CGurrell

I'm very disappointed. I was expecting the yearly review on Define R4. /unsubcribing now.

This really helped, especially the PCPP search, thank you. Looks like I have some decisions to make

Hey Guys,
 
So the plexi window on my Define S Windowed Edition is starting to show its age with microscratches and just not looking as clear as it used too. I'm thinking about replacing the plexi with a sheet of glass. I was wondering whether anyone else had done the same, and knows of the best cheap and easy way (i.e. not drilling through the glass) to stick the glass to the side panel?
 
Thanks,
 
Chris Gurrell

A leak that is not about Ryzen? HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE!?! 

Inb4 it's a "Ryzen Compatible" keyboard

Inb4 it's a "Ryzen Compatible" keyboard

Your manual suggests using PCI_E1 and PCI_E3 for x16 + x16 or x8 + x8 depending on your CPU PCIe lane availability.   While PCI_E5 is a x16 slot, you will have to try it to see if it works in x16 or x8 since your motherboard may force you into x8, which isn't necessarily bad at all.  There's really no difference between x16 or x8.
 
I've also attached a copy of your manual for you.  Good luck.


7885v1.1(G52-78851XG)(X99A SLI PLUS).pdf

you should check the mobo manual

I guess it depends on how many lanes your CPU has

Yes it does.
 
Some slots are "CPU" pcie lanes.  The others are the "PCH" pcie lanes.  Graphics cards should be in the "CPU" pcie lanes.
 
Answer to your question.  Yes it will work.  I believe for that particular board, all the "longer" pcie lanes are CPU pcie lanes.  So any of them will work for graphics cards and SLI.

okay like.. I know this is off topic - but this isn't a dating forum........
 
This isn't like.. Against ToS or community conduct but... no... 

The noise could be the air passing through the rad fins

In what is one of the biggest U-Turns by a party in recent history, the UK government has passed the investigatory powers bill, which will now head to the House of Lords for approval, thanks to the Labour Party deciding not to abstain from voting on it, and voting for it instead. The Controversial bill forces ISP's to store 12-months worth of every customers Internet History, which can be searched by Police without the need of a Warrant, and without the knowledge of the person in question. The Bill is so controversial, that the UK newspaper, The Independent, has actually suggested the use of anonymous web browser Tor to its readers (see here).
 
On Tuesday night, 444 MPs voted in favour of the third reading of the Investigatory Powers Bill. The SNP, Liberal Democrats, and the Green Party opposed the proposed law representing just 69 votes. The bill will now proceed to the House of Lords. This marks the first occasion that a majority of Labour MPs have voted for the bill to be passed, thanks to Andy Burnham and his proposed amendments to the Bill (mentioned here). These proposals were designed to reduce the power that the bill has, and the affect these proposals have had is the desired one, with encryption of devices and connections no longer considered illegal thanks to the Bill. In a revised edition, encryption backdoors were suggested, however these have also been abolished in the passed Bill. All is not well, however, as the crux of the issues with the bill circled around the ability for Police and Government to get information (sometimes personal) about anybody via ISPs.
 
Update: As explained by KitGuru, none of the amendments proposed prior to the vote concerning the Bill were passed, though the Bill has been changed since it's last reading. These amendments included "calls to better define its wording and to require reasonable suspicion before spying on someone".
 
It is important to note that the House of Lords has blocked the passing of this Bill before, and can do so again if they wish. This would require a decent overhaul of the Bill before being passed to the Lords again. It is important to note that the House of Lords can only delay a bill for so long: "Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto." (from Wikipedia - not exactly reliable normally but normally good for stuff like this)
 
One last thing to note - Not only does The Investigatory Powers bill not deem the use of VPNs, Tor, or other means of hiding internet history illegal, it doesn't even mention VPNs or Tor, and only mentions the word "Encryption" 3 times. I do wonder how a government can pass a bill relating to spying and collecting information, specifically internet history, without considering VPNs or browsers like Tor. It makes me wonder how many "Experts" they actually consulted before drafting this Bill.
 
