speaking, it's probably not specifically violence as an act that feels so rewarding, it's the fact that any combat in a video game has the quickest transition from action>reinforcement. Solving a puzzle is a delayed onset of the reinforcement (especially when it's a multi-step puzzle), but shooting…

...or stabbing him with 12 other arrows, or taking his stuff, or...

But they're always safe from the pandemic!

Huh. Sometimes you're just wrong. I guess that's the way of the world.

There are actually only four known elements, "Earth", "Wind", "Fire" and "September".

But when the majority of the customers (see: market research) prefer a bland "chin-down-eyes-up" cover, are they still right?

As I said, we're on the same page. (Although originally you were claiming that computers could make something fly that could not otherwise fly - "the plane would not be able to fly at all were it not for computer controlled microadjustments" - this was the genesis of my nitpicking.) This is probably an unfair thing…

I think you and I are using "fly" differently. Only lift and thrust makes something "fly," and computers alone can't make those things happen. Thrust requires some exchange of energy, and lift requires that energy to be leveraged in a certain way. A computer can pilot something (i.e. manipulate control surfaces in a…

Yeah, but the reason I jumped on the point is that it's a false equivalency (and because airplane flight is a big part of my job, so I jump on things aircraft) - the F-117 flies because physics let it, not because of technology, and that's an important point to make since it's entirely counterfactual to the one you…

Sorry, dude, I figured on a science and tech site you might like to learn something about science and tech. I'll be quiet and go home. Thanks for sucking the fun out of intellectual discussion.

Nothing is "not aerodynamic." You're talking about generating lift, which everything also does, to degrees. There numerous aircraft (airplanes, even) that generate less lift than an F-117 (which is a reasonable lift-generating body, it's just an unstable one insofar as attitude is concerned). It doesn't need…

This seems to be what you're talking about:

Both the F-117 and the B-2 (not sure which you're referring to here) have the "aerodynamics" to fly in the air, regardless of how much they rely on a fly-by-wire system to keep them stable. Neither airplane is a rocket or a hovering vehicle, which are the only types of aircraft we employ that don't fly with some…

Battlefront II's servers are still up and (relatively) populated.

Who knows? Maybe it was next to a ruptured [insert accelerant here] line. That's the go-to justification for any fireballs-in-space in most sci-fi.