skillerman84

Well I tried reading through it and the guide didn't really tell me what to do, more on where/what it is and whom to defeat. Today's only my second day of Members so I need a little more help than others, sorry. Attack: 2 Strength: 4 Deffence: 34 Range: 27 Magic: 60 Prayer:17(bought bb's for 37) Hitpoints: 42

What would be the most useful spell/ food to use against them?

I've just gotten 60 Mage and I want the Sara cape, but how do I get it? Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks everyone for your help. My Verac's is just like new. :thumbsup:

How much does Bob cost to repair?

How do I repair my Verac's top(100) and my Verac's flail(100)? Thanks for all the help.

I watched a CSI before and it was airing a case was where an addicted gamer litterally "gamed" himself to death. He was in a campus library playing this computer game trying to beat his highscore so he had empty energy drinks all around him, pee filled bottles, and blankets if he suddenly got cold. The only thing he didn't have was sleep, which lead him to die. :-# I know it's just a TV show but if you ask me, you need sleep in odrer to survive.

As I said in my post, I have no sympathy for the kid. I agree with you that he deserves to suffer for his crimes. My point was that 38 years just seems excessive. I was surprised by the number, that's all. I agree with you that he has to pay for what he did. What if the other kids knew what Omar was doing and asked to switch a couple of their grades. They should get punished too, but the law enforcers wouldn't know for sure if they did. As for serving his time, I agree with you. He should do his time, but 38 years, come on...doesn't that seem a little overboard? He didn't hurt anyone physically, and the report sounds like he didnt vandalise/harm anything and it's not like he killed or held anyone at gun point.

Here in Fort Wayne, Indiana you can't smoke in Public Facilities (resraunts,bars,bathrooms,etc.) and I think you also can't smoke in your car either-not sure because I still see some people who do, but I rarely see anybody now. Good Move. =D>

just think of when that phone must have been the it phone everyone had to have like an iphone :shock:

FAIL... *looks up and points to Bluelancer's post..* :lol:

Why not? :-k After all it's about a dude eating glass just because he's bored..so I guess you could call it interesting.

GO OHIO STATE!! <3...That's all I have to say.. :twss:

There is some evidence that indeed, all creatures of the world are linked and share a common origin. Like the cycle of ATP and ADP, which provides the energy necessary for all creatures to carry out chemical reactions. Technically he wants the "real" answer. And the real answer(s) have to do with evolution and you are not supposed to bring religion into evolution; which you just did. Look at my post two(2) above yours. Those are what he is looking for but probally too lazy to read them since they are long(not meaning to call you out lenticular because I probally wouldn't read them either, depending on how desperate I am to know the answer). :thumbsup:

