dutchdreams

I can't stand junk mail and junk email/spam. Junk mail: If I'd want two trees worth of paper delivered to my door each week, I'd call a lumberjacker. Spam: I don't want anything enlarged, stop enlarging my inbox. Junk email: yes, you're such a cool friend by forwarding all those junk chain letters and personality tests to me *gah*.

Looks like I'll be heading to 6th level too, alongside all the other 'heretics' on this forum.

I set off a carbon monoxide alarm at the university I was attending. It resulted in the evacuation of the whole chemistry building as a safety precaution *oops* (about 700 people having to leave the building). I was doing my graduation project to get my MSc. After reading all the ins and outs of the equipment I was going to work with, I was ready to do my first experiment. It involved using carbon monoxide in small doses. I opened the small bottle and immediately the gas alarm in my area went off. I pushed the emergency button on the equipment, notified the guy responsible that it was probably my set-up that caused the alarm. After one minute of not responding to the alarm, a bigger alarm is automatically generated, resulting in our wing of the building having to be evacuated. Also, the police and fire department are notified with an automated alarm. This always results in the fire dpt. sending two trucks, with crews fully geared up wearing gasmasks and all. Since carbon monoxide is so toxic, nobody had authority to acknowledge (reset) the alarm. So after about 10 mins, a building-wide evacuation alarm was sounded. 700 people on the street, classes interrupted, experiments ruined all because of *me* ;) After a thorough sweep through the building, fire men concluded the source had been stopped. All the people were allowed back into the building after about one hour after the original alarm was created. Fire department sent a 15k-dollar bill to be paid for sending two trucks to a false alarm. I had to defend myself to the safety-board, explaining my actions and see if I had followed procedures correctly. I had done everything by the book, so I wasn't to blame. In fact, after some exploring they found out that the maintenance-guy from the company that installed the CO-detectors, had messed up. He had set the alarm-threshold way too low (about a factor 1000 too low) after his last yearly check-up. It was set so low, there was no way it *wouldn't* cause an alarm. When the safety board found out this piece of info, they knew who to send the bill to. I wonder what happened to that maintenance guy ? ;)

