Rien

Since AS has already been explained, I'll outline a bit of AP. AP classes (Advanced Placement) are basically College/University courses that are available in High School/Secondary School and are typically taken by Juniors and Seniors (16-18 year-olds). At the end of the year, AP students are given the option to take the final AP exams which are what actually determine whether or not the students earn their College/University credits in the subjects they're testing on; the course work throughout the year is just for preparation. To earn the credits, the students have to pass their AP exams, which are graded on a scale of 1-5 with a 3 or above being a passing score. It might seem easy enough, but only about half of the students who take the exams are able to pass them--and I mean that literally. The exams over each subject are different, of course, but they all conform to a similar format in general. Each exam lasts for 3-4 hours and includes approximately 75 multiple-choice questions and six "free-response" (essay) questions. You can find example problems here, if you'd like to see for yourself. If the site doesn't work for you (it's based in the US and the problems require Adobe Reader to view) for whatever reason, ask and I'll be happy to type a few of the samples out. *EDIT* 'Beaten to it while I was searching through the College Board site. :lol:

Essentially, yeah. And now that I've finished with mine, I'll have to sit through these final three weeks of school with absolutely nothing to do. :lol: Good luck on your exams though. :)

I took the AP Chemistry Exam today. 'Crazy stuff. :lol: Did anyone else take it or the AP Calculus Exam? I'd like to hear how other people felt about them; I hate that the scores won't be available until July. :?

Why exactly do you get these shots ? My bet is on Immunotherapy; I have to get three shots every week for mine, and I can't imagine what else could warrant so many shots so regularly. Considering that she's already mentioned being allergic to wasps and bees, I'd say that the shots are specifically for the treatment of a number of severe allergies.

I took the AP Calculus Exam today. I did very well, I felt, on the multiple choice portions of the Exam, but the final three of the six open response questions really screwed me over. :-# I'm confident that I at least managed a 3 though, so I'm not too worried over it. In other news, I'll be turning 18 on Sunday, so I'll be looking forward to partying all weekend... :D ...and to the AP Chemistry Exam I'll have to take on the following Tuesday. :thumbdown:

I'm sorry to hear that (about your questing aversion, that is). :( I would still point out that there are no quests required to unlock Ankous though, and Slayer still remains as an appealing option.

'From the Global Announcement. I would PM any of the Admins that are currently active/logged in, personally.

If you have Jennica's Ring, you'll be able to enter the Spirit Realm from any of the openings in the Wilderness and teleport out from there. Also, the KBD's Lair isn't considered to be part of the Wild, so you can teleport out from there as well.

I would suggest either Armoured Zombies, Shadow Warriors, or Ankous. Other than these, Slayer is, of course, always a viable option. Armoured Zombie Guide Shadow Warriors guide Ankous Guide

You must be very unlucky. :? Certainly, it's much more difficult to obtain a Raven's Egg from a nest than any of the God Eggs, but if you've achieved 99 Woodcutting in the process then you should have gotten at least a couple. Personally, when I chopped willows at the Barbarian Outpost from 88-99 Woodcutting last summer, I received four of them. To NicolaiNick: The likelihood of receiving a Raven's Egg from an Evil Tree nest is close to 0%, although Evil Trees are great for Woodcutting experience--if that's something you're after as well. If you want a Raven's Egg though, I'd suggest cutting willows while wielding a Strung Rabbit Foot. I believe the general nest drop-rate is practically the same for every type of tree, but willows are preferable since you'll be able to cut them much more quickly than maples and above. Willow trees also yield more logs on average than oaks and are--for the most part--more conveniently located (Barbarian outpost, Draynor, and Seers' Village come to mind). With the Strung Rabbit Foot you should at least be able to get a nest every other invent, so it'll only be a matter of time if you commit to your goal. 'Good luck and happy hunting. :)

What clue requires you to have 82 Thieving? :o Anyway, and since I have the URL handy, you should Plunder if you're interested in leveling. I'd normally tell someone in your position to go for it, but if you don't have much of an interest in Thieving (I'm assuming you've only trained it as far as you have to satisfy the requirement for DT), then it's probably best to give it a miss. Good luck to ya', in whatever you decide.

