Solidefiance

You're absolutely right, I didn't mention the injustices, just like the BLM movement doesn't mention any of the good qualities of Police or mention that not all Officers' are the same. The BLM movement has systematically thrown all Police into a single bread bowl and it doesn't matter that there is a human behind the badge, regardless of whether or not the Officer is Black, White, Asian or Hispanic. I didn't mention a lot in respects to the movement because in my opinion they're hypocrites at the very least, they condemn all of the Cops' but when a black thug decides to shoot up a neighborhood or burn down a business, it's considered an act of bravery and resolution for the movement as a whole. They rarely if at all condemn their own people. They chalk it up to be that the person(s) in question did it because of "oppression" which let's be honest, is a big load of BS and then some. Or my favourite, because they came from a poor black neighborhood, or alternatively, drugs were involved. Let's also take a look at protests that are for all intensive purposes 'peaceful' for example when they blockaded a highway, they halted all traffic, people going to work, delivery shipments of food, resources of all types, you name it, just to spread their word. I'm sorry, but to me that is a terrorist-like act of aggression when you block an ecosystem from performing what it needs to -- i.e., going to work to provide for your family, delivery shipments of needed things, etc. At that point in time, the entire lot of them should of been thrown in jail. Let's look at another protest, where the BLM movement has gone all over North America to halt Gay Pride Parades. their demands were that Police were not to be involved in any pride parades from there on out. How in what shape or form does that have ANYTHING to do with their movement? It doesn't. They just want Police to not be a thing, period. Fast forward to now, the latest BLM "riot" in Milwaukee, before ANY of them decided to look at the facts, they raised what they could to ground. Facts shortly emerged after that, the guy that was shot and killed in question was named Syville Smith he has a lengthy arrest record. He was shot while running from the Police during a traffic stop, which would be something to riot about if it wasn't for the fact that the guy pulled a loaded weapon and pointed it at the Police. BLM could arguably (but stupidly) say "racism!" if it weren't for the fact that the cop in question that shot him was black himself. Systematic oppression? Right, because the system caused him to point a loaded weapon at Police, sure. Oh and by the way, the gun that the guy had was a stolen gun with over 500 rounds of ammunition. Besides, even if all of the aforementioned wasn't the case, let's say it was Police brutality or racism, it doesn't give ANYONE a right to burn down neighborhoods, attack random cops' and white civvies, to vandalize cars or loot whatever is in the way. At no point in time does it give anyone a right to behave the way they have. There is never a reason to burn down innocent businesses, neighborhoods, nor harm innocent civvies. Period. Lastly, terrorist is a broad word used. We typically don't call past civilizations terrorists because it's a fairly new word, started around the 1800's, by the French. The word Terrorisme (French) in turn derives from Latin word terrere, or rather e terreo, (to frighten). They're criminals either way, and by definition both criminal and terrorist have a lot in common, much like riot. Again, it's a broad word, a word already described by definition in a previous post. Label it however you want, it's all illegal either way. Cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism Also here is a summation of what happened in Milwaukee, in short and not whitewashed by Media:

I don't know about the States, or anywhere else, but when I was in bootcamp for the CAF, we used a mix of real weapons and simulated weapons. Although the simulated weapons were mostly used for ceremonies, parades, etc. There is nothing quite like the feel of a real weapon, a simulated weapon doesn't feel nearly the same as a real one. It's something we were taught in order to simulate actual battlefield conditions, the weight of all of your gear, the weight of the gun, etc all in various conditions. This incident seems like a "shit happens" accident, one that could of obviously been prevented, but that is hindsight for you and that is the case for a lot of accidents.