I was talking about creating a new species that has a higher or lower number of chromosomes. For your point to be valid the males would have to be able to reproduce to create the Down Syndrome species. They can't so it is not a viable species so this is not a valid defense to this particular issue I brought up. For the species to propagate/form you propose a mechanism, based on what you believe is needed (two same-set indivuals having to find eachother) and extrapolate at will (the chance of two such individuals ever meeting). I present you with a case that contradicts your a-priori assumptions and now you deem my example as invalid. Solid science at work ? For your point to be valid they would have to have the same chromosome number *and meet, within one generation*. You claim chances are too slim for two mutations meeting up and hence, the mutation gets lost after one generation. I showed you through the occurance of Down syndrome that it's perfectly possible to create chromosomes 'out of nothing' and sustain the mutation in a population without needing same-set parents at all times at a specific time. It presents a whole different time line to what you propose. Your dogma 'it can't happen because two freak mutations have to occur at the same time AND meet within that very same generation' is shown wrong. Natural selection and (geographical) group-isolation would instigate the further differentation of the two original groups to become seperate species (gene-mutation is a continuous process). Till both genomes have so differentiated through group-isolated mutations that they can't produce viable offspring anymore by intermixing of the two groups, hence have become two seperate species. Darwin made observations on Galapagos to come up with that theory. Looks to me you have a wrong idea of cause and effect within that theory. Let's hear your theory on how species have come about. And yet no Down Syndrome species of human... How long has HomoSapiens been around ? Estimates vary from 40,000-200,000 years: that's less than 0.005% of the Earth's age (.....) The observation presented in my quote disputes your dogma that same-set parents are needed to procreate at the very same moment the mutation is formed to sustain that mutation over a prolongued period of time. It presents a whole different probability of two mutated organisms eventually meeting up. Your extrapolation of time required was shown wrong. You allow yourself to assume a timeline on how quickly mutations have to meet before the mutation dies out, yet have a problem with others showing something else based on observables ? Science is based off observation. Throwing out an idea like that and saying "given enough time don't you think probably could have happened?" is not scientific. You are basing your beliefs on this off of faith. You throw out unsubstantiated ideas about asexual/sexual procreation and formation of extra chromosomes and about the time scale this should happen. Despite me presenting you with a simple case observed in humans that contradicts your dogmas, you lecture me about science, *cute*. I show you a case in humans on how additional chromosome material is sustained for centuries within a population and the only ideas you throw out are: 'it cant happen, it doesn't happen because chances are too slim, it's not possible only maybe through asexual procreation'. Who's blind to observations here, you or me ? According to you I can't say: 'given enough time it can happen', but you can say: 'it can't happen because there's not enough time', lol. According to you, you can say: 'it's too unlikely to have happened for me to believe it', but I can't ask you if it seems 'so unlikely still'. Exactly how much faith and personal beliefs did you put into that rats example ? Summary of your own ideas: Observation: Additional (aberrant) chromosomes are created in humans through sexual procreation, out of 'normal parents', Down syndrome occurs. Your conclusion: additional chromosome material can only be introduced through asexual procreation. This excludes all mammals. No organism has been known to mutate to higher chromosome count. Observation: Down syndrome can be sustained and depends on intermixing with a 'normal parent' to sustain the additional chromosome material in the gene-pool of the population, regardless of time. Your conclusion: for an aberrant genome to survive, two organisms with the same genome are required to mate within the life-span of the individuals carrying that same genome, or else that extra chromosome material will be lost. Chances are too slim, so no new species can stem from that. Where's your science/reasoning in explaining both those observations ? Since you formulate your ideas contradicting observations I'll call them dogmas rather than hypotheses. Once again, you're very welcome to explain the occurance of Down syndrome with your dogmas as the starting point.

If the extra copy of chromosome 21 leads to an increase in intelligence, how many generations do you reckon it will take before natural selection has made the extra copy a standard of a what - when compared to the species where the error first occured - is a new species? Either way, clearly the number of chromosomes does not pose a hurdle for macroevolution. I agree it's not a barrier, it's why I called Ambassadar on his claims. I didn't say the quoted bit in your original post: it was Ambassadar's. Would you mind changing the quotation title in your post ?

Alrighty. In Down syndrome there is extra genetic in the 21 chromosome. It usually results in mild to moderate [developmentally delayed] and is a factor in many negative diseases or afflictions to the person that has it. Additionally like mules males are sterile. Females have about a 50% chance of their child having Down syndrome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome Extra chromosomal material. Your claim was two-fold: Claim 1: It would have to happen through asexual procreation. This, according to you, would exlude mammals. Humans can produce extra chromosomal material in their offspring through sexual procreation, as shown in the case of Down syndrome. No need for asexuality exclusively. Claim 2: If through sexual procreation: a] the parents must have the same set of chromosomes. Humans can procreate with parents having different sets of chromosomes, with a 50% chance of giving the extra chromosome to their offspring in the case of Down syndrome. The offspring carrying this extra chromosome feature lives long enough to procreate. b] The chance of two individuals meeting, having the same set of chromosomes, is too small for the extra chromosomal information to be passed onto their offspring. Not only is it not required for humans to find 'same-set' parents, it actually depends on intermixing with a 'normal-set' father since the Down-syndrome-male is sterile (the sterility is debated by the way). I'd say this presents a big enough chance for the female to find a partner considering there are roughly 3 billion males walking this planet. The 'normal chromosome' population sustains the one with an 'abnormal set': maybe long enough for the males to overcome their infertility ? Extrapolate this to your example of the rats. Is it still unlikely to have never occured in any organism in the course of millions of years ?

Kindly explain the occurance of Down syndrome in human population out of parents with 'normal' chromosome numbers. Be sure to include both your claims, specifically on the matter of the fertility of Down syndrome females. I'll give you a clue: these females can produce offspring.