I have researched this quite some time ago and have found articles saved. They are hidden as you see so, read some, or pass them by like nothing; but remember, you asked the question or visited this thread in order to find the answer, so you must read the evidence and or oppinions in order to pursuit satisfaction.. Articles: [hide=Newsflash]No one keeps track of time better than Ferenc Krausz. In his lab at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, he has clocked the shortest time intervals ever observed. Krausz uses ultraviolet laser pulses to track the absurdly brief quantum leaps of electrons within atoms. The events he probes last for about 100 attoseconds, or 100 quintillionths of a second. For a little perspective, 100 attoseconds is to one second as a second is to 300 million years. But even Krausz works far from the frontier of time. There is a temporal realm called the Planck scale, where even attoseconds drag by like eons. It marks the edge of known physics, a region where distances and intervals are so short that the very concepts of time and space start to break down. Planck timethe smallest unit of time that has any physical meaningis 10-43 second, less than a trillionth of a trillionth of an attosecond. Beyond that? Tempus incognito. At least for now. Efforts to understand time below the Planck scale have led to an exceedingly strange juncture in physics. The problem, in brief, is that time may not exist at the most fundamental level of physical reality. If so, then what is time? And why is it so obviously and tyrannically omnipresent in our own experience? The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics, says Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford. The situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.[/hide][hide=Denying the Existence of Time]Perhaps humans invented the concept of time out of mortal fear; reasoning that if time were tangible then its degenerative march could be controlled, just as mankind has tried to subdue other aspects of the natural world. Immortality would be within our grasp! But while time may be a convenient metronome that delivers neatly portioned slivers of existence to conscious beings, the idea of a universal time is looking increasingly fanciful, at least to some physicists. One individual, Peter Lynds, has put his reputation on the line to try and prove that thinking of time and motion in measured segments, like frames in a film, is wrong-headed. Funnily enough, thats what his critics think of his theory. Lynds goes as far as saying that if instants, rather than intervals, of time were a cosmological truth, then none of us would be here today. In fact no physical object, no mass or energy down to the smallest of particles would ever be in motion. This is probably not the sort of immortality that our ancestors had in mind. The most amazing thing about this whole story is that Lynds is not a trained scientist. But he does have a passionate interest in physics and he is also a huge fan of Einsteins work. Lynds theory, Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Continuity, has caused quite a commotion amongst academics, some even saying that his theory is a hoax and that Lynds doesnt actually exist. Skepticism and scorn of Lynds work has continued but this barrage of criticism doesnt look like it will shut him up anytime soon. Much of the opposition to Lynds ideas can be attributed to his questioning of scientific orthodoxy. He doesnt mind suggesting that Einstein, Hawking and other respected figures are just plain wrong. He claims some theories are redundant, such as imaginary time, and others just need modification, such as further developing Einsteins theories so as to iron out some of the contradictions. Most of these would take up too much space in trying to explain; so concentrating on Lynds main theme will be the goal here. In the beginning there was darkness and there was no time. Time becomes immaterial in empty space, and demonstrates clearly that without objects-in-motion - mass and energy - there is nothing to measure the relative passing of time. So how God knew what day it was in the beginning is anyones guess. But we digress. Time is relative to mass and energy, there is no ideal universal clock. As a concept, time cannot precede mass and energy, simply because the idea of time is reliant on the relative motions of celestial bodies. As Lynds says: if there is no mass-energy, there is no space-time; both are fixed and enmeshed. Because of this, time also has no direction or flow, as we conceive it subjectively; it is the relative order of events that is important. This is what led Lynds to claim that there is no precise static instant in time underlying a dynamical physical process. The Greek mathematician Zeno conjured up a famous paradox that involved halving the distance between starting and end-points in time and space. The paradox involves a person trying to move from point A to point B. In order to move from point A, say, your doorway, to point B, say the pub, you must first reach half the distance between A and B, but before that, you must first reach half of that distance. And before that, you must first reach half of that distance and so on ad infinitum. Youll never reach the pub! Zenos paradox seems to make a mockery out of divvying up time to conveniently suit scientific purposes but we know that this doesnt happen in the real world. For example, when you are driving in your car, your speed is relative to the road beneath you. There is no point on your journey that could be called one instant in time. It can only be an interval of time. Even if you took a photograph of the car travelling along the road, the photograph would be an interval related to the speed of the camera, perhaps a thirtieth of a second. It doesnt matter how much you reduce the time interval, it will always still be an interval, rather than an instant. If there are no measured instants then there is no infinity paradox, which demonstrates that there is no actual time measurement. In short, there is only relative motion between objects, and the order in which they occur. To make it even more confusing, Lynds proposes that this theory demonstrates that a body in motion has no distinct position or coordinate. This basic account of Lynds theory brings us back to human perceptions of time and why the brain needs to have a concept of time. We are finite beings in an infinite universe (as far as we know) and understanding the universe requires that we are able to measure the events and objects that make up the universe. Being able to control our physical environment by allocating and referring to time in instants is a handy way of dealing with the problem. But it seems increasingly likely that we need to change the way in which we approach, observe and evaluate the universes dimensions before we have any hope of understanding any of the universes mysteries. Perhaps Lynds theory is just what we need to get started.[/hide][hide=Does Time Exist?]There is no question that we experience what we call time. There is a precision with which we can measure the progression of events over time that is phenomenally accurate. Things age and particles decay over time and it is consistent. However, physical laws that use time as a reference work equally well for time reversal - going backward - a particle hitting another particle, generating other particles and emitting photons will work just as well running backward according to physics. We just have never experienced time reversal and this disconnect with the laws of physics seems to be a mystery. This disconnect is used by many to express the opinion that time exists. However the fact remains that equations of space and time break down at certain points and time falls out of some of them as an unnecessary factor. Think of this: photons live in null time. They live and die in the same instant because they travel at the speed of light and therefore if time exists for them, they do not experience it. They experience zero flight time over zero distance no matter how far apart the start and finish line are. They live in a go-splat world. A photon leaving a star a billion light years away destroys itself in our eye the instant it is emitted, having not aged even a fraction of a nanosecond in its long trip. Space and time are that warped! The space and