1230abcz

No, it goes down continuously. You'll need Calculus for the true average boost over the 3 hours.

Aren't kinglies worth 150 pawya each? Wouldn't that be a better investment than saving up 1500 meat for the crown? I'd assume so, yea

Sucky part about this update is that no one is making any potions, lol. NOTHING buys since everyone is waiting for the bonus exp weekend to train.

My friends have been getting a lot of the royal items from kingly imps. I doubt they're any rarer than the other expensive things you loot from imps.

1.) they have low defense, so use whip 2.) Kuradal's dungeon with ring

Bake her something. Get her doughnuts, chocolate, something, but not something over $30. You'll come off like a total loser if you blow 200 dollars on a gift to someone you don't even know that well (I'm assuming you two aren't dating, so there's no basis to go all out on a gift).

It's a game. It's meant to be played for fun, not to be taken seriously. And as such, losing 50M or 500M should not cause any kind of emotional distress as being the target of discrimination would (or whatever other poor analogue you happen to come up with). You can't possibly compare this "harm" you cause others ingame to real life. Losing your bank in a game and that in real life is just not the same. If you happen to lose your account or all your stuff, then that's your own fault. You shouldn't blame anyone for it, not even this so-called "hacker." You gain money, you lose money, it's all just a part of the game. Play along. You didn't see me cutting after I got scammed for a red phat and 3rd age ammy. I simply acknowledged it as my own stupidity and kept on playing. What... The hell... Are you on. Are you seriously arguing that money (the focal point of this ENTIRE game), is superfluous enough to just throw away? How is it that you can contrive of a perfectly coherent sentence and yet have the thought process of a deformed monkeyrabbit, which, might I add, doesn't even exist. If I follow your logic correctly, you're saying that if someone breaks one of the biggest rules in Runescape but *only* destroys a portion of the economy, they should get away with it? How does this even work out? Please, tell me. I'm absolutely dumbfounded at your attempt at argument.

Been camping miths for charms and defense exp. I got DFH from chewed bones two days ago. :D I got 3 bones in 49 kills and 1 bone drop in the 31 kills I did this afternoon. I wouldn't call them rare, but they're not too bloody common either. I'd say 1/25 or so is a good estimate.

LMFAO, the Camel Dung one made me LOL like a nub cake. I like the Free Credit Report parody too, but Camel Dung took the cake for me, lol.

Holy God Damn [cabbage], son! [bleep]ing brilliant! All I want to know is why I didn't think of this pure awesomeness until now! But seriously, nice attempt. The obvious answer is no. Your opinion is wrong.

What's stopping students from "accidentally" dropping a piece of paper with tape on the back of it on to the laptop's camera? Maybe we should stop blaming the school and start blaming the idiot kids for not trying this out at least once.

How about giving the dude some advice instead of just trying to buy it off of him... Lol. I suggest that you try maging with it on task and see if you like it enough to keep it, but other than that, just wait about 3-4 days and then sell it with your junk. I don't see it going much higher than what it is now, but that's just me.

not likely because there tasks are less common by far then abyssal Demons and not to mention from what Ive experienced 4 tasks of ice worms in... 70+ tasks compared to the 30 abbys in 70 lol and i have yet to get a staff.... Lol, your luck sucks. My friend's been getting them by the bunches... I still doubt they'll go anything above 10M in the long run. I just don't see them as being useful enough. Master wand was like 3M before the update, and the SOL (btw, Sol is the name of our sun, and SOL is also an acronym for Staff of Light :D) doesn't offer many new things compared to it. The special is nice, but it doesn't have many practical uses above other special weapons, and the melee attack bonus isn't that special either. The only thing if real value is the +15% bonus and the 1/8 saved runes, which warrants enough for the staff to stay around 10M.

I doubt more than a few million bolts were created in that time frame. Maybe enough to cause a slight drop, but they wont crash for sure. I might buy myself some if they drop too low, lol. Haven't PKed in a while...

Staff of Light isn't useful enough to be worth over 10M... Jagex set a good price, in that they wont go up for much longer. I expect a crash in the next week or so. Considering they drop at the same rate as whips, I can't see them ever being worth more than 8M. Sure, they might be more exclusive than whips, but they also have very limited uses.

