Will H

We occasionally hold competitions just like this one for various reasons, so there's always the chance in the future of snagging a custom title that way. Also, I recall that one of our admins once made a bet with a regular, lost, and was honour-bound to give a custom title a couple of years ago. Let's just say that probably won't happen again, though.

In my dark imagination I like to think that they simply can't, and slowly slip into RuneScape based insanity. Now THAT would make an interesting Psychonauts level. Played Trouble Brewing with the clan today, it's actually quite fun and skill-based.

Broke the sköll boots at last! Have a picture. [hide][/hide]

In other news, I found out today's My Little Pony episode was also about time travel. And on that bombshell, goodnight!

And the marathon's over! I have to say it was definitely worth it. I find what Spielburg thought the world would be like in 2015, essentially the present for me, from a point of view from back in 1985 to be fascinating. (Does that sentence make any sense?) It's just so fantastically wrong, but then again, I'd probably be just as wrong if I tried to paint a picture of what the world would be like in 2045.

~83 Agility~ [hide] [/hide]

Thanks everyone. Currently having problems with my headset again, but I think I fixed them. I'm watching all of these back to back, currently on BttF part II.

~82 Agility~ [hide] [/hide]

I think both eccentrics and nerds are the best kinds of people.

Having the government invest in degrees makes economic sense, and having degrees related to teaching would be something that should be subsidised in an effort to help rectify the shortage of teachers. There is an argument that all degrees should have a minimum amount of funding, I'll concede that, but they are simply not created equal, and they never will be. If there's a shortage of people in any career, or an oversupply of people in another, moving the amount invested in those degrees is a cost-effective way of helping to fix that problem. Funding them equally just sounds like a way of avoiding the tough job of telling people the truth about their degrees. Keeping people in denial about something that is so important to their lives is downright cruel.

I haven't watched any of the Back to the Future films. Knowing that my status as a licensed nerd is under threat, I plan to watch all three of them while training agility. EDIT: Picture borked, downuploaded.

Bewts AND dg.. Bewts AND dg.. We can make this into a song Dibs on kazoo. Damnit. :( Clarinet or Piano. Or both? Idk. Both at the same time, of course.

How do we have a prosperous society if the arts and humanities are heavily restricted? We could 'logically' live perfectly in a robotic society without them, with everybody working to further the human (or robotic) race, but society would be much much worse off. High earning graduates earn much more? I think you must have meant something else but i don't know what. Does anybody have figures on which courses lead to the highest wages? Without that, the question on who adds the most to a country is null, as taxes would be the same. Just because somebody has a degree, does not mean they will add more to a country than another other than a higher chance of them earning a decent wage. This also counts for people who have a certain degree not having any more effect than other degrees. You can't honestly believe that all degrees have equal potential and provide equally paying jobs. They simply don't. Some degrees will provide, on purely statistical averages, a higher paying job, and therefore a higher amount in taxes. We could even factor in the likelyhood that the degree encourages job creation, which will also not be equal across degrees. Not all degrees no, but the ones I'm talking about are those which people assume will have the best benefit, such as the sciences, mathematics, engineering etc. Can you give me the statistics which say they earn more than those who have degrees in the arts and humanities? Degrees such as law, medicine and business will make more, simply because they are more specific in their career paths. However, apart from Law and medicine, most of the big money gained from a degree can be gained from simply getting into work from school, skipping higher education. I've tried to avoid naming individual degrees because I don't have any comparative data for them. All I'm saying that it's just common sense that, no matter what configuration, they aren't equal. I'll break that rule to say this: Travel and Tourism is just as specific in its career path as Law, Medicine and Business, so why is that commonly accepted to lead on to a career with a lower salary? [/hide] I actually removed that because afterwards I realised it was bad to name them individually. All jobs need doing, just as we need lawyers (unfortunately) modern society also needs people do do the other jobs degrees can lead to. Just having government funding for some will mean less qualified people in others, as the best people won't be able to afford to do them. Yeah. I've drafted a few posts myself naming them individually, then deleting them. I'm not proposing that we fund some and not others, that would be even worse than the flat rate. It would be best done by some kind of ranking system, to match the distribution of people looking for certain jobs with the number of jobs available in that field. I'd say that having more or less equal levels of competition, no matter what your career, would be a feature of a fairer society. And extremely unfair to slash funds to certain programs based on stereotypes and assumptions. I trust you mean the assumption of "All science and engineering degrees are better than arts degrees". Of course, dividing them along that particular line would be unwise. Linking the economic benefit of a degree with the amount of funding it receives is not.