Source: ArsTechnica  http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/labour-backs-principle-of-investigatory-powers-bill/
 
The Bill in full: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5buBct5cGDZNnRMVXFIVkI3eTA/view (Yes it's a Google Drive link, and no it's not mine)

In what is one of the biggest U-Turns by a party in recent history, the UK government has passed the investigatory powers bill, which will now head to the House of Lords for approval, thanks to the Labour Party deciding not to abstain from voting on it, and voting for it instead. The Controversial bill forces ISP's to store 12-months worth of every customers Internet History, which can be searched by Police without the need of a Warrant, and without the knowledge of the person in question. The Bill is so controversial, that the UK newspaper, The Independent, has actually suggested the use of anonymous web browser Tor to its readers (see here).
 
On Tuesday night, 444 MPs voted in favour of the third reading of the Investigatory Powers Bill. The SNP, Liberal Democrats, and the Green Party opposed the proposed law representing just 69 votes. The bill will now proceed to the House of Lords. This marks the first occasion that a majority of Labour MPs have voted for the bill to be passed, thanks to Andy Burnham and his proposed amendments to the Bill (mentioned here). These proposals were designed to reduce the power that the bill has, and the affect these proposals have had is the desired one, with encryption of devices and connections no longer considered illegal thanks to the Bill. In a revised edition, encryption backdoors were suggested, however these have also been abolished in the passed Bill. All is not well, however, as the crux of the issues with the bill circled around the ability for Police and Government to get information (sometimes personal) about anybody via ISPs.
 
Update: As explained by KitGuru, none of the amendments proposed prior to the vote concerning the Bill were passed, though the Bill has been changed since it's last reading. These amendments included "calls to better define its wording and to require reasonable suspicion before spying on someone".
 
It is important to note that the House of Lords has blocked the passing of this Bill before, and can do so again if they wish. This would require a decent overhaul of the Bill before being passed to the Lords again. It is important to note that the House of Lords can only delay a bill for so long: "Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto." (from Wikipedia - not exactly reliable normally but normally good for stuff like this)
 
One last thing to note - Not only does The Investigatory Powers bill not deem the use of VPNs, Tor, or other means of hiding internet history illegal, it doesn't even mention VPNs or Tor, and only mentions the word "Encryption" 3 times. I do wonder how a government can pass a bill relating to spying and collecting information, specifically internet history, without considering VPNs or browsers like Tor. It makes me wonder how many "Experts" they actually consulted before drafting this Bill.
 
Source: ArsTechnica  http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/labour-backs-principle-of-investigatory-powers-bill/
 
The Bill in full: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5buBct5cGDZNnRMVXFIVkI3eTA/view (Yes it's a Google Drive link, and no it's not mine)

Not happy about this at all. These are very scary times we live in.

The problem I have is the fact that no warrant is needed to check somebody's internet history, and as far as I can tell, there's no communication to the accused required, heck they may not even know they've done anything wrong or that they're being investigated at all. I know it could've been a heck of a lot worse, but this still doesn't sit right with me.

In what is one of the biggest U-Turns by a party in recent history, the UK government has passed the investigatory powers bill, which will now head to the House of Lords for approval, thanks to the Labour Party deciding not to abstain from voting on it, and voting for it instead. The Controversial bill forces ISP's to store 12-months worth of every customers Internet History, which can be searched by Police without the need of a Warrant, and without the knowledge of the person in question. The Bill is so controversial, that the UK newspaper, The Independent, has actually suggested the use of anonymous web browser Tor to its readers (see here).
 