Pyramid Plunder Guide It's a bit old, but, honestly, nothing much has changed. :P

The entire game is clicking -.- Unless you have arthritis, (in which case you probably shouldn't be playing runescape in the first place) I'd stick with blackjacking. I can go 45 minutes non-stop without a problem and only a few mis-clicks. Once you get the whole "double pickpocketing" thing down, it's really easy (not to mention the massive exp). You're hardly in a position to give advice. If you've only blackjacked from 57-60 Thieving and gained the approximate 70k experience required in 45 minutes, then not only are you not adequately practiced in this method, but you also did something wrong while you were blackjacking; trust me when I say that training from 57 to 60 Thieving is nothing compared to having to blackjack to 99 and that you should have gained at least double the experience you earned in your 45-minute spree had you been training correctly. To the OP: Pickpocketing the Master Farmer in the Draynor pig pen will suffice for your purposes, however, if ever you plan on additional Thieving in the future, I'd suggest trying out both Blackjacking and Pyramid Plunder. If you can tolerate Blackjacking and are fairly skillful, then that's excellent; it's far and away the best experience. However, if you're anything like myself, you'll get bored with it and turn to Pyramid Plunder. Don't misunderstand--Pyramid Plunder will still be somewhat frustrating, but not nearly to the extent of Blackjacking (it must be the pillaging aspect that makes it tolerable, at least). :P Also beware of dubious advice, it would seem. :? Some of the people in H & A are very helpful and knowledgeable, but others are just here for the easy post-count, I think. Always look for sources provided and confirmation from others. Also, while it may not always prove to be accurate, check the posters' Hiscores links (if provided); in general, more experienced players will actually know what they're talking about.

I believe it's much more likely that Jagex made a mistake in the dialogue. I've read that thread as well, and the "proof" they're fawning over (aside from the misprint) seems to be that he didn't turn to ash when he died--his skeletal remains being found after The Golem Quest. However, the supporters on the thread are missing the point entirely; normal demons may turn to ash upon death, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Elder Demons do the same. Additionally, if Thammaron had been a Mahjarrat, there wouldn't have been a corpse in the first place, as the Mahjarrat have been shown to be relatively unaffected by conventional means of death. Speculation may be entertaining and insightful at times, but let's try to keep it to a reasonable level. Seizing on every discontinuity that crops up won't get us anywhere. :lol: ...Really? There were only six posts before your own. :?

It's good to remember that anything worth having is worth paying for; if you want results, you'll have to put in the work for it. As a general suggestion to anyone after advice, Wrestling is a great sport to become involved in. The workouts are arguably the most intense and dynamic of any sport in High School, and you'll have fun on top of it. If you run or play another sport such as soccer for stamina in addition to this, you're that much better off. Trying to build a ridiculous amount of muscle mass is foolish, as not everyone has the body type required to do so; I've found muscle definition/toning and good overall physical fitness to be far more important. Don't sweat the small stuff worrying over your image or workout--just so long as you stay active, you'll be fine. :thumbup: This is a myth. While a person's body size/weight may, in general, be indicitive of their strength, this is only because larger people tend to have a greater share of muscle mass than those smaller than them. However, don't mistake sheer mass for greater strength; healthy muscle is what'll increase your strength. It doesn't do anyone any good to "bulk up" just to let the muscles stagnate. Even those with smaller builds are able to develop and maintain muscle strength--that's what being "lean and hard" is all about.

FreeRice is a great site. :) In our free time, my AP Chemistry class enjoys testing our communal knowledge in several of the different subjects. We're even able to test well in a couple of the foreign languages, as I know a fair bit of German and one of our girls is nearly fluent in French. It's good fun; I just wish that there were a few more higher-difficulty levels.