Slayer is a horrible way to get charms quickly... Sure, it might be more feasible to train combat stats/slayer along with summoning, but it's by no means fast (except for the occasional waterfiend task). I suggest power killing waterfiends for 79 summoning. The 79 titans are amazing, and it'll make slaying much more easier for you, if you happen to use the chaos tunnels a lot.

Assuming your point, you'd have to think of a group of genes as an observant entity that performs actions for the greater good of the group. That in itself is intelligent design, but how different chemicals react to perceive such stimuli isn't well defined.

OMFG HOLY [cabbage]!!!!!!!!!!!@########################## God dammit, lol, why is that never me. Also, sucky luck dude. I'd be crying if I were you... Crying to my mommy... *cries irl*

maybe you should hhospital Maybe he should stop cutting himself.

[hide] I take it you've never studied biochemistry or molecular biology? We know that lipids agglomerate to form cell membranes due to hydrophobicity, we know that hydrophobic amino acids cluster together in the centre of proteins by the same mechanism. We also know this is how different proteins can cluster together to avoid the aqueous environment in which they find themselves. We know that certain amino acids can donate protons/react with certain molecules in other ways to facilitate chemical reactions in cells (i.e. catalysis). We know that complementary, single stranded DNA molecules join by hydrogen bonding and this is the basis of reproduction (four bases where A binds T and G binds C leaves few options for mistakes or deviations from this plan). We know that adding a phosphate group to certain proteins can modulate their shape due to local electrostatic interference, hence changing the active site of the protein and changing it's ability to do its job. We know how amino acids join by dehydration reactions and even the biochemical pathways by which they are formed (either from sugars or other amino acids, mostly). We know how inactive proteins can be activated by having part of their amino acid sequence chopped off by other proteins. We know that certain charged amino acids are attracted to others of an opposite charge, and we know how hydrogen bonding between amino acids can take place to form secondary structure, both helping form the shape of proteins. We know the pathways by which sugars can be broken down for energy or stored, or how they can be partly broken down and converted to fats. We know how oxygen can complex with the heam group of hemoglobin in red blood cells and be carried around the body.. We know all this, and a heck of a lot more. The problem in creating life from scratch is not with our knowledge, it's with the application of that knowledge. It's just impossibly impractical to create life at this stage. I have taken those classes, but those concepts are still all elementary Biology and Chemistry. What I'm talking about isn't the chemistry within living cells. We can recreate these things, yes, but it's not practical or even possible for us to comprehend how all of these properties come together to form an entity that can preserve itself and reproduce. One of the main things I find most "alarming" is that nature ALWAYS does things that require the least use of energy, but reproduction and the creation of life basically kicks Nature in the balls. DNA and proteins shouldn't be coding for and creating other proteins when it's obviously more efficient to just hang around in a liquid medium in a shape that minimizes polar/non-polar interactions. And even if this were possible, why do these chemicals (after all, life is just a jumble of chemicals) insist upon recreating copies of themselves? This expends vast amounts of energy and it isn't beneficiary to the individual cell in any case. Think of how efficient bacteria would be if they didn't feel the need to devote a large portion of their cell cycle into reproducing. Sure, it creates genetic variability, but what does that contribute to the individual? Think of all the things you posted, and then think of how emergent properties could possibly combine all of those things and contrive what we call life. It's just not within our current knowledge. Jumping in here. If you take the Richard Dawkins view on genetics/evolution of the genetic code, all this makes sense. Taking your bacteria for example: it's not the bacteria that cares about reproduction - indeed, he'd have more resources for himself if he just lived. However, if you turn the answer on its head and reason that it's the genes that care about reproduction, it kinda fits it all in place. It's the genes that decide a bacteria will reproduce after x amount of growth at a time x. He argues, basically, that all living things are machines built by genes to become the predominant gene. I'm not the best at explaining these things because I forget the details, sorry about that. As for the entropy question - the second law of thermodynamics (right?) clearly shows that everything will indeed assume the state of least energy, and that going from the energy of high energy to low energy will produce heat. So obviously going from a zygote to a full blown adult human goes against this law, but if you take a step back in the time scale of things, we still in the end increase entropy. Our metabolic processes (those that build up molecules) revert entropy, but in the long run it'll all just be heat anyways. So (this is my own theory) maybe living things (which as I just argued do not revert entropy) accelerate the entropy of the universe faster? This is clear in the example of humans, who are currently breaking down everything in their past. Sure, we've built cities and spaceships, but we've mostly just degraded things and produced lots of heat. I'm not sure this long-run entropy increasing lifestyles are in all of nature, but that's what would make sense to me. [/hide] Taking your gene example raises the same question. Why did chemistry arrange itself to accept and utilize those changes when they seem so dependent on higher thought? The only thing that explains this is emergent properties, but then again, that's about as good of an answer as magic. This doesn't necessarily move into the realm of God (though this would be a very good pro-God argument that I don't see used very often, or at all for that matter), but into the realm of we don't know what the hell is going on. Also, the entropy thing... Never thought of it that way, but it seems like an insignificant step forward to increase entropy by an even more insignificant amount. Even then, viewing entropy as a logical process in which entropy plans out "moves" that will lead to a higher rate of increase in entropy doesn't really make any sense to me, but eh. Never thought about it that way.

