Jump to content

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
  • Announcements

    • Dowin

      =ADK= Discord Link   04/24/2017

      Come join us in =ADK= Discord To download the Discord app go here: https://discordapp.com/   Discord is going to have a small learning curve over teamspeak so be prepared, but the fellow members as well as the Admins will gladly help you if you have any issues with installing or using the app. Once you have Discord installed all that's left to do is click the button below.   Welcome to the future of the =ADK= Community.   Click Here To Join! 

EulersIdentity

=ADK= In-Active Member
  • Content count

    75
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    0
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About EulersIdentity

  • Rank
    Enthusiast

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Missouri

Gaming Info

  • IGN
    EulersIdentity
  • Steam
    eulers_identity
  • Battlelog ID
    eulers_identity
  • PlanetSide 2
    mfernKickPuncher
  • LoL
    Eulers Identity

System Specs

  • OS
    Win7
  • Mobo
    MSI MS-7623
  • Processor
    AMD Phenom II X6 1090T 3.20GHz
  • Graphics
    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760
  • PSU
    Corsair CX430
  • RAM
    4GB
  • Audio
    Onboard
  • Monitor
    Acer G215H
  • Case
    Cooler Master
  • Peripherals
    Corsair M95 mouse, Philips SHP2500 Headphones, Zalman Zm-Mic1
  1. =ADK= TF2 revival? We need some defibs over here!

    0 people on the server :(
  2. How to stop mass shootings

    Interesting. I like the Daniel Bier article.
  3. How to stop mass shootings

    2009 Homicide rate UK: 1.17; US: 4.46 (3.8x US) 2009 Total Violent Crime rate: UK: 1318.58; US: 460.57 (2.7x UK) Because of categorization differences, it's harder to compare other stats :( Sources: www.gov.uk/government/publications/historical-crime-data http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html Population data for rate calculation from Wikipedia. Yeah, higher violent crime rate in the UK, though it's not as extreme as that article says, so I checked the source they listed. Eurostat says total violent crimes in the UK is 827,122 where the article says 1.15 million. Note that the article states that they are using data compiled by "the Conservatives," so the author clearly didn't check the raw data. I'm not sure where to find the compilation done by the Conservatives. This puts the Eurostat violent crime rate at 1560.24, a little higher than the UK government source I found but way lower than the rate of 2,000 list in the article. The article lists US rate at 466, much closer to what I found. Eurostat raw data gives 427. Enough numbers, your point is still valid. So what do the numbers tell us? Let's look at the correlations: - Stricter gun control correlated to more violent crimes - Stricter gun control correlated to less gun crimes - Stricter gun control correlated to less homicides So what can we infer? Do you believe that stricter gun control is causing the increase in violent crimes? What if the violent crime rate was tied to something else besides guns? What would that imply? I don't mean to sound patronizing, but I'm really interested in peoples' thoughts on it. I didn't know the UK had more violent crimes than the US and I find it interesting. I'm inclined to think that the violence comes from factors unrelated to gun availability. That would imply that increased gun availability would make that violence lead to more homicides, instead of assaults; however, there's the possibility that many of these crimes are just scuffles (alcohol related?) that would likely not get any more dangerous regardless of whether guns were more available or not. Back to that article: Germany: Among strictest gun control in the world. Wrist braced slingshots are illegal in Germany. France: Limits on cartridges allowed to be purchased per year. Assault weapon ban. Don't know if it's stricter than UK. Italy: Seems less strict than UK. Limits on amount of guns owned by type. Concealed carry requires proof that there is a real threat to life. Spain: Requires training course for a gun license. Full auto illegal. Similar to UK laws. So the less violent countries had around equal or more restrictive gun laws. On Australia: Be advised the article is published by a Conservative opinion site. The most recent homicide rate I could find was from the United Nations in 2011, being 1.1. The US was more than 4 times that. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html says that in 2003 (most recent stats) the percentage of homicide caused by firearms was about 16%. That's a rate of .176, a tiny fraction of the US rate. From the article: "The lesson: criminals do not pay attention to gun bans. They never have and they never will." I would be inclined to agree intuitively, but the stats are pretty damning evidence.
  4. How to stop mass shootings