My first encounter was on the day the barrows were released. I had no clue what to do really, of course I didn't read the book the ol' guy gives you. I dug into what turned out to be Verac's grave. I spawned him, along with about 10 others doing it at the same time. I had a hard time hitting him and at the same time I wondered how he could hit me so hard through my melee armor and prayer. I killed him with about 10 lobsters left in inventory. I went up, noticed the prayer drain and went to Ahrim's grave. Spawned him, got smacked around by his spells on my melee armor, prayer gone but I killed him with 2 lobs left. I went up again, to a random grave (Dharok's as I learned later) and it turned out to be my tunnel down. When it popped the question about being sure to go in, I figured I'd need a light source. I tellied out to get one, when a friend called to go out. I logged off and next day I read a bit on how to get things done the right way ;). Afterwards I had a few close encounters with Dharok, when my prayer would run out just before delivering the final blow. He split me in half a few times, but other than that, things went pretty smoothly.

Everything is relative (I think), you should still be able to see it. The light emitted from the headlights would still be travelling away from you at the speed of light. Even though the car is travelling at the speed of light, the light can still escape relative to the car. To someone outside of your car, you appear to be travelling with the speed of light, while the light emitted from your headlights would appear to be travelling *twice* the speed of light to him. Compare it to sitting in a train and somebody walking down the path away from you. To you he appears to be walking 5mph. To someone outside of the train, his speed = speed of train + 5 mph. (feel free to correct me, my theoretical physics is a bit rusty) Completely wrong: Quote the whole article: specially where it says this velocity addition formula simplifies in the case of colinear velocities (which we have in the case of light emitted from a car): v = (v1 + v2) / (1 + v1v2) with all speeds noted as fraction of c and v = relativistic sum velocity (also in fraction of speed of light). Speed of car = c, so v1 = 1. Carlight speed = c, so v2 = 1. Relativistic sum velocity is v = 2/2 = 1. Which means the carlight photons move at the speed of light away from the car, relative to the car. Which is what I said. So, nope, not *completely* wrong :P. Or, as Wiki says it: So, I went wrong in reasoning that the observer outside would see the carlight at twice the speed of light. This because the simple addition formula I used for the 'train-example' doesn't hold for speeds close to or at the speed of light.

I'd keep myself busy at first, finding the answer to the question that keeps us all occupied: Who shot J.F. Kennedy ? I'd have a look in the most secret files of the CIA/FBI and pay a visit to Area 51. Afterwards, keeping myself alive on canned food and champagne, I'd go look for other survivors (even though futile).

Everything is relative (I think), you should still be able to see it. The light emitted from the headlights would still be travelling away from you at the speed of light. Even though the car is travelling at the speed of light, the light can still escape relative to the car. To someone outside of your car, you appear to be travelling with the speed of light, while the light emitted from your headlights would appear to be travelling *twice* the speed of light to him. Compare it to sitting in a train and somebody walking down the path away from you. To you he appears to be walking 5mph. To someone outside of the train, his speed = speed of train + 5 mph. (feel free to correct me, my theoretical physics is a bit rusty)

Slightly off-topic: I was wondering myself what it would take for me personally for the existance of (a) God 'to be proven'. I think a lot of sceptics will agree on the existance of (a) God, once proven of his existance. Something that will push them over the line of none-believing. If someone walks up to me on the street, claiming to be God, I'll tell him to go seek help. If I see someone on TV, I'll think the same. If I see that same person on all the channels on TV, I'll think the government is playing tricks with me. If I see something 'unnatural' happening in front of my eyes, I'll think to myself that I should stay away from alchohol. If I see something 'unnatural' happening on TV, I'll think to myself the special effects guys did a great job. For every manifestation I could come up with a rational explanation: fed by contemporary modern man's beliefs and science. Did mankind's progress make it inherently impossible for a God to be proven ? I know the religious answer to this one, how about fellow-sceptics ?