I think they accused the student of using drugs in his home. If I recall correctly, they can't do [cabbage] about that information if they procured it illegitimately (i.e. through unconstitutional means). If a cop sees a burglar smuggling drugs and decides to open his car (without a court order), the cop can't use any evidence found in that venture in the court of law, even if he happened to find a suitcase of plutonium and a nuke signed by Osama Bin Laden.

I take it you've never studied biochemistry or molecular biology? We know that lipids agglomerate to form cell membranes due to hydrophobicity, we know that hydrophobic amino acids cluster together in the centre of proteins by the same mechanism. We also know this is how different proteins can cluster together to avoid the aqueous environment in which they find themselves. We know that certain amino acids can donate protons/react with certain molecules in other ways to facilitate chemical reactions in cells (i.e. catalysis). We know that complementary, single stranded DNA molecules join by hydrogen bonding and this is the basis of reproduction (four bases where A binds T and G binds C leaves few options for mistakes or deviations from this plan). We know that adding a phosphate group to certain proteins can modulate their shape due to local electrostatic interference, hence changing the active site of the protein and changing it's ability to do its job. We know how amino acids join by dehydration reactions and even the biochemical pathways by which they are formed (either from sugars or other amino acids, mostly). We know how inactive proteins can be activated by having part of their amino acid sequence chopped off by other proteins. We know that certain charged amino acids are attracted to others of an opposite charge, and we know how hydrogen bonding between amino acids can take place to form secondary structure, both helping form the shape of proteins. We know the pathways by which sugars can be broken down for energy or stored, or how they can be partly broken down and converted to fats. We know how oxygen can complex with the heam group of hemoglobin in red blood cells and be carried around the body.. We know all this, and a heck of a lot more. The problem in creating life from scratch is not with our knowledge, it's with the application of that knowledge. It's just impossibly impractical to create life at this stage. I have taken those classes, but those concepts are still all elementary Biology and Chemistry. What I'm talking about isn't the chemistry within living cells. We can recreate these things, yes, but it's not practical or even possible for us to comprehend how all of these properties come together to form an entity that can preserve itself and reproduce. One of the main things I find most "alarming" is that nature ALWAYS does things that require the least use of energy, but reproduction and the creation of life basically kicks Nature in the balls. DNA and proteins shouldn't be coding for and creating other proteins when it's obviously more efficient to just hang around in a liquid medium in a shape that minimizes polar/non-polar interactions. And even if this were possible, why do these chemicals (after all, life is just a jumble of chemicals) insist upon recreating copies of themselves? This expends vast amounts of energy and it isn't beneficiary to the individual cell in any case. Think of how efficient bacteria would be if they didn't feel the need to devote a large portion of their cell cycle into reproducing. Sure, it creates genetic variability, but what does that contribute to the individual? Think of all the things you posted, and then think of how emergent properties could possibly combine all of those things and contrive what we call life. It's just not within our current knowledge.

Suffering from some hardcore senioritis... Lol. Can't really get myself to do [cabbage] anymore. All I have are some AP classes and two college classes, and I basically spend all of my time playing games. It might turn out to be a problem, lol, but hopefully I can ride it out until June. So... Guess what I'm doing when I should be studying for an AP Statistics, Physics II, and Differential Equations test this week? :D Scape for life, son.

*tapes piece of paper over camera* I win. At life.

Get kingdom to 100% and put in 7.5M. If you're gone for over 10 weeks, you'll come back to a crap load of profit. Just make sure you put your workers on 10 herbs and 5 maples.