    You say it's blatantly obvious, but there are large groups of people who disagree. It's easy to shrug it off and say they're all idiots, but consider for a moment that some of them might have a good reason (some may still be idiots). Now, your argument about soft targets is reasonable, deductively speaking, but inductively does not hold up. Take for example, US vs. UK. In the UK guns are tightly restricted, and many police officers do not carry firearms. Officer gun deaths: 2011 - US: 67, UK: 0 (1 from a bomb) 2012 - US: 47, UK: 4 2013 - US: 31, UK: 0 Gun homicides per 100,000 population: US: 3.6 (2011), UK: .04 (2010) Intentional homicides per 100,000 population: US: 4.7, UK: 1.2 Evidence actually suggests that we should have stricter gun control, like the UK. Now, your reasoning wasn't flawed, the problem is, real life isn't that simple. While there IS a correlation between gun control and a decrease in gun violence, anti-gun-control people are somewhat right in thinking that it's not just taking guns away from people that causes reduced violence. Consider that UK officers are given their authority not by force, but by the consent of the public, how does that affect their likelihood to get shot on the job? There are obviously other factors at work too, which I can't and won't enumerate. So I ask: what is a better argument against gun control? You made the point yourself: This is why. I think the people in general need enough force to prevent some kind of governmental overthrow that would cause a military state type situation. Furthermore, having guns should be a privilege to people who can prove that they are responsible, for no other reason than the pursuit of happiness. Bill should not be barred from target shooting or hunting because Fred murders someone. This is all the argument you need against overly strict gun control. I don't see the need to argue that guns prevent gun violence until we get really good evidence to the contrary, by which I mean non-circumstantial evidence. One case does not a proof make. Exactly. I loathe the idea of strict gun control as much as anyone, so if we want to preserve that privilege, it is absolutely necessary to fix the problem through other means. Clearly arming vigilantes is NOT the answer, the proof of which I have given above. We need to put in the work to solve what is a seriously complex problem. Yep, but this has a lot in common with Sandy Hook. Fixing the problem would best be solved by addressing the complex social issues that are causing violence. Long story short: Evidence seems to suggest that strict gun control has and currently does reduce gun homicide rates. That doesn't mean it's the best solution. If you want to save your guns, figure out how to solve violence problems through social means.
  5. How to stop mass shootings

    Let's assume for a moment that everyone agrees that we need to ban guns, then you're right on the money: small arms are the ones most often involved in violence. The argument made by those against gun control is that banning them would not cause a decrease in criminal usage, that drive-by's wouldn't drop staggeringly. Personally, I could see some decrease a long time after such a law was enacted, if it was stringent enough that there were just less guns around (sort of like in Japan). Here's the problem: ban all guns today. I can find one tomorrow, easy. Can I find one 50 years from now? That's a bit tougher. Now what do we do about the next 50 years? And this is the crux of the argument most often made against gun control. So riddle me this: Ban guns and you might stop some violence by the perps just not having the gun when they want to use it. Or, give everyone the option of concealed carry and stop some violence by armed good guys, or the fear of armed good guys. Now which one stops more crimes? I honestly don't know. Obviously these are the extreme cases, but if we can figure out the extremes, maybe we can find the healthy spot in the middle.   Note: I don't think you can legally buy a sawed off shotty in the U.S. At least, I don't know anyone who owns one that was obtained legally.
  6. Sensitive debate time!!

    I'm sick and tired of all the people who think puffs are the way to go. It's like styrofoam with cheese dust on the outside.   Crunchy all the way, spicy flavor if possible.
  7. How to stop mass shootings

    I wish it wasn't a political issue. I honestly hate the arguments that involve "those naive liberals" or "those gun-nuts conservatives" or "the -only thing- that will fix such and such". When it revolves around 'how to stop mass shootings', both sides tend to give a solution that is just too simple to ever work. If the problem was simple we would've fixed it by now.   This is the reason why banning X gun or X magazine won't work. This is the reason why blanket gun banning is a poor solution, and despite the OP not wanting to talk about it, for any type of gun restriction to be effective, it's going to have to be tied in with things like mental health etc.   I agree with a lot of the points made about concealed carries having the potential to save lives, but I'd also like to point out that sometimes it works the other way round. Take for instance the shooting of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield, when they took a man they knew to have PTSD to a gun range. The Trayvon Martin shooting would also have turned out differently were it not for Mr. Zimmerman having a concealed carry, though I don't know (and neither does anyone else) if Zimmerman's life was actually in danger. I reiterate: I don't disagree with allowing concealed carry permits, I just want to point out that there are cases where gun access directly lead to deaths.   Video was pretty good.   EDIT: OMG I just noticed how old the thread is.
  8. under armour

    I rock a lot of budget brand gear that's modelled after Underarmor's stuff. Polyester base layers are just too good in the cold. I cycle commute a lot and it's nice to be able to show up somewhere in any temp, comfortable without sweat big, dark sweat spots all over my clothes. They're a godsend for working in kitchens too. I can't stand cotton clothes if I'm not going to be in exactly room temperature environments all day. Most of the Underarmor stuff goes above and beyond for construction quality, so I like to get it when I can, but damn it's expensive for poor college students :(   I can usually find Outdoor Research stuff of similar quality for cheaper where I live, and everything I've bought from them has been spectacular. I highly recommend that brand.
  9. Starting League of Legends

