hohto

Back in the wilderness and the first stage of bounty hunter, many clans had 20+ hour fights. Rsd and DF for example had one on 23rd december which of course ended on 24th for most of us :P Few days ago RSD had a 1½ hour fight against SoK and ended up with 452 kills. That means it took roughly 12 secs per kill. If same kind of domination went on 10k kills would be: - 12*10,000=120,000 secs - 120,000/60 = 2,000 mins - 2,000/60 = 33 hours 20 mins roughly. Notice that in order to get it in that time, you'd have to keep up a great speed all the time. I personally don't believe any clan would return for 33 hours just to see them losing miserably, so I assume the fight would be between two rather good clans and thus make it also last a lot longer. Will it happen? Most likely.

I'm relatively sure he wasn't. Muhahaha, Alchemon, Sandytrain and Who da best for sure got 100 before Almedin and I'm almost certain that Wickedwayz, Dirtydevil, Erixson and many others got it before Almedin. I'd infact be kind of surprised if he was one of the first 30 to get it. Here's two old pictures of the hp list. Look up Almedin from the 2nd pic (rank 60+) and compare it to the first page: No chances he would have been the 3rd. http://koti.mbnet.fi/hohtava/vanhoi/fight.PNG http://koti.mbnet.fi/hohtava/vanhoi/fight2.PNG

You're one positive thing... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392422,00.html http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/h ... plan_N.htm + Many others you could find within 30 secs of googling.

Cooking: - By the total time (time collecting needed items, such as gp to buy raw food + time used in order to gain the xp) it's the fastest skill out there. In the other words construction and summoning are faster AFTER you've gotten all the materials, but getting the materials is a lot faster in cooking. - It takes almost no work at all. Right click banker, right click on "withdraw all", click the shark, use it on fire and cook all-> over 1k xp per click. That is even better than summoning with blue charms and geyser titans. - When combined by both time and clicks, it requires virtually nothing. There's a reason why has the most people with 200m xp in it. - It takes almost no concentration at all. This means that the xp flow is stable, unlike in most cases with skills like construction, mining, rc, hunter, etc. Infact it took so "much" attention and concentration that I was more often drunk than sober when I trained cook from 90 to 99. Fletching doesn't much differ from this and basically the same points would be valid with it too.

Imo that 6 dollar burger is 6 dollars worth more than the ability to play RSC :P

I find that kind of protectionism kinda funny, seeing that it's against the neoliberal principals of the goverment putting their hands into the markets. It might be socially almost a must, but I find it pretty hypocritical how the american advisors (such as Sachs for example) were against this kind of actions in Russia, Poland, etc. Oh well, dunno how funny it is to see the money of american tax payers being spend in this case: those are the ones who pay this "saving" and it's away from something else. My own guess that something is not the military budget however. This is my capitalism: a small minority does mistakes with private companies and the public suffers from the results.

I personally see this is a great opportunity to gain a lot expensive junk fast for expensive trades, such as godswords, phats and so on.

Definately no. Why? Because it would turn this kill into far too fast. People can already gain over 10 million summoning xp in one day IF they've worked for weeks/months before cashing in the charms. This means that if all the charms could be bought and 99 sum gotten by wasting one day. Even though I'm not against buyable skills or these so called bought capes, that would imo be far too much.

Just let them shoot few times with an assault rifle. If that doesn't teach them to respect weapons, their place is in a mental hospital.

If yours are anything like mine, definately not. It may open up the wounds, cause pains and the bruise might not like. - With a nickname bruise "falling" from cheek to neck.

So in the other words it's far away from being "revolutionary" and closer to "pointless".

Yet you've gained 119k magic xp in last 4 weeks while being under 99 magic. Makes me suspicious that you've managed to sacrifice a bit over half an hour to that method. If we look at the other xp you've gained within 4 weeks, your claims make less sense than a polar bear hunting lions in Kenya. Yes, there have been and will be these so called revolutionary training methods. The first lvl 99 rangers and few top meleers in rsc didn't get their xp the same way most thought it would be best to be done. Do you know revolutionary methods? Most likely not.