the time have been warped because of the speed of the photon. It travels at the speed of light. Our very definition of speed involves time so when we say the speed of light we assume that time exists, but for the photon time does not exist. A photon experiences zero distance and zero time due to its incredible speed. Every photon that lights our office or illuminates our book arrives the instant it is emitted. It has not aged even though we can calculate that it moved from the bulb to our book and then to our eye at about one nanosecond per foot of travel. The photon did not experience the time that we measure or calculate. It aged not at all. Time does not exist for any particle moving at c. It only exists for us as calculated or measured in a laboratory. But does it exist as a real dimension? Does it have a physical basis? A photon in flight between point a and point b is invisible to any and all observers. It does not exist in flight and can only be detected at b when it actually arrives. The photon in flight experiences null time - time zero - no time - non-existent time, and travels a null path - or no path at all, regardless of the length of its travel. Time for the photon does not exist, nor does distance. Those measurements of time and distance for the photon are for our domain only - the human one. Now consider an extension of that thought - most of the particles that make up our world vibrate and exchange energy with each other. That occurs even at temperatures close to zero. There is also a froth of virtual particles that pop into and out of existence continually at all times even in a so-called perfect vacuum. All the energy exchanged through photons is timeless because all photons are moving at c. Even gravity moves at c. Gravity is also timeless within its self. The exception is for atoms that bump into each other and exchange energy through vibration and bumping. Or do they? Do they actually touch or isnt there an exchange of particles moving at c that keep them apart? If the energy transfer by photons is timeless, the photons are timeless, gravity is timeless all due to the speed of light as experienced by the particles that carry them, then does time exist or are we merely measuring external events by counting uniform progressions that we experience and can see? I know and acknowledge that we can measure the speed of a photon to a very high precision. I know that we can measure the speed of gravity as other planets tug on ours and on each other. The measurement is based on the progression of the components of our clocks. We do live in a dimension that experiences progression of events in one direction which we call time. However, we can measure but we cannot see. We can observe the effects but not the event. The truth is that whenever something is traveling at c, simultaneous observations are impossible. Every observer of the same event sees something different. Have you ever seen time? Maybe the change in a clock, which is actually only a measure of repetive events, whether a wind up (measuring escapement events) or a NBS clock counting cycles of an atomic nature, but not time. We cant see time, only experience it. We cant measure time, only define it. Time for us may be just a projection of ourselves on a line defined by a progression of events that occur in a uniform manner, but it may not really exist. We are bundles of energy made up of atoms and particles in extraordinarily rapid motion. Take us down to the quantum world and we are made up of many quadrillions of particles exchanging energy among themselves in mostly empty space. In such huge numbers there is an average motion and an average progression of events that may make up our concept of time. Certainly our most accurate clocks are merely counting cycles of an atomic nature. Even the National Bureau of Standards admit they are not measuring time, but only defining it. Does time exist just for us because we experience this progression in a uniform manner? Perhaps it is not actually an extra dimension as we have been so often told.[/hide][hide=Does Time Exist?#2]No! Time does not exist! The answer to the question: Does time exist ? Is no! The best way to show time is an illusion of our minds is to come up with an interpretation of Nature that doesn't include time. Einstein set us on that track with his concept of "space-time", which can be interpreted as abolishing or replacing both entities that are space and time! In the gravimotion interpretation of Nature, introduced in this website, we are actually living in motion rather than in time. The physical phenomenon of motion takes over the elusive concepts of both time and space. The real question is: Does time exist in reality? Click here for an answer that makes sense! The elusive side of the question is: Would time exist in our minds only? Click here for an answer that makes sense! The book "Does Time Exist?" released in 2003 tackled the question of time in that spirit. But the publishing had to be canceled (see next section). A new book "The Harmony of Reality, in no Time" (2008) referenced below, does just that. It provides an interpretation of Nature without time ... and does it in no time at all! It is concise. About the cancellation of the publishing of the "Does time exist?" book The "Does Time Exist?" book has been printed on demand (POD) and released with some lack of professional considerations. Just as for the "Gravimotion" book, which preceded it, the author did not pay attention about permissions to reproduce copyright material, even though that point was clearly stated in the agreement signed with the publisher. Fascinated by his subject, the author forgot all about copyrights and used a few quotes from Einstein and other renown physicists; he had to cancel all publication of both books for that reason. . The ideas proposed in the "Does Time Exist?" book In the book "Does Time Exist? ", the concept of space-time is replaced altogether by an "extended concept" of energy. In that book energy is considered to be physical (it is not in physics) and energy physically "implements" (takes the place or replaces) geometrical space. The important point in "Does time exist?" is that space is now "physically" implemented by the non material but (considered) physical entity energy. Energy is a volume as space is, yet expanding in time. Whereas the concept of field in the previous "Gravimotion" book was still honored as a continuous medium, it is no longer the case in the "Does time exist?" book. The common denominator to the three books "Gravimotion" (2002), "Does Time Exist?" (2003) and "The Harmony of Reality, in no Time" (2008) is the gravimotion mechanism. Gravimotion is a new concept of motion that is neither existing in physics nor in your mind yet. The gravimotion mechanism, not based on time but on the reality of motion, extends the later into domains which would be labeled "negative times" or "faster than speed of light" in conventional physics. The explanations provided in the two books: "Gravimotion" and "Does time exist?" do not match and in some cases contradict each other; they might be interpreted as the products of a rather inconsistent mind ... yet these deficiencies provided the author the opportunity to start all over again! Please be forgiving, consider instead that evolution (in our minds) is taking place as it does in Nature! The thinking was not done in vain, this third book "The Harmony of reality, in no Time...", amounting now to close to ten years reflections, finally provides a coherent interpretation of Nature.[/hide][hide=Does Time Really Exist?]One can divide any period of time into a past and future, from millennia to micro-seconds. The present is nothing more than a fleeting moment through which the future passes to become the past. Is there any evidence that time exists outside intervals of time, which we have constructed to get through our daily lives? One might claim that we feel ourselves being pushed and dragged along life by a relentless expanse of time. Or that time is used to solve problems related to velocity and acceleration and mass. Surely, time must exist Right? Perhaps. But consider that time is something that we perceive through our senses, which are not perfect. Time is like God. It is a human construct. Time does not exist.[/hide] Didn't I just sound like some Bigshot Scholar? ;) Jealous?