    It takes a long time to unlock -every- champ, but it's relatively easy to unlock a decent pool of strong champs. You don't need 6300 ip champs.   450 ip champs I have seen in North American LCS this split: Annie, Sivir, Soraka, Warwick. About 40% of all the 450ip champs. Last split C9 had an unheard of win rate spamming Ashe bot lane, another 450ip champ. The power shifts brought on by patches may kill a champ you buy if you only play OP champs, but there are many very, very strong champs that will stay that way for a long time because they are just strong and not OP. Wukong, for example, is a safe buy because he won't be changed for a long time. Further consider that you only really need to have 1-2 champs you're good at for each lane. I've played for about a year and a half and have spent about 25 bucks on the game, less than any non-f2p game I have now, and I have 10 full rune pages and about half the champs unlocked. Of those I have unlocked, there are many that I often don't touch.   The only advantage of owning all the champs is that you can rapidly switch to what's considered op at the moment. To be honest, that doesn't help you win games unless you have enough time in the day to quickly master new champs every patch (read: professional player). Most players are better served by picking a champ they like and sticking with that champ. Riot is good enough at balancing that every champ that's considered OP come new patch, is not so overwhelmingly strong that they will beat out every other champ every time. Annie was considered OP until last patch, and I could beat that lane with -any- of the supports I use. Every game I play Annie support, I lose bad, because I haven't spammed her.   The advantages conferred in buying things in LoL aren't remotely close to what they are in other F2P games. Planetside is an excellent example.
  10. Starting League of Legends

    Dota is a totally fine game, nothing wrong with that, but some of the things you're saying about League are misleading:       This is arguable. Granted, League used to have crappy graphics, and Dota quite frankly blew it out of the water, but League graphics are constantly getting better. Honestly I think the current art is fantastic and some of the things actually look better in League now than Dota. I'll concede that the trees in Dota are still way better than League. I hate the trees in League.       It's great that all characters are unlocked in Dota from the beginning, but you -can- unlock all the League characters over time without spending any money.       This is outright false. Everything that affects gameplay at all is unlockable by playing without ever spending any money. The only real advantage is that you can unlock more champions faster or buy more rune pages if you spend money. Having more rune pages faster is nice, but not gamebreaking in the least. Having a small champion pool is actually conducive to better gameplay, as the best win-rates actually come from spamming a handful of champions that you're good at.   My evidence goes thus: the current rank 4 player in NA (Nightblue3) makes smurfs on which he can't really afford to spend money, so he runs with 2 generic rune pages and a small champion pool. He then plays them on stream and smashes through ranked, getting one account from bronze (bottom) to diamond (2nd to top) in 6 days.   EDIT: Oops! I hit submit without addressing the OP's question. Do you mean like runes as 'gear' or like the in-game items?   For runes, just set up an AP page and AD page for general purposes until you can buy more pages. There are generic set-ups all over for these, and once you set them up you can leave them alone for a while until you have lots of IP to spend buying more runes. Having other pages will make you more efficient on specific champions, but it honestly isn't -that- big of a deal. For a third page I would suggest running a support page with either GP10 or health quintessences and all defense on everything else.   In-game, it's all about playing better than the enemy team. That's the point of the game. Get more CS and kills, spend gold on the items that benefit you most at that very moment.
  11. is LOL any fun?

    I don't think anyone touched on this here, but when you're beginning you should learn about the meta-game, so as you start playing in PvP matches you have an idea about where you're expected to go and what you're supposed to be doing in that lane. Nobody really tells you this when you start, but each lane has specific jobs they're supposed to do and particular champions that are "best" for accomplishing that. Yes, some people do break from the meta-game, but it's better not to do so until you know what you're doing, especially because doing something wonky like Vayne jungle will probably get you flamed a little at champ select, but if you don't perform in game on your goofy pick you'll get flamed even harder. See following:   I recommend muting every player at the beginning of the match. Never before have a played a game where people are so consistently negative.
  12. Favorite Champions?

    Love this champ but I'm a garbage top. I really like him in the jungle. His late game is godly, but his ganks are meh if your ult is down and your team doesn't have CC. This means if your team can't stay roughly even in their lanes you're going to have a lot of trouble getting to that amazing late game. I'm still trying to figure out a good way around this, until then I can't see picking him over a jungler like Elise who is at full power all the time and can make plays early. I've also played him mid with mixed success. I still haven't figured out the mid matchups.
  13. MURMAIDERMURMAIDERMURMAIDER  \m/   Big Amon Amarth fan here. I'm also hella into instrumental stuff like Liquid Tension Experiment and Sky Sanctuary, I'm always looking for more.
  14. Found my champion!

    Chuck Norris's lane is the enemy fountain.
  15. Found my champion!

    He should run double ignite. Flash is for pansies.
×

Important Information

This website uses cookies to provide the best experience possible. Privacy Policy & Terms of Use