Because people love to watch the world burn, literally. It seems in this day and age there isn't an agenda now and when someone points out critical, fundamentally flawed points in said agenda, they're immediately wrong. People seemingly need something to always believe in, no matter how wrong, inhumane or unjust it is. It's one of those things that resemble the classic herd of sheep flocking to a given thing, in this case it's people aptly named sheeple. We've got sheeple now, we've surpassed Sheep and have successfully taken over their stupidity and will to be led astray. I don't know how people can disagree with the label of terrorist, but again when you're being force fed a whole load of BS in the name of a cause you feel the need to believe in, you'll do almost anything. I truly do not care if you're black, white, purple, orange, blue or yellow, if you purposely cause harm in any sense of the word, whether it's harming a small business by destroying it, killing innocents in the name of, or actively seeking aggression, you're no better than the thing you are fighting for. If anyone can seriously defend this "group" after all of this, then there is a serious problem or rather you're a part of the problem.

Nothing of what I said was rude, bossy or disrespectful. What I said was largely heated and that is what debates usually boil down to, heated. And as a U.S president once said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the Kitchen. - Harry S Truman. And as unr3al said too, you're debating your emotions, not the overall topic. Also to add to unr3al's point, why don't you also go door-to-door in the Middle East and tell every Iraqi, Afghani, and Irani family that lost loved ones because of a suicide bomb or attack that their deaths are largely irrelevant?

I could say the same thing to you, but I won't. Nevertheless, my overall point still stands firm, it just unfortunately blew right over your head.

You do realize that a good majority of the terrorist attacks that have happened were western born, right? We're talking about "terrorists" that have either resided in any given Western country and then carried out an attack after being "converted" to attack the Western country they resided in, or any Western country for that matter. A lot of these Western born Muslims have been on the FBI's watch list for a good period of time too, but due to a number of reasons (the FBI being scared of potentially creating a scenario where they're profiling being one) good ol' political correctness, these terrorists more or less get away with what they set out to do. Propaganda is a nasty game. Oh please, don't bring in condemnation into this either.....the U.S/North America/Europe have condemned many countries, but that does absolutely nothing, it's the equivalent of your mother waving her finger at you for breaking your Grandma's finest piece of China. Do you honestly think that any of these terrorists care what you, or I think just because we condemn them, especially right after they've jogged their way into a marketplace and set off their explosive vest to kill as many civilians as feasibly possible to create mass hysteria? In short, no. Let's be brutally honest here, when was the last time any Catholic/Christian/Jewish/Buddha bearing man/woman strolled on into their local Wal-mart/Market and blew themselves up and killed many innocents in the name of their religion? Let's go further and say name ANY religion for that matter that has committed such a thing as of late. Let's go even further and name any religion that has gone into another Country and committed such things? Is there Islamphobia? Of course there is, can you blame people who are Islamphobic? No, not really. Not everyone is intolerant to Muslims because of their religion either, there is many, many reasons, but that is a different book altogether.

The difference is that we're not predominately trying to harm the civilians. Unfortunately in any strategic bombing, civilians will get harmed, it's a cruel reality and as I said, we're not specifically targeting unarmed people. The other factor, one that cannot go unnoticed either, especially if you want to bring that into the topic is that arguably our bombs touch nowhere near the amount of civilian casualties as that of X "terrorist" organization does by pure suicide bombings that purposely throw themselves at civilian settlements/markets/shopping center's, etc. There is numerous bombings that happen all to try and scare civilians into their cause, just because the civilians do not necessarily agree with X's organization ideas. It's a pretty good propaganda ploy, and in many cases it works as the civilians are stuck between a rock and a literal bomb.