How do we have a prosperous society if the arts and humanities are heavily restricted? We could 'logically' live perfectly in a robotic society without them, with everybody working to further the human (or robotic) race, but society would be much much worse off. High earning graduates earn much more? I think you must have meant something else but i don't know what. Does anybody have figures on which courses lead to the highest wages? Without that, the question on who adds the most to a country is null, as taxes would be the same. Just because somebody has a degree, does not mean they will add more to a country than another other than a higher chance of them earning a decent wage. This also counts for people who have a certain degree not having any more effect than other degrees. You can't honestly believe that all degrees have equal potential and provide equally paying jobs. They simply don't. Some degrees will provide, on purely statistical averages, a higher paying job, and therefore a higher amount in taxes. We could even factor in the likelyhood that the degree encourages job creation, which will also not be equal across degrees. Not all degrees no, but the ones I'm talking about are those which people assume will have the best benefit, such as the sciences, mathematics, engineering etc. Can you give me the statistics which say they earn more than those who have degrees in the arts and humanities? Degrees such as law, medicine and business will make more, simply because they are more specific in their career paths. However, apart from Law and medicine, most of the big money gained from a degree can be gained from simply getting into work from school, skipping higher education. I've tried to avoid naming individual degrees because I don't have any comparative data for them. All I'm saying that it's just common sense that, no matter what configuration, they aren't equal. I'll break that rule to say this: Travel and Tourism is just as specific in its career path as Law, Medicine and Business, so why is that commonly accepted to lead on to a career with a lower salary?

How do we have a prosperous society if the arts and humanities are heavily restricted? We could 'logically' live perfectly in a robotic society without them, with everybody working to further the human (or robotic) race, but society would be much much worse off. High earning graduates earn much more? I think you must have meant something else but i don't know what. Does anybody have figures on which courses lead to the highest wages? Without that, the question on who adds the most to a country is null, as taxes would be the same. Just because somebody has a degree, does not mean they will add more to a country than another other than a higher chance of them earning a decent wage. This also counts for people who have a certain degree not having any more effect than other degrees. You can't honestly believe that all degrees have equal potential and provide equally paying jobs. They simply don't. Some degrees will provide, on purely statistical averages, a higher paying job, and therefore a higher amount in taxes. We could even factor in the likelyhood that the degree encourages job creation, which will also not be equal across degrees.

During my year at med school, there was only one other group of students that I really didn't envy when it came to workload. Drama students. The amount of work they technically have to do for the degree isn't much at all, but throw in all the stuff they realistically need to do in order to have any decent prospects for the future, and you've yourself got a stupidly hard schedule. They get on with it too, somehow, because it's something they just love doing. I don't like this notion that art students are lazy people who are temporarily avoiding the job market, and who will ultimately contribute nothing useful to society. That kind of course snobbery belongs on The Student Room, not here. And that's coming from someone with a heavy background in science and humanities. I think we're trying to obfuscate the matter by talking about the difficulty of the degree. Obviously art students aren't lazy and there's plenty of art degrees that are harder than most science degrees, but I don't see what it's got to do with how much it should be subsidised. What is demonstrably true is that there are degrees that are more beneficial to the economy than others, and that's what should decide how much they should be subsidised by the government. After all, the economic returns is the reason why they are invested in by the government at all. I just think that leaving subsidies as a flat rate is a wasted opportunity to better tune and make a positive impact on the economy.

Bewts AND dg.. Bewts AND dg.. We can make this into a song Dibs on kazoo.

Haha, well, today I've done some more Agility on the Gnome Advanced course (which is waaaaay better than Ape Atoll, by the way, thanks Lokie :)), then I got dragged into a load of warped dungeons. I don't know whether bringing a Ring of Kinship with me to Agility training is a really good idea or a bad one. On the one hand, I can instantly take advantage of any advertisements for floors, but on the other, I get distracted a ton. It's all xp, I guess.

Same. It's been a long time since I've had a good thunderstorm. I love thunderstorms.

Thank you! Yes, and the fruits are due to be harvested in 2 weeks. And I expect fruits. Congratulations! I've got a day off today! Student life is so hard. I'll be doing a bit of Minecraft, then back on to RS.

Whoops. I think I actually managed to figure out how to install a Bluetooth headset properly. Rocking out to "Behind Blue Eyes" by The Who wirelessly right now.

This isn't Runescape related, but I just want to post this: Dear BBC Click, The tablet will never replace the desktop computer, and nothing that currently exists commercially ever will. Similarly, touch screens will never work on the desktop, as the mouse and keyboard remains leagues ahead in comfort, ease of use, speed, and efficiency. The tablet has a place and a niche, but is unlikely to even replace laptops, simply because the laptop offers the inherently superior keyboard. I've tried to be open minded and come from the point of view that mice and keyboards are outmoded and no longer the best way to do things, but the fact is, touching a glass screen to type words that don't even give haptic feedback is a step backwards, and that's something you need to accept. Similarly, having your hand in front of you on the screen, moving vertically, is far less natural than moving it horizontally and seeing that movement translated into a vertically moving cursor. Fingers are bigger than cursors, so they're covering more screen space, which is another inherent problem. Tablets will not kill the desktop, and until you learn that, you will become the voice of the technological dinosaurs you loathe so much. Lots of love, Will

It's basically chicken marinated in sweet barbeque sauce, cooked with peppers and onion, wrapped up and topped with mild salsa. The overall effect is the sweetness of the barbeque combined with the slightly tangy tomato of the salsa. They're very satisfying to eat.

I might get another agility level today, or at least make a further dent in my Sköll boots. May as well savour the delights of the advanced gnome course while they're still fresh. We're eating chicken fajitas today, in case you were wondering. Served with an industrial tanker of Yorkshire tea.

Congrats. :mrgreen: You're probably getting into one of those temporary lulls that everyone gets into.