Yep, great story about the impossible at first, until you realise one of his preconditions is flawed. He assumes constant speed for both, but if you look what he describes, you will notice he is describing Achilles slowing down and adjusting to the constant speed of the tortoise over time. Speed is observable through time and distance travelled. It is not measurable by itself. We say someone travelled 10 feet in 10 seconds, hence his speed was 1 ft/sec. It is literally derived from distance-time: plot a distance-time graph and the tangent in any point of that curve gives the speed of the object at that time. Do this for the example from Zeno and you will see Achilles slowing down to match the tortoise's speed (after infinite time). This goes against his precondition that both were going at a constant speed. Zeno described deceleration (i.o.w. negative acceleration) but not a true paradox. He didn't describe that Achilles can't overtake the tortoise, he merely described Achilles doesn't want to overtake it ;)

Time magazine published an article on the 'God-gene'.. According to the scientist who conducted the research, mankind has a gene that determines the individuals' susceptibility to spirituality. His research is highly criticised by people from all sides of the fence, so don't attribute too much value to it. If this is true though, then religion has a great future ahead of us. Personally, I think religion will remain in some way or shape for a long time. Man is sentient and has reason. Reasoning can only carry you up to a certain point in dealing with human emotions that the sentient part of your brain creates. Religion has been a release valve for a lot of people in the past to deal with human suffering (pain, death, disease, grief, dispair etc.). It provides for consolement to a lot of people. I don't expect these feelings of suffering to go away in the future. I expect the decorum of religions to decrease: less mass rituals, but more personalised, tailor-made to the individual. Western society as a whole seems to become more individualistic, as a result I expect the way people choose their spirituality will become more individualistic as well. Picking those parts of a religion that they can support and feel a need for, but at the same time disregarding those parts they cannot justify to themselves. Also, I expect people keeping the demonstration of their religion more to themselves, privately in their own home and/or to churches alone. Less public display of peoples beliefs.

Should it be allowed ? Nope. I play this game for fun and relaxing in my spare time. I don't want to have to waste this time watching over my shoulder how other people are going to try to mess up my game time in a dishonest way. Luring is part of this, scamming as well. Nor do I want to have to spend time reading forums to keep me informed about tricks that some will play. Will the ruling make it stop ? I don't think so, but I hope it will put a stop on its rapid growth.

Thanks for pointing that out, I edited the quoting in my original post. I don't see myself saying anything about 'all' or 'most'. You lure now and know that you don't play the game properly now, like before on your main. You see the loot as a bonus ? You're still seeking the bonus, even though it's a by-product of your fun: or do you actually give the loot back to those you lured ? Imagine two possible victims in Edge: one wearing expensive gear and the other wearing nothing: which one do you go after ? What part of 'not all lurers are pixel seeking noobs who dont play the game properly' were you trying to prove again by telling about yourself ? You perfectly fit the description of a 'pixel seeking noob, who doesn't play properly', like any other random lurer.

