impalasforpeace

oh no the poor noobs will be lost. i hope this gets attended to as soon as possible.

A 100% charm dropper is Bork. you can do that D&D once a day with a ring of wealth for around 5k summoning xp in charms. omg quyneax beat me to it.. but in addition to that being a 100% charm dropper it is one i recommend.

as far as grabbing the loot goes, tele-grab is your best friend. okay, good luck :).

aw when i did ~300 glacors over the double drops weekend i died ~7 times total even with uni + virtus AND cheating with autohotkeys to switch to spells/staff. i could never use a titan but i also don't really want to. if that was my goal i would never get there.

DAE like reading the avatar wiki page comments? for some reason i find the much more enjoyable than r/thelastairbender's comments.

when i did it (granted it was new then) you could get kills pretty fast attacking random people. i would say it was like 1/6 kill rate doing that. also you get all this hate so i didn't actually find it really that fun. uhh it seems like your main could become your soa pure if you wanted. and i agree with powerfrog - you have to get a wolpy (so maybe burst lobs?).

ah well it struck me as really unnerving too. but the fact that i guess it's a thing that a number of people do makes it a little less creepy. i don't understand it though. yeah, i would probably avoid going past that house if I could. == mm yeah a nice piece of meat would definitely go a long way to making me feel more nourished. i'm kind of surprised you two remembered it so well.

do you guys know that pokemon battle parody .. with the pikachu and venasuar? somehow i stumbled on it recently .. and i keep identifying with what pikachu says - WHY DIDN'T YOU EVOLVE ME?. just kidding :P. the thing i identify with is the - I NEED NOURISHMENT - line. yeah, i feel like i need nourishment :/. ^ if i made a thread in off-topic about feeling like i need nourishment i think i would be liable to getting banned so i'm posting this here. i guess i could say it in one of those other threads but meh. the real life thread for instance is swamped with garbled discussion about sustainability right now which i in hindsight regret contributing to.

haha you're right my previous point didn't make any sense. the higher cost of metals (which reflect their scarcity) is precisely why we replaced them with this other less scarce, but still non-renewable thing, plastic made from petroleum. well i think it's possible for us to live sustainably. it's just easier not to, and there are not enough regulations to enforce sustainability (not yet at least because we are not in so dire a place yet). that would be my theory anyway. 'cause like when you have businesses competing the non-sustainable options are the ones that win out because they are the cheapest. and they will continue to win out until the technology makes the sustainable ones cheap enough, or the less sustainable ones because to expensive (or until massive regulations are enforced. hmm i sort of repeated myself there sorry). i feel like it would be rather cynical to assume it is impossible for billions of humans to live sustainably (and what i mean by that is live in a way that could be supported for, say, thousands, not hundreds of years). humanity has done more amazing things than that i think (like get to the point where so many people have these personal computers that seem so magical). it is of course true that progress on the sustainable front so far might not have been as fast as people would have liked. but then again progress on computers probably looked pretty bleak until the 20th century.

^ you found someone else's pictures of the same house?

aww i like receiving wiki links. there's also the fact that plastics aren't necessary (at least humans got along fine without them until i guess ~70 years ago). and i don't think an absence of them would create that much more hardship. They make things cheaper to manufacture, sure, but many of those things aren't necessities and don't add value to life (like i guess i'm thinking about toys and such). i don't know, i can't really think of any petroleum based products i use .. besides this laptop. but if the costs of electronics came primarily from the metal which was substituted for the plastics, then we would be in good shape i think.

two words: clean technology. == at what age to you stop getting called 'sweetie' by random middle aged women? i'm just wondering.. i like being regarded in that way cause it doesn't make me accountable to adult stuff.

oh yeah, tip.it does keep track of ge prices. i forgot about that.

omg 120 summoning update would be so so so so so awesome. ahhhhhhhhhhh.

hmm i just read about rss feeds for like half an hour.. i wasn't aware that tip.it produced something that detected ge updates.. you guys did?

hmm well even soloing it's debatable whether a pack yak is better than a uni. in teams of 2+ obviously unis are better. i guess maybe a steel titan is better after you run out of your bob if you are using one though..

if you're 99 magic why not polypore the glaccites? that will make things a bit faster and the switch is easier. in fact, i would urge you to SOA the glaccites - it adds 12k per kill but is worth it if you like effigies/charms (if you don't like effigies and charms then it's about even whether you should use it or not - though perhaps leaning in the 'should not' direction). lol uni definitely makes things easier. i'm 99 summoning but i still use a uni at them because it reduces the actions/minute quite a lot for me.. which is something i value. 36 k/h is not bad given your stats. with SOA and uni i could get 54 k/h when i was really focusing.. if you decide to use polypore instead low forties should still be easily achievable i think.

i think quyneax means it for the kc if you are ranging.

yeah see i've been lead to believe that our resources will be taken care of in the near future and their won't be competition over them which diminishes quality of life, which is why i believe what i do. (i do agree that overpopulation is the threshold when competition for resources has ill effects.. at least that is one way to define it which i like). if i believed it was rather unlikely that our resource problem would be completely solved in the next century, then i think i would think along the same lines as you. i wonder what would convince you that maybe it is not as unlikely as you think?

