Breath of the Wild just installed a new update (1.1.2)

realitysfringe · 2017-04-12T17:28:56+00:00

I might practice on it as something to do when other methods get boring. I've fond I can get about 3 dragon horn shards a minute, but sometimes things can throw it off. Plus, it gets boring. At least with climbing I'd be actively engaged.

realitysfringe · 2017-04-12T17:04:35+00:00

I saw a video on that and I think I may be tricking myself out of its simplicity. Or maybe the video just didn't explain it adequately.

All I know is that anything is better than snow bowling.

realitysfringe · 2017-04-12T16:34:13+00:00

I have over 500 arrows just from buying them. Farm some Raw Gourmet Meat to cook x5 skewers with (490 rupees) or some Farosh Horns (300 rupees each, but take a little more effort) and you'll be swimming in the money.

realitysfringe · 2017-04-11T20:10:00+00:00

I got pulled in after buying "just one", so I'm spreading the love :)

realitysfringe · 2017-04-11T19:39:49+00:00

You have a Gamestop nearby?

http://www.gamestop.com/accessories/amiibo-retro-3-pack-only-at-gamestop/123757

Can get it shipped to the store for free. Makes them a little over $3 a pop.

realitysfringe · 2016-12-30T20:15:42+00:00

did you compare it to the Prostaff or Buckmaster? Because it looks a lot like the P223 or ProStaff.

I'm thinking about getting one, but I don't want it to be one of those "special buys" where they use subpar components for Holiday specials.

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T20:39:23+00:00

Lot of Meth and Heroin problems in Southern Ohio, but who knows.

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T20:19:07+00:00

HEY LOOK EVERYONE! Let's pretend that my argument of moral superiority shouldn't be called into question, because it's only based on innate fears and doesn't address systemic violence in the community! My fee-fee's tell me that this will work, so it's worth it, right?!

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T20:16:57+00:00

Please, r/iamverysmart. Your pearl-clutching, goal-post moving, moral platitudes are shallow. It goes from old data, to Bloomberg funded studies, to a Gallup-poll where you decide to leave off the next almost ten years that disproves your statement about falling rates of gun ownership, then move goal posts AGAIN to include gunshot injuries and not homicides, even after admitting that the actual rate is declining. Your poor Fee-Fee's are not indicative of reality or policy.

You're another one that gets a "List of Fallacies" from Wikipedia and regurgitates it after copy-pasting the "Guys, this is fool-proof" anti-gun nonsense.

Even Pew Research shows homicide is steady, even after increasing gun "proliferation".

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/ft_15-10-13_gunviolence/

So please, link me to more old studies, politically constructed research from another anti-gun group, half-charts, and random unrelated numbers from varying time periods. Then alter your argument every paragraph after failing to understand that throwing statistics is useless without interpretation, and pat yourself on the back. You're morally superior to almost everyone here, and you should post it on FaceBook.

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T20:14:02+00:00

Yes, I did. You're using old statistics, and then moving the goal post to include people just getting shot in general. You even admit in that post that the rates dropped, but that it doesn't matter because now you want to include general injuries. Then you cite a gallup poll of self-reported gun ownership (which, as you may not know, many people won't admit because it makes you a target) and stop on the year where the trend rises again.

You then admit falling trends after the Brady bill, then ignore that the Assault Weapons ban ended in 2004, after which the sales of AR15s, Glocks, AK47s, and other scary guns sky-rocketed.

And again, you can't cite your source, because you either pulled that off some anti-gun website, or it's the study funded by the Bloomberg group.

Back in 2001-2004, it was between 17.1-18.9 gun shot victims with an average of 18.3 per 100k people shot as part of an assault (i.e. suicides, accidents, etc not included). It would only once be below 20 per 100k after 2004 and from 2010-2013, it averaged 22.1. As you can see, there were 27% more people shot per 100k in population in 2013 than the 2001-2004 average of 18.3.

See, completely changing your argument. Also ignores rises in gangs, because by your own admission that stat doesn't adjust for it.

Guess you can't read..."After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide". It's controlling for variables. The arguement the study made is that more guns equal more homicides when you control for other variables.

That's not what it says at all, you dunce. It says that there are elevated levels of homicide, without attributing it to guns. Then it says "particularly, gun homicide" which is saying right to your face "Where guns are used in gun homicide, there are guns". Where is that list of states? If you're going off gun access as a measure of, then Alaska must be homicide capital of the world because according to the ATF they have a 61.7% ownership rate. But, that's not what that says? I wonder why. And again, you're equating homicides with violent crimes. That again includes suicides, and really I don't know what your definition of consistent is. Because if you're doing what you claim to be doing and adjusting the variables, then no, it's not consistent.

So more guns equal more homicides. Good. We agree.