*gets into nerd mode* :ugeek: -Well it's hard to explain really. I'll try and keep it sure but it may be hard not to write a novel. I do only know of 3 though. -(1.)Many people believe many things. Some people believe in Spontaneos Generation. [hide=Spontaneous Generation]About 2300 years ago the Greek philosopher Aristotle made observations of the natural world. During and after his lifetime, people thought that living things followed a set of natural rules that were different from thosefor nonliving things.They also though that special "vital" forces brought some living things into being from nonliving material (ex. rocks). About 400 years ago, some people began to challenge these ideas. -For centuries people accepted the explanation for the sudden appearance of some organisms, that somehow "arose" from nonliving matter. Scholars of the day even gave a name to the idea that life could possibly arise from nonliving material-spontaneous generation. In today's terms it's considered a hypothesis.[/hide] -(2.)The first living organism was not created; it was formed in the process known as Abiogenesis. [hide=Abiogenesis]The most likely scenario (using Earth as the obvious example) runs like this:- For the first billion years of the Earth's existence the atmosphere was known as a "Reducing Atmosphere", containing chemicals such as Methane, Sulphur Dioxide, Carbon Dioxide, Nitrogen and Ammonia with no free Oxygen. -Heat from both the Sun and from Geothermal activity heated these and many other chemicals causing billions upon billions of chemical reactions to take place every second in every litre of water on the planet. Frequent lightning strikes also energised the various reactions. Under such conditions a wide variety of chemical compounds are formed, including nucleotides, amino acids, proteins, oils and carbohydrates. Because of the reducing atmosphere these are much more stable than they are in an oxygen-rich environment and so both accumulate and also participate in further reactions. -The accumlated organic compounds in effect compete, not only to be formed but also to remain in existence. Some of these compounds, such as Ribonucleic Acid (RNA), especially in association with proteins are capable of self-replication whereby they become templates for formation of similar or identical molecules and also catalyse such reactions. -Such self-replicating molecules will now compete for substrates and survival - and some may be capable of breaking down rival molecules and incorporating them into their own structures. As self-replication is never perfect, a number of rivals will produce a situation where natural selection will ensure the perpetuation of those molecules most capable of self-replication. -Some molecules became entrapped in bubbles of oil (liposomes) which protected them from the digesting effects of rival "predator" molecules. This, in effect is the most primitive cell, someone akin to a virus or simple bacterium. As time progressed these simple cells acquired a greater biochemical repertoir and were able to synthesise their own cell membranes and many other chemicals that enable them to survive in the most varied and hostile environments. To this day, bacteria are far more biochemically versatile than any other living things. -Just as bacteria were formed by the self-replicating RNA (later to become DNA) being coated in an oily membrane, so bacteria grouped together and became coated in a further oily membrane to formed the first Eukaryotic cells. Even today it is possible to identify a number of formerly free-living bacteria which now form essential organelles within our cells - for example, Mitochondria and the Golgli Apparatus (and Chloroplasts in plants). -The whole process took place over at least a billion years - and only had to produce the first living thing once in all that time. With a billion years and a billion chemical reactions taking place every second in each of the billions of litres of liquid water on the Earth even the most improbable event (which Abiogenesis isn't) becomes not just likely but inevitable.[/hide] -(3.)God. [hide=God]Many people believe God created all living things, animals, plants, etc. Adam and Eve cam and..yeah I'm hoping you already know or have heard of this so I don't have to explain this also.[/hide] Tryto beat me to the post-I went into detail and explained everything though. 8-) Edit:spelling errors.