All refugees to answer your question first and foremost. I am a firm believer in helping your own people before you go on to help others, and let's be honest, both America and Canada and even Europe need a lot of self help for its own people before they simply throw a bunch more into the fray (regardless of color and nationality). As for your other comments, we're not in a world war firstly. We're in a situation where X organization firmly believes that their "cause" is at stake because of us western folk. That we're against the all powerful Allah. Again, it's striking a very similar resemblance to that of the Jihad wars way back when. Second, the Jews were being massacred by someone who deemed them unworthy to live. We're not massacring thousands upon thousands, upon thousands of Muslims just because they're there. In fact, it's the other way around, we're the ones being massacred because we don't believe what they do and that in their eyes threatens what they believe in. There were other reasons to the start of World War 2 other than just because of the Jews, but that is something in of itself and a whole different political avenue that doesn't need to be brought in. Third, and lastly, even if Jewish Nazi Spies did enter a country they sure as hell didn't strap themselves up in an explosive vest and detonate it in a mall or a crowd of people. It's two completely different scenario's and neither one or the other makes comparative sense. Fourth (I lied) but promise lastly, lastly -- As I said before too, the Middle East has had it's Medieval-like problems for the longest time now, it's still arguably in the Medieval period. Women are not equal to men, hell, women are pretty much lower on the totem pole underneath goats. Among other turmoils and problems that stretch far beyond the scope of what needs to be said, but I am sure many get the gist. Not all Middle Eastern countries are like that though, which again causes internal conflict and thus even more turmoil and problems than what was already there.

Psychopath or not, it's not necessarily a coincidence that a whole heap of different groups we deem to be "terrorists" are terrorists because they believe in their religion, no matter how skewed it may be. Like I said before, some Middle Eastern places have simply not merged out of the Medieval ages where Jihad is still a thing. Other Middle Eastern places have taken it upon themselves to "modernize" and this is why we have X middle eastern "terrorist" attacking Y middle eastern (Y represents a Middle Eastern country that does not necessarily believe in X's "ideas"). This is where we have internal conflict of interest, for example ISIS held Fallujah up until Iraqi forces retook it. Then you have the Civvies smack dab in the middle, and this is where who's propaganda game is the strongest - in this case, it's ISIS or X terrorist organization 90% of the time. I'm not islamophobic, but I do recognize more and more that this "religious war" is striking a very same fine line to that of the Jihad and Crusades and how they went way back when, the difference being is that there isn't Christians/Catholics going over to Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan etc, etc, and blowing themselves up in the name of -insert god here-. Religion, unfortunately, will always play a key role in how people act, and to me, there will always be religious tensions between those who do not believe the same. As far as your comparison with a white man killing people in a black neighborhood goes, is kind of far fetched and as nic227 had put it so eloquently, the chances of the white man doing it because of a religion is very, very slim as it would make no real sense in that scenario. It would be a better bet that the white man did it because of racial tensions more than anything else, or his own racial reasons. In the end however, people who do monstrous heinous things because of X, Y, or Z reasons are typically deemed psychopaths because we as what we feel to be normal functional human-beings can't fathom such an action. However, what is important is how those people got to be a psychopath in the first place, their reasons for their actions speak a whole helluva a lot more than the action itself. You don't wake up one day, think to yourself and decide to blow away an entire mall full of people or alternatively blow yourself up in that very same process.

Oh please, let's call a spade a spade. People need to quit making excuses for these sort of people, not to mention that it was most definitely fueled by religion. He left a video pledging allegiance to an ISIS leader -- then shortly after, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack on social media. Let's also not forget that this is after a string of attacks that have already happened in Germany, which both ISIS claimed responsibility for and respectively the attackers' claimed allegiance to ISIS in various ways. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/world/ansbach-germany-blast/ Suicide bomber pledges allegiance.

Yes, but in the Media's defense (which isn't something I've ever had to say), certain parts of the Middle East has never really came out of the Medieval age, regardless of ISIS involvement. The Middle East has always had issues that we Westerners' deem "barbaric" or far from "democratic" but at the end of the day, when Journalists asked people how they felt over there, they told them they were "used" to it, and that is something we don't really take into consideration. However, when something like this happens to places that are not used to this sort of thing, it becomes more shock value than anything else.

The problem with that though, is that all these refugee's or not that are coming from Middle Eastern countries are potential candidates for the ISIS propaganda. Whether or not they were "extreme" prior to landing in main land Europe, or North America is neither here nor there, as again, propaganda is what influences their cause. The other large problem is that these refugee's are coming from a culture that is vastly different than European/North American culture. There has been a very, very large spike in attacks on these refugee's here in Canada since the 75 Thousand refugee's from Syria have landed here, there are a number of reasons as to why it happens but the big reason is that these refugee's refuse to adhere to our way of life and while I don't condone attacking another human regardless of culture, I can understand why. It's gotten to the point where a handful of Police departments here have started putting "Police" in Arabic on their cars, and I don't think I need to explain as to how asinine that is.

Your argument, while I agree to a certain extent holds the value that can be used against you. Guns, really any weapon of choice, can be seen as tools to hunt too. Archery used to be and still is in many cases a sport, something to do for fun and test your strength. The same can generally be said for guns too. You're going along the idea that guns are just used solely to kill people, they are not. At one point in time guns in Canada surpassed those in America per capita because we in the North love to hunt and very few, were used to kill another human. The analogy you go by, cars, guns, blades, etc, can all be classed as evolving as the human race. Equally, cars, guns, blades, etc all kill people too....and while one or the other effectively kills people more than another, it doesn't mean that it was solely made for killing. Another example of this is that a study was made back in 2015 for the top 10 vehicles that were involved in the deaths of many. Four door, small and lightweight vehicles like the Kia Rio, Nissan Versa, Hyundai Accent were the top 3 that had the most fatalities attached to them. That said, does that mean we should ban/restrict four door lightweight vehicles because they're killing people more than heavier, more stable cars and trucks, just because they're statistically killing more people than any other vehicle of choice? In short, no. However, I don't disagree in that there needs to be something done. But on the other hand, if history has taught me anything is that humans love to kill one another, back in the Roman times it was swords and shields, all the way up to the Medieval period. Then came Muskets and cannons, now it's pistols and rifles. The necessity to kill one another has never changed, it's just the way we do it that has since evolved over time. In my opinion, I highly doubt this will ever change. Even if we manage to completely remove firearms off the face of the planet, people will start holding people by the neck with steak knives and whatever sharp object they can get their hands on.

The problem is just that though. "Trying" to impose restrictive laws on guns isn't something you just "try" it isn't something you give a whirl and say "hey, screw it, if it works great, if it doesn't, oh god" because the last thing needed is thousands upon thousands, upon thousands of people who own guns feeling like their backs are against a wall. People from other countries that are expressing the need for harsher laws don't have the problem of already existing weapons. They also don't have the problem with the fact that America is made up of 320 million people, either. People from France, Australia, etc, they don't even touch a fraction of America's population. Hell, the amount of people in America per capita that have guns is much bigger than the population of Australia or France and both combined. It's a delicate scenario all around, and it requires delicate tinkering in order to get it right otherwise trying to impose something when America has such a huge investment in guns could get much bloodier than the already existent problem. I keep seeing people from Australia saying "we haven't had a mass shooting since 1996!" Well, great, for you -- but the population of the state of California is almost double to that of Australia. People from other countries just don't get it as a whole, and that is something coming from someone who agrees that something needs to be done, but at a delicate level and not something just to temporarily bandage an open wound, which at the end of the day could open a much, much bigger sore. I also believe there is other problems other than just guns that make up violence, but that is a whole different topic and story altogether.

I'm neither here nor there on this topic, people on either side of the debate have equal and understandable arguments. I firmly believe harsher gun control is not the answer, but on the other hand I believe a country wide law on the matter is something that is perhaps worth looking into, as I think it would reduce the "loop-holes" these people are getting their weapons based on a specific State's law. But, again, on the other-other hand, it won't stop terrorist or terrorist-like thugs from obtaining a weapon or causing some sort of harm on a large scale. The terrorist attacks in France prove that having strict gun control does not stop terrorists from gaining the upper hand, even if it's just for a while and that is all it takes is 1 person with a gun, a firm belief in their reasons to kill and not an ounce of sympathy for their actions. I don't know what the overall answer is, but the situation as a whole is a helluva a lot more complex and needs tons of attention to come up with a solution to a greater problem. To me though, imposing harsher laws in the end just hurts those whom have a genuine love for a firearm and mean no harm. The problem is that it's difficult to decipher genuine people from those willing to shoot you in the back, literally and figuratively.