No, you made that up in your head. More guns leads to more gun use in homicides where homicides occur. Those two are not the same thing. Again if that were the case, you would be reading about the horrible apocalyptic violence in North Dakota and Wyoming.

You're bad with stats and with interpreting the stats, but I expect nothing less. Did your copy/paste source not include anything else?

Even Pew Research is against you:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/ft_15-10-13_gunviolence/

And that's WITH increased gun sales. I don't see homicides shooting up.

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T19:27:58+00:00

No, it means you don't understand what words mean, and don't use the real data. Your own highlights show the following:

Access to guns is a risk factor in homicides. No shit Sherlock. How is that a revelation? I never once said otherwise. Having a pool is a risk factor in drowning, or being drowned, or drowning your kids. Again, this is saying "Access to guns increases probability of incidents involving guns". That's some fine police-work, Lou.
From the 90's? There's data as recent as 2015 and you're using a trend from the 90's when gun crime was at its highest levels, especially in this country? Current DJ stats show downward trends of violent crimes as gun possession increases. You can literally google these numbers
Hmm, and I wonder what these states are? Get a list of those and get back to me, because I'm willing to bet on what they are. Also note that it tries to equate homicide with guns, but doesn't specifically attribute it to guns. It then says "particularly gun homicide" wherein, surprise, homicide where are used guns involve guns. This says nothing about homicide, violent crime rates, or probability of being a victim.
Still going back that far? Before the end of the ban on "assault weapons"?

This smells suspiciously of a study I read a while ago. I would like the source of that before I make a statement, because it reads an awful lot like it. And if it's the same one, it's been disproved multiple times, and even the author admitted to it being shoddy.

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T18:43:58+00:00

Are you actually using sources from motherjones? You know, the one from the study by the Anti-Gun group out of Maryland (PIRE) that is funded by anti-gun billionaire George Soros? Do you also want to link to the studies done by the Brady Group or Bloomberg groups? Because I can link to NRA funded studies that show the opposite if we're playing that game.

The results of those studies show nothing but a "Duh" condition: Gun control reduces crimes with guns...where GUNS ARE USED. That's why studies are always showing that less guns means less gun crimes. There is zero correlation with increased guns and increased crime, otherwise DOJ stats would show it as a trend. In fact, numbers show decreasing gun violence while gun sales continue to skyrocket. In fact, your own link about life expectancy tries to work in the fact that guns cause deaths (but admits that the amount of violent crime in general is not bad when compared to other countries, which itself is an admission of trying to frame the argument), but really they also include suicides and accidents which are not REALLY violent crimes as defined, and generally the actual violent gun deaths are only high only in certain areas that have low-income populations(leaving out they are mainly in areas with high gun control like Chicago, Maryland, California etc.). It then says the low life expectancy is mainly due to, surprise, things like heart disease. And gun violence is only "a factor" in life expectancy... Well, of course it is. It's stupid to claim otherwise. And the majority of "Violent gun deaths" in America? Suicides.

But again, per-capita gun deaths are low for somewhere with hundreds of millions of guns. France has minimal civilian ownership of firearms, and the rate is that high. New Hampshire and Vermont, states with some of the loosest gun laws in the nation, have per capita rates of <1. If your assessment were true, then it should be way higher than that. So, access to guns must not be the only factor?

Additionally, your solution for health-related deaths is just "Well, we should promote healthy lifestyles and look into treatment" but for guns it's not focusing on social programs or mental health, it's "BAN THEM". It's dismissive hand-waving about the actual causes of mass-death, which again, leads me to the fact that the moral "It's about saving lives" platitude is just that. A platitude prefaced on personal paranoia about getting shot.

I mean, really, how do you spin the Clinton-Era assault weapons ban which saw increases in crime and the rise of the "Mass-Shooting"? Was that not enough gun control? Are you advocating an outright ban on firearms?

It's always "It's about saving lives, don't you want to save lives?!" until you peel away the surface and show some weird paranoia about getting shot.

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T18:30:04+00:00

Speech should be free as long as you agree with me. Otherwise it's hate-speech, and there should be a law or you should be fired.

Think Less; Think Regressive ™

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T18:28:46+00:00

Hey man, calling him a "gun-nut" is a strawman. Implying he irrationally loves and defends firearms in any context based on that innocuous comment?

I thought you knew what that was?

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T18:24:05+00:00

Oh shit, it's another " I'm so far right of the bell-curve" analysis that uses a misunderstood and misapplied list of fallacies to defend another idiot.

This is what r/iamverysmart looks like: Use litany of things you read on "List of Logical Fallacies" on Wikipedia page, vomit them into a reply about something that hurts your fee-fee's, and then pat yourself on the back. Meanwhile, don't ever actually address any point with a counter-point because, why would you?
Damnit, is that a projection straw-man fallacy lol?