On Tuesday night, 444 MPs voted in favour of the third reading of the Investigatory Powers Bill. The SNP, Liberal Democrats, and the Green Party opposed the proposed law representing just 69 votes. The bill will now proceed to the House of Lords. This marks the first occasion that a majority of Labour MPs have voted for the bill to be passed, thanks to Andy Burnham and his proposed amendments to the Bill (mentioned here). These proposals were designed to reduce the power that the bill has, and the affect these proposals have had is the desired one, with encryption of devices and connections no longer considered illegal thanks to the Bill. In a revised edition, encryption backdoors were suggested, however these have also been abolished in the passed Bill. All is not well, however, as the crux of the issues with the bill circled around the ability for Police and Government to get information (sometimes personal) about anybody via ISPs.
 
Update: As explained by KitGuru, none of the amendments proposed prior to the vote concerning the Bill were passed, though the Bill has been changed since it's last reading. These amendments included "calls to better define its wording and to require reasonable suspicion before spying on someone".
 
It is important to note that the House of Lords has blocked the passing of this Bill before, and can do so again if they wish. This would require a decent overhaul of the Bill before being passed to the Lords again. It is important to note that the House of Lords can only delay a bill for so long: "Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto." (from Wikipedia - not exactly reliable normally but normally good for stuff like this)
 
One last thing to note - Not only does The Investigatory Powers bill not deem the use of VPNs, Tor, or other means of hiding internet history illegal, it doesn't even mention VPNs or Tor, and only mentions the word "Encryption" 3 times. I do wonder how a government can pass a bill relating to spying and collecting information, specifically internet history, without considering VPNs or browsers like Tor. It makes me wonder how many "Experts" they actually consulted before drafting this Bill.
 
Source: ArsTechnica  http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/labour-backs-principle-of-investigatory-powers-bill/
 
The Bill in full: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5buBct5cGDZNnRMVXFIVkI3eTA/view (Yes it's a Google Drive link, and no it's not mine)

The problem I have is the fact that no warrant is needed to check somebody's internet history, and as far as I can tell, there's no communication to the accused required, heck they may not even know they've done anything wrong or that they're being investigated at all. I know it could've been a heck of a lot worse, but this still doesn't sit right with me.

In what is one of the biggest U-Turns by a party in recent history, the UK government has passed the investigatory powers bill, which will now head to the House of Lords for approval, thanks to the Labour Party deciding not to abstain from voting on it, and voting for it instead. The Controversial bill forces ISP's to store 12-months worth of every customers Internet History, which can be searched by Police without the need of a Warrant, and without the knowledge of the person in question. The Bill is so controversial, that the UK newspaper, The Independent, has actually suggested the use of anonymous web browser Tor to its readers (see here).
 
On Tuesday night, 444 MPs voted in favour of the third reading of the Investigatory Powers Bill. The SNP, Liberal Democrats, and the Green Party opposed the proposed law representing just 69 votes. The bill will now proceed to the House of Lords. This marks the first occasion that a majority of Labour MPs have voted for the bill to be passed, thanks to Andy Burnham and his proposed amendments to the Bill (mentioned here). These proposals were designed to reduce the power that the bill has, and the affect these proposals have had is the desired one, with encryption of devices and connections no longer considered illegal thanks to the Bill. In a revised edition, encryption backdoors were suggested, however these have also been abolished in the passed Bill. All is not well, however, as the crux of the issues with the bill circled around the ability for Police and Government to get information (sometimes personal) about anybody via ISPs.
 
Update: As explained by KitGuru, none of the amendments proposed prior to the vote concerning the Bill were passed, though the Bill has been changed since it's last reading. These amendments included "calls to better define its wording and to require reasonable suspicion before spying on someone".
 
It is important to note that the House of Lords has blocked the passing of this Bill before, and can do so again if they wish. This would require a decent overhaul of the Bill before being passed to the Lords again. It is important to note that the House of Lords can only delay a bill for so long: "Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto." (from Wikipedia - not exactly reliable normally but normally good for stuff like this)
 
One last thing to note - Not only does The Investigatory Powers bill not deem the use of VPNs, Tor, or other means of hiding internet history illegal, it doesn't even mention VPNs or Tor, and only mentions the word "Encryption" 3 times. I do wonder how a government can pass a bill relating to spying and collecting information, specifically internet history, without considering VPNs or browsers like Tor. It makes me wonder how many "Experts" they actually consulted before drafting this Bill.
 
