ARikozuM

any class action from consumers on the horizon? i have an intel cpu and if it takes a 30% performance hit i request a full compensation of it and of the motherboard.

"You walked into the wrong neighborhood, motherf#cker!"
 
Persona 5, Nioh, Nier: Automata, and Bloodborne get my votes.

Most of that is untrue or that data was very poorly gathered or improperly compared, tons of bias from pro and anti sides. When you look at data from studies on the matter it shows a statically insignificant change in overall crime rate but the types and severity of crime changes, that doesn't mean the gun control law was ineffective though. Reducing the severity of crime being committed is a good thing and injury and death is reduced when a gun is not present, an even bigger impact is the reduction of injury to bystanders.
 
If you see any anti gun control information being presented and you seed the words 'Gun Ban' in relation to Australia take the whole thing with a very heavy amount of skepticism because that is a very well chosen wording to imply something which did not happen, gun control laws were passed guns were not banned.
 
As to the picture/stats you referenced those are not correct, robberies went down by more than 50% after the gun control laws were passed.
 
https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
 

 
The notion of more guns means the city or local population is safer isn't accurate either depending on how you look at it, every other developed country shows the exact opposite of this. But this leads me in to my next point, comparing gun control laws and their effectiveness and relating it back to the US is difficult. If you go back to the picture of homicides rates a page or so back the breakdown of gun vs non-gun then unlike every other country the scope for improvement is just so much greater for the US.
 
I mentioned it before but Jim Jefferies bit on guns is actually very good, sure he is a comedian but as is their profession he presents his view very well and entertainingly. He also mentioned his bit was being used in Harvard Law School in his special after that one.
 
The biggest issue with gun control debate is the intentional misrepresentation of data and the actual intentions of each side of the debate. The people that actually want gun control, the people educated on the matter who do the research and the law makers are not trying to pass it to actually reduce crime, that is basically where the debate gets stuck at every time and it's done like that on purpose. Gun control is about reducing the extremes of crime, the injury and severity of crime being committed. Gun control is very well documented as showing a reduction of all of these even within the US.
 
The major contributors to crime is poverty and lack of education, these are the solutions to reducing all types of crime and the most severe crime goes down first and by the most. If you want to stop people from being injured, jobbed and murdered don't pass gun control laws put more money and effort in to education and outreach programs. Create apprenticeship programs, retrain people out of work due to changes in industry. Hungry, disillusioned people who are out of work and feel disenfranchised commit crime. Hope and a little life purpose goes a long way, more than taking a gun out of a persons hand.

I have not been able to find evidence that more guns = less violence.
The picture you posted seems either biased or inaccurate as well, or at least your understanding of Australia gun laws.
 
Guns are not banned in Australia. What happened was that after a mass shooting in 1996 they banned automatic and semi-automatic weapons, created a national firearms registry, introduced a waiting period for gun purchases and made new licensing regulations. They did not outright ban guns.
 
Since the new laws, gun-related homicides and suicides have dropped by around 60%, and it is estimated that it saves around 200 lives a year.
 
Even if we assume that the amount of armed robberies went up (again, can't find any reliable source for this) the evidence is clear, the amount of deaths has decreased sharply by introducing what I would consider very obvious regulations as well as the temporary buy-back program.
 
 
 
What does those statistics make you think about exactly? Those statistics makes me think "wow, it sure is easy to manipulate data to further your agenda". I mean, it doesn't even take into account the population difference between cops vs non-cops. If we just plug in those "5 police killed and 100 non-police people killed" numbers into the number of police in the UK (123,142 officers, and 65,64 million citizens), without accounting for anything else (such as people dying in custody without the police being responsible).
 
Percentage of police who dies yearly: 0.00406%
Percentage of population who dies in custody, yearly : 0.00015%
 
You are 2606% more likely to die working as an officer, as you are being a citizen who dies in custody.
 
It also doesn't take into account the necessary sacrifices which might be needed in order to keep the 0.99984765387% of people safe. For example a police shooting someone who is a threat to other peoples' lives.
 
I am not saying that the police are flawless, in fact it seems like the US has an especially large problem with horrible police officers. However, I think there is a lot of blind hatred against police which is not based on facts, logic or reason. 

Running a 4K panel at 1080 would still be a 4K panel since we're talking about physical pixels. 

I mean... don’t let her outside? It’s not exactly rocket science.
 
If she tries to make a dash for the door every time you come in or out, you could try getting a spray bottle (buy a new one from the dollar store or Walmart- don’t reuse one from cleaner, etc). 
 
Fill the bottle with water. Set the spray bottle to “narrow stream”, and blast that fucker with water every time she gets near the door. 
 
It’s totally harmless but cats fucking hate it.
 
Also why do you have cats? If you truly aren’t a cat person, put up an ad on kijiji/craigslist/Facebook and see if anyone wants them. 
 
I love cats and have two, but if I didn’t like cats, I would NEVER own them, as they can be more work than people realize. 

>not a cat person and never will be
Owns 2 cats
Cares for and about them
Worried one might run away.
 
Something's fucky
 
Edit: Cat avatar

I'm all for it in the right settings, but I'm wondering why we haven't pushed localized wireless charging farther. Especially for those of us that place their belongings in the same place at work, home, and the car. The other issue I'm thinking of is absorption of excess radiation. 

I did, and I've been running it like that for awhile.  I'd just never noticed the difference in Task Manager.
 
In case you're wondering, I have it on adaptive mode, it only shows 4.7GHz because I opened it 3 seconds before taking a screenshot.  I thought about going for 4.8GHz, but I doubt I'd even notice a difference and I'm more comfortable at using 1.3V.
That's Zelda you idiot.
 

The first thing I did was open up several other utilities (including CPU-Z) to make sure that it was a Windows problem.

That wallpaper and icon makes me wonder if you're really into Gears of War... 
 

Definitely reading incorrectly, but you should post it to OC3D or some other score database. 

May want to put an epilepsy warning or such. Also, please report back as I'm curious if these videos actually work. 

Thanks for confirmation, the last owner clearly left it on one text app waaaay too much.  I'll report my findings on this thread in case anyone needs this info in the future.
 
This is the vid, it's lots of flashing color so epilepsy warning
 

If it's been working for the few minutes, just do it for an hour or two to see how much progress has been made. Otherwise, I don't see why changing rapidly would cause extreme amounts of damage as they're meant to do such. 

They only have 582,000 people

He means TR. 
 
@Nighel I would stick with the CPU you have and buy the 1080 Ti if you're getting a 4K@60 monitor at the same time. 

Shouldn't get any bottlenecking.
Now if you had gone like GTX 1080Ti and some old AMD FX2 processor then you would have issues

No you are fine

That's perfectly fine, the 1060 is a good pairing with the I3 8100

HAHHAHAHAHA. Valve right now 

Get a graphics card upgrade first

Everyone repeat after me:
100 North Pole Lane Drive South
North Pole, Antarctica 00000-0001

only caveat is that Off-Topic posts do not count towards your post count (still at 199)
and this kind of information is best served as status update material.
<-LOCKED->

@iamdarkyoshi Has little shitters kitters.

He means TR. 
 
@Nighel I would stick with the CPU you have and buy the 1080 Ti if you're getting a 4K@60 monitor at the same time.