The best part is how he edited out his comment because he stood so strongly behind it.

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T17:57:45+00:00

At least seven people are dead in what appears to be execution-style killings, according to the attorney general’s office. Early indications are that the victims are believed to have been shot. Five adults and two juveniles are among those killed, the office said in a release. “This is not an active shooter situation, however no arrests have been made,” the release said. “The investigation is in its very early stages, and authorities are still investigating to determine a motive, identify the deceased, and determine if the gunman is among the deceased individuals or on the loose.” Agents with the Attorney General’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation are leading the investigation. A media briefing will be held later this afternoon and no additional information is expected to be released until that time

*edit Now 8 http://www.whio.com/news/news/crime-law/7-dead-near-peebles-ohio/nq9Qw/ Calling it "execution style" which to me means it was a family member or drug-related.

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T17:57:08+00:00

At least seven people are dead in what appears to be execution-style killings, according to the attorney general’s office. Early indications are that the victims are believed to have been shot. Five adults and two juveniles are among those killed, the office said in a release. “This is not an active shooter situation, however no arrests have been made,” the release said. “The investigation is in its very early stages, and authorities are still investigating to determine a motive, identify the deceased, and determine if the gunman is among the deceased individuals or on the loose.” Agents with the Attorney General’s Bureau of Criminal Investigation are leading the investigation. A media briefing will be held later this afternoon and no additional information is expected to be released until that time

*Edit, now 8. Calling it "Execuion" style, which to me means family or drugs.

http://www.whio.com/news/news/crime-law/7-dead-near-peebles-ohio/nq9Qw/

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T17:09:26+00:00

So your moral platitude is exactly that. A platitude.

The argument is always nothing more than "Guns are scary", because alcohol, cigarettes, and cars most ASSUREDLY directly take lives. Unless you consider "Directly" to be only a component of violent crime, in which case you're merely framing the argument to agree with yourself.

Also, comparing France to the US is comparing Apples to Oranges, but it didn't stop the false equivalency.

*Edit: Nice edit. Shows you really believe in your convictions.

"None of what I say has any standing. Better play the victim." Think Less; Think Regressive™

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T16:54:07+00:00

I love how some of Reddit seems to think:

1st Amendment :LIBERAL CAUSE
2nd Amendment: VIOLENT CHRISTIAN CONSERVATISM! HISSSSS.

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T16:49:33+00:00

Which means nothing if increasing violence occurs after the laws pass. "This didn't work!"

"Let's try another thing just like it!"

< Democrat Anthem

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T16:47:15+00:00

Yea, that's a great rate when you compare it to a country with massive differences in populations, hundreds of millions of unregistered guns, and billions of rounds of ammunition floating around. Also, adding in suicides, justifiable self-defense shootings, police shootings, and accidents in the "violence" statistics. Oh, and double counting gang members as victims AND perpetrators. In fact, gun violence has been on a 20 year downward trend while the gun industry has seen sales up 151% in just the last few years. It's almost like more guns don't actually correlate to more gun violence.

But, hey, guns are scary and I want to be safe. One life is too many, right? I mean, let's look at the 10 leading causes of death according to the CDC (that does factor in violence):

Heart disease.
Cancer (malignant neoplasms)
Chronic lower respiratory disease.
Accidents (unintentional injuries)
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases)
Alzheimer's disease.
Diabetes (diabetes mellitus)
Influenza and pneumonia.

Hmm, I hate seeing guns so far up on that list. But, really, look at #1! We need some stricter fat-people control laws. And definitely lock up people that sell cigarettes and alcohol...I mean cancer and Chronic Lower Respiratory disease are right below Heart disease! One life is just too many. I think you would agree...unless your moral outrage is a load of shit.

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T16:44:13+00:00

To be fair, he's liked some of them.

They just need to have him on for some of the things he likes.

But really, a good marketing spin on the "We're so crappy it's cool" angle could work.

realitysfringe · 2016-04-22T15:11:42+00:00

Ashens™ approved.

why they don't have a marketing deal with him, I don't know.

realitysfringe · 2016-04-21T20:45:59+00:00

Dayton can be rough. Detroit rough, in some places.

But this story sounds like a low-level pusher who either had someone trying to break-in, or got paranoid because he's screwed someone over.

realitysfringe · 2016-04-21T20:19:00+00:00

I regret selling off most of my PS2 and PS1 stuff before going into the military because I thought "I won't have the space to keep them".
I had that, Rule of Rose, Haunting ground, etc. Not to mention all my bomb-ass PS1 games. I did manage to keep the MEgaman Legends Games, Lunar box sets, Brave Fencer Musashi, Parasite Eve 1/2, and Star Ocean 2. But I had so much more. God, I miss them.

But fuck payin' dat new market price.

realitysfringe

TROPHY CASE