Source: ArsTechnica  http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/labour-backs-principle-of-investigatory-powers-bill/
 
The Bill in full: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5buBct5cGDZNnRMVXFIVkI3eTA/view (Yes it's a Google Drive link, and no it's not mine)

The problem I have is the fact that no warrant is needed to check somebody's internet history, and as far as I can tell, there's no communication to the accused required, heck they may not even know they've done anything wrong or that they're being investigated at all. I know it could've been a heck of a lot worse, but this still doesn't sit right with me.

I'm not sure I understood 100% what it is you're trying to do.
But as long as EACH sound device is registered as unique to Windows,
here goes:
https://www.reddit.com/r/software/comments/3f3em6/is_there_a_alternative_to_chevolume/cyptuz2
 
ADD:
Basically what happens with this app is that you choose where you want to play each and every audio source. When you start the up all audio will be on "Default Audio Device" then you just transfer each one of them to where you want to play them.
 
THIS IS NOT MINE. AND I AM NOT AFFILIATED IN ANY WAY WITH THE DEV.
 
 I just use it for when I play music on my TS Lobby.

For the cPU cooler get like a Cryorig H7 or BeQuiet! Pure Rock, even though temps don't matter to much these both are quite a bit quieter.
Also for the GPU get an R9 380, around 5-15% more performance depending on the game.
Everything else seems fine to me

Spending too much on the motherboard and possibly on the case, and a 380 is going to be faster than a 960, and get pretty sizable performance gains from DX12
 
380 vs 960 benchmarks
 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2015/08/03/amds-radeon-380-replaces-nvidia-gtx-960-as-the-new-1080p-champ/#5519c6066de7

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2980028/components-graphics/amd-radeon-r9-380-review-the-best-200-graphics-card-you-can-buy-for-1080p-
gaming.html?page=2
 
 
PCPartPicker part list: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/dnCGmG
Price breakdown by merchant: http://pcpartpicker.com/p/dnCGmG/by_merchant/
CPU: Intel Core i7-6700 3.4GHz Quad-Core Processor  ($299.99 @ SuperBiiz)
Motherboard: MSI B150M Pro-VD Micro ATX LGA1151 Motherboard  ($63.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2133 Memory  ($49.50 @ Newegg)
Storage: Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive  ($46.98 @ OutletPC)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R9 380 4GB Double Dissipation Video Card  ($189.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Cooler Master N200 MicroATX Mid Tower Case  ($41.99 @ Directron)
Power Supply: EVGA 650W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply  ($75.39 @ Amazon)
Total: $767.83
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-05-02 22:45 EDT-0400

60fps on console? Whaaaa? 
 
Yeah you read it right, according to KitGuru, Sony are going to reject any PSVR titles that drop below 60fps. Personally, im not exactly sure how this will work. Will game developers have to lower graphical/texture qualities to keep the refresh rate up? Furthermore, is 60fps even enough for VR when the likes of Oculus and HTC prefer I believe 90fps? Sony is offering 60, 90 and 120fps options to developers, but have stated anything below 60fps will be rejected. 
 
Source: http://www.kitguru.net/channel/generaltech/matthew-wilson/sony-to-reject-any-playstation-vr-games-that-drop-below-60-fps/

60fps on console? Whaaaa? 
 
Yeah you read it right, according to KitGuru, Sony are going to reject any PSVR titles that drop below 60fps. Personally, im not exactly sure how this will work. Will game developers have to lower graphical/texture qualities to keep the refresh rate up? Furthermore, is 60fps even enough for VR when the likes of Oculus and HTC prefer I believe 90fps? Sony is offering 60, 90 and 120fps options to developers, but have stated anything below 60fps will be rejected. 
 
Source: http://www.kitguru.net/channel/generaltech/matthew-wilson/sony-to-reject-any-playstation-vr-games-that-drop-below-60-fps/