Wait, what? "education, poverty and jobs" what makes those circumstances a valid reason to commit a crime. What makes it okay to blow someone away just because you didn't attend school (regardless of self choice or not), same for being poor and lacking a job. It shouldn't take Stephen Hawking's IQ to differentiate right from wrong, that shooting someone, be it white, black, purple or blue is a very wrong thing to do. There is never a case that can be made that someone is justified to shoot another human just because they lack a job, education and or are poor. Likewise, there is very few crimes out there to commit that are justifiable because of the aforementioned, mugging, robbing, etc is an unjustifiable crime just because you're lacking the above. I can somewhat understand if you're dirt poor, and need to provide for yourself or family and desperately need to steal food/clothing/essentials, but anything above that is strictly non-sense crime's to commit. I don't get that mentality, that it's okay to commit a crime just because you're in unfortunate circumstances in life currently. With that logic, because I don't own or can't afford a brand spanking new vehicle that it's "justifiable" for me to steal one. I'm sorry, but that excuse is more hogwash than anything else. Let's not forget that if the aforementioned crimes were justifiable, it doesn't detract from the fact that it is still a crime and therefore fewer run ins with the law would typically mean fewer of the supposed racial profiling's if said crimes were not committed in the first place. People seem to love to dilute the crimes they've committed nowadays based on their certain circumstances "Oh, I killed my entire family because I was tripping on acid" or, "I neglected my kids because I was too busy getting high and drunk" what's worse is that these cases somehow get a pass in the Justice system - which is a problem in of itself.

I'd like to chime in and say that I personally think the BLM movement is a joke, I don't think they're on a level of terrorism (not yet, but getting close), but whatever "support" they had before, they're progressively losing - and not because of this particular incident either. Prior to this massacre and protest the BLM movement shoved its way into a Pride Parade here in Toronto Canada. They completely halted the parade and they issued demands to the director of the parade, their demands? To not have any Police Pride Floats to ever make an appearance in any pride parade ever again. The Police were genuinely having a great time, they had some awesome floats and a lot of the Police floats were in respects to the Orlando shooting victims. I don't care what group you are, but how disrespectful can you be to disrupt a parade that had floats honouring those who perished? I lost a little respect for the BLM movement a while ago when they blockaded a freeway, but the parade incident completely made me lose any respect for anyone involved in the movement. I get that Police are not perfect, they are human after all, but the BLM movement seems to be built on the idea that all apples are bad regardless of circumstance. The BLM movement can't seem to distinguish the difference between one Officer's dumb mistake is not an entire continent's police force. Toronto Police has had very few incidents involving Officer vs. civilian shootings and the shootings that have happened have not been Officer on black. I digress, the Justice system all around is a very flawed system....but targeting the Police isn't doing anyone any favours and people seem to forget that an Officer's job puts food on his/her's family's table at the end of the day. Blocking traffic and people from just trying to earn a living, interrupting parade's, events and the like isn't getting BLM anywhere and is seemingly getting farther from their overall goal.

Oh jeez, here we go again. Another massacre, more lives ruined for what? 2016 is shaping up to be quite the year folks, what a shame. Rest in peace to all who have died in this tragedy for literally no reason at all.