Click me and read the first post. The post dates from before luring was allowed, but you can get an idea from it, on how the sentiments (of some of us) about luring came about on Tipit. Not quite the answer you expected to get I guess, because I don't take pride in typing like a dweeb. Why RSC is pro luring ? I don't know, I never go there. Jagex could ban luring if they wanted to. They simply don't care -- it's easier to turn a blind eye to the problem than to make an effort. That's all there is to this. Your absolutely right. They don't care. They put up a warning and that should be all thats nescesarry. They don't care, yet they moderate the RSOF to keep advertising for a luring partner down ? If they really didn't care about it all, if it were in the spirit of the game, then they would for sure allow that to be advertised. Hell yeah. If you drive into a ghetto and knowingly park your car which is worth stealing don't expect it to not be there the next morning. Of course there is a difference in morality between stealing Pixels and stealing a car. Fix the bolded statement. Just doing you a favor, pointing out a flaw. I agree, there's a difference between stealing pixels and a car. Since they're only pixels, you should have no problem keeping your hands off of others pixels. It's not bannable not because it's too hard to prove. It's not bannable because it's not against the rules. YOUR WHOLE GAME SCREEN IS COVERED BY A SIGN, IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE DANGERS OF THE WILDERNESS THEN READ IT. It used to be regarded against the rules (look for a picture of a J-mod post dated november, in the debate-club thread). The wilderness signs weren't added in the meantime, but before that. So I don't know what made them have a change of heart. It being difficult to enforce/reportable sounds reasonable. I'm a bad person by using people's stupidity against them? Funny I always thought I was doing them a favour by pointing out their flaws. I find luring fun. I find knowing exactly what someone else is thinking entertaining. The loot is just a bonus. As I said before. Me having fun, making RS money, and training my skills does not make me scum. The things you look for can also be found in staking: great rewards, outsmarting people, using your opponent's weaknesses to your advantage. The only difference is that the other party actually expects/prepares to engage in a fight. Maybe you should try a (MMO)RTS since you consider the loot only to be a bonus over outsmarting people. 'Pixel seeking noobs': you called it 'pixel stealing' yourself a few quotes up. Not much difference between the two. In this quote you recognise luring not being 'proper playing'. It doesn't matter you 'played it properly' in the past, it matters how you play it now: luring. Your reasoning on lurers being pixel stealers who don't play properly is flawless. Oh but wait, you mentioned this prejudice to disprove it: I guess you failed. I just thought I'd do you a favor, pointing out a few flaws and all.

Eureka ! Man has found the fountain of youth. Your heart deteriorating ? Buy yourself a new one. Boozed up your liver ? No worries, we'll grow you a new one. Smoked your lungs away ? Don't worry, get two for the price of one. Go along this path and survival of the fittest might become survival of the richest.

Warrior, see, I'm going to be honest here and I'm not trying to sound bigoted, but, you're looking at the face value of religion. Science and religion can fit together, I don't believe any religious text should be set in stone, why couldn't God be at the seat of the universe and still control Evolution, why can't God be nature. After all, they both control the universe. Essentially we believe in the same thing, to me God=Nature, one is just a deity who is more conscious to each person and the other is unconscious to each person, mentally. Two different outlooks, but also very similar at the same time. I'll give an answer as an a-theist with a scientific background. From a scientific point of view, religion and science can exist together. From a religious point of view it's a little more tricky. Sound basis of science is the allowance and acceptance of the principle of 'uncertainty'. Any scientist will keep a certain amount of 'uncertainty' in his findings. A scientist observes a certain phenomenon and will formulate a theory that explains his observations. Darwin observed similarities between species found on the Galapagos Islands and species on the continents. He also found dissimilarities in these organisms, big enough to make a distinction as them being sperate species. He conlcuded that by being exposed to different environments, a common ancestor diversified into the two species, through natural selection. The diversification into seperate species if given enough time is the part of the theory most of religious people have issues with. Evolution itself can be observed on labscale with simple organisms. The natural selection eventually leading into seperate species is not as easy to observe, because it takes such a long time. This, in no way means that Darwin proved God doesn't exist. This is also a public misconception that the evolution theory disproves the existance of (a) God. One can only argue that he provides a different telling on how species came about than the one the bible has to offer. His scientific uncertainty principle will not allow him to say that God doesn't exist. Simply, because he can not emperically prove God exists, nor can he prove God doesn't exist. He also cannot prove or disprove that the driving force behind evolution is initiated by a divine being. Concluding, from a scientist's point of view, science doesn't exclude religion or the existance of a divine being. For religious people as said it's a bit more tricky. (Christian) Religion already provides for all the answers from the start. God is all-knowing, all-powerful and infallable. He is the answer to everything and any question. This point of view leaves room for no uncertainty principle: dogmas. Through his tangible legacy of the bible, He has left mankind a way to follow Him and eventually be allowed into heaven. He also tells His followers through the bible, that they should follow Him, else their soul will be condemned to hell (see bible quotes few posts up). The only 'manual' (no disrespect) on how to follow Him is that very same book. To have a shot at eternal life in heaven, one must believe and obey what's written in the bible (to the letter). (Evolutionary) Science conflicts with what's written in that bible, it conflicts with God's legacy and therefore with God Himself. It conflicts with the inner core of the believers itself. It conflicts. Having the answers from the start creates the danger of tunnelvision, since one way or another, the answer is always the divinity without question without uncertainty. This manifests itself in various ways when confronted, through dogmas, various leaps of faith and blunt rejection of ideas ('I will not accept that I evolved from apes, God is right man is fallable'). E.g. 'How old is the earth ? According to the script, 6000-10000 years old, but certainly not billions of years. How about carbon-dated fossils ? God is all powerful and can change the decay of the carbon atom at will at any given time in history.' Don't take offense at my description of the religious point of view, I'm sure I am way off on certain aspects of it since I lack the experience of following a God myself.