Thanks for the replies; Genesis has always interested me, and I enjoy reading everyone's interpretations. It goes to show that you don't necessarily need to be a Christian--or even a theist, for that matter--to appreciate some of the finer symbolism found in the Bible. These lines, in particular, especially intrigue me: "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5) ~ Spoken by the Serpent to Eve. "And the Lord God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." (Genesis 3:22) The question is--as these lines seem to suggest--whether or not we, as humans, could potentially become as God in our knowledge and power were we to be given enough time. Could we, through the use of our mental faculties and technological advances, become truly omniscient and omnipotent? It's certainly an alluring concept, but I'd like to know what the rest of you think. I can't help but wonder at the possibilities; after all, we've made many, many incredible advances in just the last century, so what could we achieve in another hundred years should we survive gross overpopulation and nuclear war? How about in a thousand years? Ten thousand? One million? The possibilites are endless it would seem, just so long as we survive. :lol: Anyway, it's a bit off-topic, but for any of you who haven't already, I highly recommend reading "The Last Question" (a short story by Isaac Asimov). 'Consider it related reading material; it'll be well-worth the short while you'll take to read it. I'd say it's easily among my favorite three short stories. :thumbup:

I don't agree with that. Our whole nature is based on this principle. If we do something that triggers a positive stimulus then we will continue to do it. On the other hand, if we do something to trigger a negative one then we will stop. It's in our nature to seek the positive. ...Which begs the question: Do you think mankind is better off for having left the Garden of Eden? Until they ate of the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam and Eve couldn't be said to have known the difference between the two, could they? What with the Garden of Eden being described as a paradise on Earth and everything, I think it poses an interesting question; are we better off for having become "aware?"

No, evil is necessary in order for good to exist at all. I see it as nothing more than a reference tool for comparison. To understand the concept of "hot" you must understand "cold" as well. It's all relative, so a reference tool is required. Not sure, but I think it might have to do with our independence. Having your parents do your science project for you is nothing to be proud of. Doing it on your own allows you to experience the feeling of triumph though. I agree with the first point, but it is for this reason that I can't accept the concept of Heaven and Hell; they're far too absolute. I'd be more inclined to agree with your second point but for the "losers" in the equation. Those who pass God's ridiculous "test" may be entitled to feel all the more triumphant in having done so on their own merit, but where does that leave those who fail? Not everyone is born into equal opportunity, so, comparatively, there will be people who will receive a free ride into Heaven (e.g. being born into a wealthy, christian family) as opposed to others who will never receive a fair chance (e.g. those born into poverty-stricken families in remote corners of the world) and will have to suffer for eternity for it. Under God's benevolent justice, those who've never even heard of Christianity will be sent to Hell; where's the justice in this? As I've mentioned before, I don't believe that any crime--no matter how terrible--could warrant an eternity of hellish torture and misery. And so, if even murderers, rapists, and child molesterers are undeserving of Hell's Fire, how is sending otherwise virtuous non-christians justifiable? You belittle the disadvantaged in suggesting that those saved can be "proud" and "triumph[ant]" for having benefitted from the skewed system.

School is winding down; it still amazes me to know I'll be through with High School in a month. Unfortunately, this means that I'll have to study all the more for the AP Exams I'll have to take in a couple weeks. :lol: 'Good news though: We've (the Senior Class) designated this coming Monday as our Senior Skip Day, since the Tuesday and Wednesday following will be job-shadowing days (essentially free days for Seniors when the rest of the school has to take standardized testing). I'm looking forward to the five-day weekend. :thumbup:

If the Bible is to be believed, then Satan merely tempted Adam and Eve; it was God who originally created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. That God is supposedly omniscient would seem to indicate that he created it in the full knowledge of its future consequences yet continued on regardless. Prior to their consumption of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve were little more than children in their blissful ignorance, so how can they be blamed for what occured since God clearly allowed for it to happen and they weren't able to fully appreciate the consequences of their actions anyway? I would liken the situation to that of a parent warning a child away from a hot stove; in general, the child will disregard the warning--not out of spite, but of infantile curiousity--and will touch the surface of a hot stove at some point. In this case, a child would walk away with a scortched finger at worst; God saw fit, however, to eject Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden and curse their descendants to lives of torment and damnation for the one, innocent transgression. Again, if the Bible is to be taken at its word, then God can be said to be far more destructive and unsympathetic than Satan. Are we truly to believe that Noah and his family were the only people in the entire world worthy of being saved from the Flood? How can the 10 Plagues of Egypt be justified? What of the slaying of the Canaanites and of other ancient peoples who ran afoul of God's "chosen people?" I could continue on and on, but, essentially, God has continuously proven to be a harsh, oppressive, and prejudiced purveyor of "justice." One need look no futher than the descriptions of Heaven and Hell to understand this; they are far too black and white in their juxtaposition. Mankind, after all, has the capacity for both good and evil, so how is it fair to sentence some to an eternity of damnation while allowing others to enter into bliss? Does a finite amount of sin warrant an eternity of punishment? I, personally, would refuse both Heaven and Hell; Hell for the obvious reason of it being unjustified and Heaven since I would be required to be cleansed of "sin." Whether or not anyone reading this believes me, we are defined as people through our misdeeds just as much as we are through our benevolence. Anyone stripped of their capacity for "evil"--which, after all, is relative--would never be the same. It would be a terrible fate to have to live forever either way, but essentially being forced to undergo a lobotomy before being allowed into Heaven certainly isn't very appealing to me. Anyway, and before I go to far off-topic, we are who we are. If God is indeed real and he wishes to either punish or reward us as befits his warped sense of justice as described in the Bible, then so be it, but it can hardly described as fair when he precipitated the Fall of Man, can it? I hope you can understand why atheists and agnostics are dubious of God's existence, even if you personally disagree with the viewpoint. *EDIT* I didn't want to post again just to tell you, but it's Occam's Razor you're thinking of, mmmcannibalism. Hopefully you'll see this. :-#

I'll be brief, noble_aloof: The problem with this is that no one can be sure of it. Morals are derived from Society; Religion merely incorporates those deemed "acceptable." People have claimed to have spoken with all manner of supernatural beings or to have witnessed some form of supernatural event for thousands of years. I'll assume your point to be something along the lines of "since so many people have made similar claims for as long as they have, at least a few of the claims must be genuine." Supposing this to be true, how can you know, how do you determine which are vaild? It seems to me that, since the supernatural defies natural classifiction by definition, it would be impossible to distinguish between the lies and the truths; those who attempt to do so are merely cherry-picking without proof of any sort. You are free to believe what you will, but let me ask you this: "If God created the Universe, then what created God?" Personally, I don't see the need to suppose that the Universe had to have been created. Is it so difficult a concept to assume that the Universe has always existed, rather than extrapolate and suppose that the Universe was created instead by God (who you, in turn, assume to have always existed)? I believe Occam's Razor has been referenced to a number of times previously in this thread, but you'll want to read through it if you haven't already (yes, I know I'm using Wikipedia as a source, but please bear with it). You're arguing causation, my friend, and that won't get us anywhere. It's turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down. I don't know of the specific example, but simply because the corpse of a prophet hasn't decayed since the person died doesn't imply that he or she is under some form of "divine protection." I submit as proof the darling Rosalia: She'll turn 89 this December.

I sympathize with the mother. It's wrong that she's having to endure the shameless and inconsiderate criticism being heaped on her after she's already been through so much. While I personally disagree with her decision, I admire her for her steadfastness. Not everyone can remain true to their principles in the face of adversity, but she's proven herself to be one of the few. Bear with me on this, but I sincerely wish for the expedient death of the child. In all practicality, the child has no hope of living any sort of "life" as we would deem it and can only prove to be a burden on the family. The child's natural death is therefore in everyone's best interests; the family would be free of the terrible burden of having to care for the child without having to compromise their principles. 'Better that the child should go quickly so that their inevitable suffering and grief may be lessened to some degree--no matter how small.

[hide=Perez Hilton Quote] [/hide]Pathetic. Apparently, Miss California is a "dumb [bleep]" with "half a brain" for expressing an opinion. In all honesty, this was an unreasonable question to stick her with in the first place; as others have already mentioned, she risked alienation however she answered. To quote Stilev: Of course, she could have taken the easy way out with a nicely packaged "PC" evasion, but who wants to listen to more of the same? The Miss USA Pageant has enough problems with this as it is--"World Peace" in particular comes to mind. Who is this man, anyway? I'm sure he thinks he's very clever right now. :thumbdown:

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/9417/crazypnoi415.png