from what i've read there will be ways to dramatically increase the production of good food in the future i think .. so i think earth supporting something like 100 billion people is probably possible. 1) there are lots of ideas about vertical farming ( see the extensive wikipedia page if you want http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_farming) which would increase the efficiency of farming by magnitudes 2) and about in vitro meat (being able to produce meat that - in the end - mimics the composition of wild meat in every way.) of course the meat cells still need a substrate to grow, but this could still be magnitudes more efficient that raising animals. (this also has an extensive wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat). all our energy needs will of course come from renewable/nuclear sources in the future if humanity continues long enough and in enough order to see those developments though.. i don't really believe in rationing actually.. if we overshot our carrying capacity (which perhaps we have already) than once people starve we will go back down and everything will be okay right? it's not like people have to starve forever. the solution to starving is staying under our carrying capacity OR if starving is due to poorly allocating the available food, then allocating the food better.

the causes of world hunger and thirst can be slightly counter intuitive to reason about i think. i don't see 'more food' as a solution, because to me more food available means increased carrying capacity but not necessarily better quality of life. maybe if food production dramatically increased world hunger would cease for a few decades. but i fear the population would steadily grow until the food per person was the same as it was before, and there were a proportion of people starving again. i think the potentially dangerous reversion of 'enough food' leading to more people leading to not enough food all over again has to be watched closely. we want people to have enough food so they can live, but not so much to support so many kids that the food runs out. in sense, i think the world tolerates a certain amount of starvation, or is not organized well enough to prevent it. == on another note i'm sad how pessimistic everyone is about this future population problem === ^ i mentioned life extension in the first place because someone was scared of death. and i thought at least the prospects of a longer than anticipated life might be one thing to delay that fear and make one more optimistic. to be honest i'm not really sure what context it is being talked about in now.. mostly i'm defending the prospects of radically extended life from attacks about how we should not do such a thing because it would cause future societal problems. as i see it people should be able to choose when they die ideally. if they don't want to choose to die as long as they can than that is fine, but i imagine the result would not be 'immortal' but rather 'died due to circumstances they couldn't opt out of'. anyway, talking about the far out future is really not very useful because i think it's so speculative at this point..

i see your slayer level is 80 .. the steel titan has some uses for slayer (you could use the range xp too). but yeah besides slayer i think the other place where the steel titan has significant value is at tds.

I actually did not imply that we dont have a problem with overpopulation now; just that we may not have one in the future (which is plausible - say if we expand our territory). i do agree that there is a degree of overpopulation right now.. but if you say it's due to people living longer lives that is way wrong . if you say its due to dramatic declines in infant mortality coupled with widespread but capricious access to food, then i think that's closer to true.. == vezon - the carrying capacity is not a static quantity but a constantly changing number; hundreds of years ago the earth wouldn't have been able to support a billion people; it can only carry (support the coexistence of) 1 billion people now due to technological advances. what is to say that further technological advances won't increase the carrying capacity further? that is the trend after all..

we simply do not know whether overpopulation will be a problem in the future and whether people living longer lives would contribute to it; not knowing what will happen is not a reason to not develop the technologies to alleviate the suffering that comes from old age and from many sorts of diseases that place burdens on family members. people are dieing every day who do not wish to die, who wish to keep participating in life and being kind and loving those close to them. i think we have a moral imperative to help those people; whatever costs to society them living longer results in, we can figure out how to deal with as they arise. Note that human life expectancy has risen dramatically in the last century already - yet no one has complained about how bad that is for society, and how we should not let so many people live to older ages. why won't further life extension not be the same? there's no reason to think that earth couldn't house 100 billion people. if you asked the hunter and gatherers of 10,000 years ago whether the earth could sustain 100 million people no one would have been able to conceive of that or see how it would be possible - but we made it so. there is a long history of humans doing things that their ancestors would have thought impossible. (letting people live much longer lives while at the same time improving society and people's happiness might go down in history as one of those things). since the 19th century people wrote about population growth and impending food shortages - but none of that has materialized. We are far, far from being close to the limit of efficiency of food production or resource utilization.. and then of course humanity is not trapped on earth. though it will be hard to colonize other planets, we can do it, and will do it perhaps sooner than population problems become an issue. i don't want to argue. so i probably won't respond further.. anyway.

nah life extension advocates are totally not about forcing people to live longer or anything. it's about the opposite - having the freedom to choose when you die. yeah no one wants to force anyone to live longer if they are not interested (at least i have never heard this from anyone.. it sounds completely abhorrent though). the concept of 'not death' is a little bit daunting and perhaps not very meaningful in the end. but i know plenty of people who have blacklogs of things they want to do which would take hundreds of years (e.g learn all the sciences or explore other habitable planets). for those people life getting stale wouldn't be a concern for quite a while. also i don't really think painters get tired of painting. fact is it's a completely immersive and rewarding experience every time (the same could be said about other things too). my experience tells me that some things just don't get old to humans. so the theory of things getting stale after x amount of time doesn't hold true for all activities. in addition, i have a hard time believing that death is what keeps us interested in life. I don't think i'm motivated to do what i do by death at all; my impermanence does not linger in the back of my mind. rather i just enjoy life so so so much and science and learning and people, and being kind, and alll those things. my enjoyment of life doesn't depend on it's length.