Personally, I think the vote to leave the EU was a good call, the British people made their own history that day and it creates a great opportunity for Britain to retake their country back. As someone who resides in a country that is not in the EU (Canada), I've been following the EU closely for the past few years. The EU to me seems very toxic and seems to have been getting a lot less "democratic" over time. The idea that a power like that has control of whatever a country can and can't do is a scary and unreasonable idea. A lot of different countries and political parties have come out and said that the main reason for the leave of the EU is because of immigration, and honestly, that is a perfectly reasonable reason to leave. The UK has been shoveled loads upon loads of immigrants, which again, is dictated by the EU it seems. With how everything is turning into a politically correct monsoon, it's now frowned upon to want your country to be your country and no one else's. Like the Hungarian Prime Minster said, "the ideal number of migrants entering Hungary is zero" when he congratulated the Brexit vote and the British people. Let's be honest, I think a lot of people are fed up with all of these immigrants entering the country and receiving free health care, money, their schooling paid for, housing, food, etc. People are freaking out thinking this limits the UK's trade power too, but the UK isn't going to have any problems trading with whomever they want, especially so now that the EU does not dictate who the UK trades with. The UK will always have Canada as a trade partner, and I don't see the U.S all of a sudden abandoning that deal either. If anything this will strengthen relationships even more.

He isn't necessarily wrong though. Most Media outlets typically only cover stuff that causes controversy or outrage. It's very rare that a news program will cover something positive or genuine. Every morning before I go to work I always pop on the news to check the forecast, 98% of the time it's littered with shootings and or stabbings, the other 2 percent is normally about some deranged music "artist" doing something stupid. When the Orlando attack happened the news here failed to mention key points and only zoomed in on one particular thing, that he was 'Muslim' and nothing else. When I had a bit of time I had to research it myself to see what happened and to my not-so surprise, there was a lot more to the story. The problem with that though is that not everyone has the time or patience to research the stuff they see on the news, most people eat breakfast and pop the news on before they go to work, in turn whatever is on the news that day they take that news and run with it despite its potential inaccuracies, then go on to tell fellow coworkers the same gist. On the topic of the news not showing positive or significant news, two armed men were arrested by Police here in Toronto Ontario, Canada, who were heavily armed and equipped with a bomb, they were heading to a LGBT gathering at the University of Toronto in support of the Orlando attack. They were masked, in dark clothing and again, were supporters of the ISIS extremist group - Police are unsure whether they're somehow linked with the Orlando suspect. In other - other news, another man was arrested by L.A Police who again, was heavily armed with 3 assault rifles and chemicals to make explosives. He was heading to a gay pride parade, he told Police.

The issue doesn't lie with the firearm in question, but rather the fact that this guy managed to not be apprehended PERIOD. Let's say hypothetically that America has similar gun laws to that of England, where he was unable to purchase an assault rifle for any reason whatsoever. We're talking about someone who had every intent to slaughter people in the name of whatever mumbo jumbo he believes in, therefore the next weapon of choice would of more than likely be a bomb, whether it was a suicide bombing or planted is neither here nor there - this is assuming he doesn't gain access to an ILLEGAL firearm, which would be a higher probability than a bomb, home made or not. The common denominator here isn't that this person is just some average American hick with a grudge against X, Y, or Z, it's someone who is mentally hell-bent on executing a deed based on faith or a radical idea that everyone is against Muslim. This is a terrorist attack, not just a mass-shooting there is a significant difference. People need to stop alluding to the idea that terrorists are going to abide by gun laws, it's nonsensical. I know this is a sore spot but gun laws in France didn't stop those terrorist attacks, there is a reason as to why they are called extremists. Regardless of whether or not America had gun laws in place would not have stopped this guy from massacring or doing something else, he had every intention of causing pain and suffering and that is typically the agenda for terrorists. What is infuriating is that the FBI knew he had ties with extremist groups and did absolutely nothing, and that is the real problem, not guns, bombs, planes, whatever object of use that a terrorist decides to use to cause destruction. Lastly, don't get me wrong something needs to change in relation to firearms but they are not the sole reason this happens, as it stands it's the scapegoat. What needs to happen is stricter screening needs to take place and for the love of god, when someone has ties to an extremist group or has 'terrorist' like tendencies, apprehend them, don't wait for the blood-shed.