Was relating to the missile shield in Poland, but still it applies for Japan and WW2 too. You were arming their enemies, blocked their trade, gotten warnings and so on. Economical warfare is a step too. Was it "worth" a war is another question but that wasn't the question :P

Schindler's list - Pretty much the first movie that really impressed me. Cannibal holocaust - One of the talked movies ever. If you can see the meaning behind the violence, it gives a totally new level to the movie. Full metal jacket - The best antiwar movie with an actual war scenes. Donnie Darko - Weird, yet great. A perfect "what if" movie. Repeat those few times and you get 10, more aren't needed.

So showing off the power to USSR wasn't one motive? So testing new weapons on an actual target was no real reason to do it? Those nukes killed hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS and almost no soldiers. People got hung in Nürenberg for a lot less. Also you made the first moves there and you've been close of using nukes later in different countries. What makes you really believe USA wouldn't be able to strike first? And in the other words your aggressive policy in Poland for example aren't provocating them? They are now normally reacting to your aggression. If that reaction is being on the warpath, then they at least aren't alone. You already made your first move by officially accepting the missile shield after Russia had made their opinion clear over a year ago. I'd like to state my two cents here too, seeing that Finland was the first country to have get int oa real war against USSR and later fought in round 2 too. First of all, pretty much ALL of their high ranked officers got killed or had to escape due Stalin's policy to replace "dangerous" people. Due this people got promoted from 2nd lieutenants into generals within one night and most of the highest officers didn't have the knowledge to do their job. This added to the russian strategy was bad for the soldiers: their strategy was to go forwards until they got shot: if they had retreated, they would have been shot by their own people. Also during the first years of WW2, they were really badly prepared for winter conditions for example. That all added together in Winter war and made USSR look really weak. That made Hitler assume that USSR was a giant with clay legs and it could be striken down fast and thus caused Operation Barbarossa. Of course the desperate situation trained the officers more than any training ground or wargame could and in 1945 red army was without any doubts the most dangerous army on this planet.

From Germany's point of view, we had two advantages: * Logistically our soil was vital part in order to go for such a massive attack. * Our will to take part Don't think the first reason is worth explaining, but the second might be. First of all, we've been pretty much loyal to Germany after our independency in 1917. In fact we were few weeks away from getting a german king back in then. Later they assisted us with weapons and political support while other western nations turned their back during the winter war. By accepting the only aid we could get we partly became Germany's allies during WW2. Despite the fact that Hitler's Germany did many things I do not accept (who could?), I believe our alliance with them was the only choice and historically justified. I'd like to point out that USSR had already attacked Finland (second war with them) few months before Operation Barbarossa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation_War

During what point was USA and Russia allied? Their friendly policy towards each other was still far away from being alliance and no allied countries would have same volume in arguements as you two got at the moment. USSR started their own alliance as a retaliation to NATO: it was founded a day after west Germany joined NATO. You also forgot to mention Albania and add at "east" in from of Germany. Russia's military budget is the fastest rising military budget and they've already relaunched many thing that were cut down right after the collapse of USSR. They got enough technology to blow up this whole planet multiple times and that includes destroying you. Does NATO ring any bells?

A flag can be two things: * A symbol of the country and its current rules. * A piece of cloth If a flag means to you what you just said, then I don't understand at all your point. You're claiming that your opinion is the only right one and you cannot protest against it. By burning the strongest symbol a nation can in most cases have shows exactly what you think of the nation IF you've taken the side of symbolism. I personally believe there are many cases where a flag's burning can be justified due the policy of the ruling goverment. I for example could now go out without any problem and burn USA's or Russia's flag as a way to show my opinion on their current policy or I could go burn my own country's flag if our line crossed the point which I find critical. Would it be morally wrong to protest against those nations in the current political climate or protest against my own country's choice if I feel like the choice is wrong? By accepting everything you can never get a better place to live. If you take the piece of cloth view, then it's relatively easy. It's just a thing to burn and not loaded with any beliefs, ideology, symbolism or hatred. If you now for example went to burn a flag of a country that you haven't even heard of, can it be said to have any bigger meaning to you than burning a t-shirt with a pic of dolpins at the cover?

After few learnt languages (around 5-6 depending how do you count the learning, not counting in different dialects) I'd give the following instructions: * Don't study it by learning certain sentences by heart, think why do it go like it does. The better you understand the idea behind the language the better chances you have to actually learn to speak it. * Repeat, repeat and repeat. You have to use the language a lot in order to be able to speak it. Forgetting a once learnt language is easier than learning a new one. * Notice the difference between understanding and creating your own stuff. Just by reading or listening to the language you don't learn to write and speak it. * Once you think you're good at some certain language, think again. There's no such thing as perfection in languages, you can always become better, learn more and understand the meanings behind different structures better.

What makes you think so? You've already been close of the 3rd strike against non training targets many times, for example in Dien Bien Phu, Vietnam and so on. And you're so superior when compared to russians that only they could do it? Having guts is not a synonym to being a suicidial and selfish idiot. The question should be "is any nation stupid and suicidial enough to declare a nuclear war". Why would Russia want to be under the threat without same kind of possibility to retaliate if needed? You've already bombed places for a lot less.

You already got enough fire power to destroy this planet even without North Korea or China. USA wouldn't need (if that kind of an alliance would be real on a theoretical level) or even would be able to get any proper help from them if the plan was to nuke Russia. That would be a two bladed sword tho: the retaliation would come immediately and USA would suffer just as much as Russia. Just google images from people who have survived from bombings and been relatively close. I bet many of those would have rather taken a bullet or few. Not to mention that when you got your gun, you can in most cases avoid civialian deaths while bombs don't choose to hurt soldiers only. Erm? Since when was Russia even part of NATO? USA has caused more deaths than Russia after the collapse of USSR. Infact USA's civilian death toll is higher than Russia's total number. USA has also been playing the main role in a lot larger number of military interventions than Russia. USA is all the time provocating Russia, now for example with this missile shield. That doesn't mean Russia wouldn't be a danger to certain nations, but at least I'm more worried about USA than Russia when I look it from the point of view a random man would take. Of course if I take the finn's p.o.v. Russia looks more dangerous. So in the other words you don't believe in the possibility that USA could hit the first strike? What would be your opinion if Russia now nuked a random european country with a strategigal nuclear weapon? Should USA start a nuclear war due one destroyed military section in a random place? What would the alliances do? Clap hands with your generals while watching the counter attack coming? First of all USA got more than enough nukes to destroy this planet (note: russia < earth), second there's no other countries than USA and Russia that could match on a theoretical level: all the other nuclear armed forces don't have even close the same number of warheads, submarines, missile technology or even knowledge on nuclear warfare. In WW2 you had no real clue on the longtime affects of using few nukes on certain areas. During WW2 you were the other country with nukes and a lot a head of others: it took USSR 4 years to get their first nukes and it happened after espionage and huge support from the goverment. Now things are totally different and I'm surprised how you can compare nuking Japan in 1945 to a theoretical scene where you'd nuke Russia on 21st century.

Lets see... My first principal in social contacts has been for years to be what I am and keep it that way. It means that if something is against my moral, ethical or *add a fancy word by your own choice here* views, I don't follow the flow. I personally believe that true friends stay with you, no matter do you agree on everything or not. If people who are "just mates", it basically doesn't matter if they don't agree to disagree (sounds weird, doesn't it?) on certain things. Mates can be replaced, friends and your personally are more solid things.

If I had found a way to create items like in RSC, I would do one thing differently: keep it in a lot smaller scale and not boost the same kind of panic. With a better organization and planning the manufacturing could have survived a lot longer, made the creators rich (rs and rl wise) and caused even bigger depression amongs rares. I'd be surprised if same kind of hype would rise so fast if only few limited people found out how to create items now.

Defence is the best attack. A properly working missile shield would make Russia helpless when compared to Americans and thus either cause the need for them to waste billions in something (same kind of shield, better weapons, etc) in order to keep up with the balance. The shield itself is just a retaliation against Russia (not the current conflict!) and not Iran like USA at least used to claim. Russia offered places from their soil or countries loyal to them (Azerbaijan for example) and they even agreed to pay certain part of it, yet a spot with worse protection against Iran+no russian money decicion was made.

In last 5 years I've watched 20-50 gigs+one festival/year, least when I was in the army.