There are many ways of saying something that is true. Just because it's written by man and man isn't perfect, doesn't mean God can't use man to write a book the way he intended . Don't limit God. This is the kind of reasoning I have trouble swallowing. You claim God used man to write a book the way he intended. Galilei, a devout Catholic, wrote a book in support of the heliocentric worldview of Copernicus. Yet, he was deemed a heretic by the clergy. How does one combine the two: on one hand saying the bible was written with Divine inspiration, but on the other hand dismissing a possible similar inspiration (which was proven right later on) as herecy ? Maybe God used Galilei to correct his original legacy ? Oh, but God is infallable ? The same basically goes for the evolution theory and Darwin. I'm stuck in a loop here, but to me it seems the followers of God do a good job in limiting God as well.

Argh ! So much for that plan, I knew it sounded to good to be true. I mean, it would only take two years of clicking to sell them all ;)

No need to go through the guards twice: there's a rope leading to the surface at the end of the area. Also, you bring 25 SACKS per diamond, each containing 10 cabbages = 250 cabbages total in your inventory. So per diamond you can sell 250 cabbages. They sell for 100 each, which makes 25k per diamond.

Have to think big :P All they need to do is buy 200k jute sacks from farmer stores (each sack allows 10 cabs). Stuff the cabbages in those. Bring 25 filled sacks to the guy and sell 250 cabs per trip (have to allow space in inventory for the diamond and a space to remove the cabages from the jute sacks). They would be able to cut back considerably on the diamonds needed. 2 million/250 = 8,000 trips. So, they'd need 8,000 diamonds to sell all the cabbages. Assuming a price of cut diamonds at 5k each (rather high I'd say) they can cut those costs back to 40 million. For easy calculation I took 25 sacks per inventory, but 26 is possible. 2 million cabbages sold = 200 million + 200k sacks (2 gp each ? not sure) = 0.4 million - 8000 diamonds at 5 k each (bit much) = 40 million - --------------------------------------------------------------------- + 159.6 million profit. Doing it this way, they'd make a nice profit. Of course they'd be clicking away well into the 22nd century if they did ;) EDIT : made a mistake, they don't need 20 million sacks, but 2million/10 = 200k sacks, even better profit.

I didn't not say these feelings were bad. I said they were bad when you were obsessed with them so much to the point of marking a person as an object. Bravo being chauvinistic. If no one noticed the add it wouldn't be there. I understand your stance on censorship fully. The problem is not everyone is computer savvy and not everyone understands the harmful effects of the media. The problem is someone isn't going to stop doing something just because you tell it its bad for them. Even if you prove it to somebody they are not going to want to interpret their lives. You put 'lust' in the same line as hate/envy, for your reasoning why conscience > human nature on the matter of 'lust', are you now saying you don't find hate/envy bad qualities ? You once again carefully avoided other questions, I made in my post. Until you do, I'll withdraw from the discussion.

and make it your life's work to come up with a solution to the sun killing us (mankind) all in the future, to leave a legacy.