I'm assuming it's because a lot of these people come from different Countries that have their own laws and regulations on firearms and the like. For example it's a lot harder for someone that resides in Europe to understand North American gun laws and laws in general because they are so vastly different. When I say "understand" I mean a lot of European laws for firearms are restrictive and have been from the start, this isn't the case for America or other Countries, inherently the comparison of "change America's gun laws to be that of -insert European Country here-" and that'll fix all of America's problems become the ultimate argument. In other words, what one countries gun law works for them, will not or may not necessarily work for another. I'd like to also point out that -insert European country- gun law(s) didn't stop a terrorist attack either, because guess what, when an extremist wants to kill or do something with harmful intent, a gun law isn't going to stop him. Interestingly or perhaps annoyingly whenever a terrorist attack occurs in America the immediate subject is changed to America's gun laws.

This is a tragedy, but as others have stated, restricting guns will not solve this, nor will adding harsher gun laws. The problem lies within the fact that a radical anything will get their hands on whatever they want, to do the deed they wish to achieve. Imposing harsher gun laws or outright banning them just hurts those who have done nothing wrong. To me a fundamental flaw that occurred here is that this particular shooter was already being investigated by the FBI, but nothing was done despite according to the FBI, had tie in's with ISIS and other extremists. At the end of the day many people will blame a plethora of different things. People will blame his religious background, others will blame guns, whilst some will target terrorism to be the culprit. In my opinion it's none of the aforementioned and yet all of the aforementioned in their own way, none of which I will go into detail as that will open a whole different can of worms. As I said, restricting guns and or outright banning them will only anger and hurt those who have them and use them legally. It's like allowing everyone who owns an electric car to drive, but restricting or banning those who drive a regular gas using car.

Don't be like everyone else and go ramping up every graphic option to maximum. Take one or two graphic options, raise them accordingly and test, rinse and repeat with the rest until you find a good balance of graphic quality and FPS. This also allows you to see and test out what every graphic option actually does too, whether or not a specific graphic option you turned on is worth keeping on, especially if it's burning FPS for very little gain to quality. VisualV and Radiance are two perfectly fine choices to use, you can use them both, however you can only use either Radiance's "visualsettings" file, or VisualV's. I personally use Radiance's 'Brighter" settings file and VisualV together, but experiment and see what you like. A side note too is that you need to have your post processing effects(I think that's the option) turned up to high or better, otherwise you won't get the full visual benefit to Radiance/VisualV's graphic changes. .

Probably the former of the two, Call of Duty has such a huge sheep like following that regardless of content, quality or repetitiveness, the game(s) always sell. The question that begs to be answered as well is whether or not said sheep like cult following is buying it for the Infinite Warfare game itself, or the CoD4 tacked on remaster. That said, the trailer for infinite warfare has an exorbitant amount of dislikes to likes, alternatively Battlefield 1 is the opposite.....this alone should send Activision a message, but again we all know what Activision is like. I adore CoD4, not so much Modern Warfare 2, but CoD4 is what made the entire franchise popular for good reason too.....however I refuse to pay extra for a game I want, just because it's locked behind a paywall to get people to buy a product no one wants. Regardless of how anyone slices it, the money grab and scheme to put CoD4 remastered behind a game no one wants is a slimy business practice and I would wager a good fraction of the Infinite Warfare trailer dislikes is because of said slimy business practice. People should of gathered that when the original developers for CoD4 and MW2 left Infinity Ward and Activision that there was something painfully clear going on behind the scenes with Activisions business "goals" or rather lack thereof. That should of put a halt on the sales of future Call of Duties, but then again people liked Treyarch's content just the same, so Activision was in a win-win scenario.