^I think people are buying too much into "We need change" thing; just because we vote a 1/3 black(not said to sound rascist) into the White House may not change anything but history. ^Yes this year is going to make history because if Obama's voted in it'll be the first time an African American(I think) takes over the U.S. or if McCain wins it'll have history with Palin. ^I'm in High School and everyone there is saying that if McCain gets voted in he will have a heart attack and die the first week of Presidency because of the pressure, or if Obama gets in he'll be assassinated within the first month. ^So primarily everyone at my High School is voting for Obama because he's black and etc. and not for McCain because he's old and if he dies Palin will have to take over, which everyone DESPISES. ^One major con for Obama:he's for Abortion; McCain:he MAY die while in presidency then Palin will have to take over which is the worst case scenario.

When I think of God I think of a kid and puppets with a big play house, in this case a world. He's playing with us dolls and we're doing the actual actions. I still haven't figured out how he gets us all to move at one time though. Still my theory. Oh yea and Heaven..I don't like the fact that we may be up there for thousands of years..in the same place..doing the same thing.. We'd have no reason to sleep-or worry because there's a hell where all the "bad" people go. So in Heaven does that mean everyone's happy all the time? Uber Scary... :shock: gah I just freaked myself out.. :cry:

People in OT eat glass when they are bored. OMG! :o Welcome to my sig.. :twisted:

I have a few: : Do you have a library card because I'm checkin you out. I lost my number, can I have yours? They don't call me Long John for nothin'. You must be in a wrong place - the Miss Universe contest is over there. I was blinded by your beauty so I'm going to need your name and number for insurance reasons.

Hey all, with the NFL being alot different from last year, I would like to see what you guys think the team(s) that will go to, or win the Super Bowl. In my oppinion I think the Giants will win again this year. :thumbsup: So if you'd like, post the team(s) that will go to, or win the Super Bowl, because I would like to see what your opppinions are. I have attached the NFL standings,and the website I got them from if you need to look(I have revised it so it's easy as possible to read and it consists of the team, the W-L-T, and the Percent).: [hide=Standings]NFL - 2008 Regular Season NFL Team___________W-L-T__Percent Tennessee Titans________8-0-0__1.000 New York Giants________7-1-0 __.875 Carolina Panthers________6-2-0__.750 Pittsburgh Steelers ______6-2-0__.750 Tampa Bay Buccaneers___6-3-0__.667 Washington Redskins_____6-3-0__.667 Arizona Cardinals________5-3-0__.625 Atlanta Falcons _________5-3-0__.625 Baltimore Ravens________5-3-0__.625 Buffalo Bills_____________5-3-0__.625 Chicago Bears___________5-3-0__.625 New England Patriots_____5-3-0__.625 New York Jets__________5-3-0__.625 Philadelphia Eagles_______5-3-0__.625 Dallas Cowboys__________5-4-0__.556 Denver Broncos__________4-4-0__.500 Green Bay Packers_______4-4-0__.500 Indianapolis Colts________4-4-0__.500 Miami Dolphins__________4-4-0__.500 Minnesota Vikings_______4-4-0__.500 New Orleans Saints______4-4-0__.500 Cleveland Browns________3-5-0__.375 Houston Texans________3-5-0__.375 Jacksonville Jaguars_____3-5-0__.375 San Diego Chargers_____3-5-0__.375 Oakland Raiders________2-6-0__.250 San Francisco 49ers_____2-6-0__.250 Seattle Seahawks_______2-6-0__.250 St. Louis Rams_________2-6-0__.250 Kansas City Chiefs______1-7-0__.125 Cincinnati Bengals_______1-8-0__.111 Detroit Lions___________0-8-0__.000[/hide]http://www.nfl.com/standings?category=league Thanks, you can start posting, discussing anytime \ .

I think you'll find the US national debt is much more than $458 billion - I think it's around 20 times that? Oh yes, my bad, I mixed up the numbers the real debt is $14T (trillion)..

Oh yea, I forgot something in my last post. :oops:: The Government spends too much money. That's why we're $458B in debt not even counting the Bailout.:ohnoes: Good luck to the next President.

The Government to stop spending money is like a shopoholic going into the Mall of America and not buy anything. :lol: