chris1216

Hunter brawling gloves + black salamanders = insane hunter exp?

You're allowed out in public? Isn't that bad for staff PR? I really didn't understand the reason for making the corporeal beast even more dangerous- what on earth made Jagex think there were too many sigils out in Runescape?

As if they weren't rare enough. Has anyone ever even seen a divine shield in person?

IF this new stuff can be used outside of PVP worlds- do you know if it can?

Can anyone confirm whether or not the new gear is pvp world only, or wearable on any world?

From what I checked on the GE, the platebody/robetop/top whatever, etc. is currently listed at 10m apiece, with prices going down from there. Yes, very tradeable, and very expensive.

And that's somehow key information that could turn your world upside down depending on what it is? They're PINK. With purple unicorns on them. And they have +100 to every combat stat when you wear them. Has your mind exploded yet?

Thats so lame.. How are you supposed to get rich with PvP? Who would buy those items? People who either want insane bonuses while they're fighting in pvp, or people who want to wear the sexy new thing that everyone else wants See: party hats, 3rd age, etc etc etc. Never underestimate the appeal of *new*. Does anyone know if these armors can ONLY be worn in pvp worlds yet?

Wait, what? Do all of the rewards just last for 30minutes? Even the ones in P2P? The high level armors last an hour of combat, unless you get the corrupt version, which has low requirements and last 20 minutes. Very interesting that they degrade.

As many people have maybe mentioned, most eye degradation (at least nearsightedness) is genetic and unavoidable, which is why some people sit at a computer for years and maintain perfect vision and others go blind. HOWEVER, there is an easy step to take to make it easier on your eyes- every half hour or hour while you're playing, take a few minutes to go to the nearest window and look at things far away. This allows the muscles in your eye to relax (the muscle squeezes your eye to let it focus on close things) and will help keep your eyes healthy. Obviously Runescape doesn't do anything different to your eyes than any other computer use- just remember to take a break every once in a while and you'll be fine. On that note, I think i'll take a break and go outside to play some frisbee.

Which is what happens in most of OT anyways. As long as the OT mods lock down on flaming other TiF members I see no reason for anything else to be done. This topic is pretty much just making mountains out of molehills.

And if I were Palin, I would be slapping the taste out of the mouth of Andrea Tentaros(sp) for setting women back yet another 50 years.

With a bandos godsword and piety, I could usually kill the mole fast enough that I'd spend more time waiting for the next spawn on a full world than actually chasing it around. At the very least it's a fun break from the normal routine.

Easy solution: Step 1: Wait for Devnull to post Step 2: Carefully examine what Devnull says Step 3: Find someone that completely disagrees with Devnull Step 4: Do what that second person tells you to do. Pretty much works all the time.

There's always fundraising to be done :)

I just felt that it was important to clarify this, since you took it out of context. Biden believes that marriage is a term that falls under religious definition, so it's each religion's business as to whether gays can "marry". He DOES believe in equal rights for civil unions between same-sex couples and giving them the exact same rights that "married" couples get. Take out the semantics, and he wants to give equal rights to same sex couples (legal and financial), Palin does not.

And now the gov't wants to reward them for taking those risks by bailing them out. I don't my family being bailed out because our business went down the drain (after 10 years) thanks to this damn economy. We're losing everything and the gov't doesn't care. But when some big company makes stupid choices the gov't is right there to hold their hand. The problem being that these companies happen to be important. If the banks have zero liquidity, that effect ripples out everywhere. Whether you like it or not, the economy needs them. Obama put it best when he said:

So, assuming the housing crisis can only be solved by crashing, shouldn't we make sure the banks don't crash with it? As in, the 700Bil bailout. This would at least give people the option of taking out loans and would allow banks to loan money to firms. I'll admit though, I still don't understand how the housing market crash can't be stopped. The reason the bailout in all the forms it exists right now is total crap is because that it either is giving those banks a blank check to do whatever they want, or it doesn't. The current forms don't offer nearly enough protection for the taxpayer. Instead of the government recieving equity from these banks in the form of senior preferred stock (something that Warren Buffett was smart enough to do when he personally bailed out Goldman Sachs), the government gets warrants FOR stock. This of course gives banks endless opportunities to lobby congress into never cashing in those warrants, and even if Congress does, they get nonvoting stock. This gives them no leverage over these companies that screwed up and got bailed out and allows them free reign to do whatever they please. There is nothing wrong with helping these banks restore liquidity. I think Obama put it perfectly in a recent speech, where he compared the financial sector crisis to that of a neighbor's house being on fire: As for the housing crisis bit, yes it's true that any bailout of the financial sector doesn't solve the main problem, which is that people keep on being forced out of their homes because of mortgages that readjust to prices they weren't able to pay. To solve the housing part, Congress might have to bite the politically suicidal bullet and go as far as to either declare a moratorium on foreclosures or force renegotiation of adjustable rate mortgages between the homeowner and the bank. Banks hate the idea because for some reason they'd rather foreclose than be forced to accept a lower rate mortgage. This doesn't yet completely make sense to me because at this rate, foreclosing a house that the bank won't be able to sell for years doesn't seem as good as just renegotiating. Many ordinary citizens might hate it because people like me, who have good credit and won't/didn't spend beyond my means will have gotten basically screwed- the government would be helping people who applied for loans THEY COULDN'T AFFORD and are now allowed to keep their houses at a better mortgage rate. The problem (Insert synonym for "In Conclusion" here), a real solution will have to be twofold: restore liquidity to banks by buying their assets or shares of preferred stock at market price while also keeping people in their homes by forcing banks to renegotiate those loans and putting down a moratorium on foreclosures.

Wrong again. There are no differing opinions on whether or not to let the housing crisis run its course because there is no other choice. You're also wrong in implying that the problem is banks being unwilling to lend money. Again, even if banks were willing to give out loans to everyone with good credit, people are still overall unwilling to buy into the housing market. ONCE AGAIN, from the cnnmoney article: "Home prices, while sharply off from the 2006 peaks, are still high in comparison to long-term gains in income, rents or overall prices, suggesting that they still have a way to fall, according to experts."

You don't seem to understand the concept that housing prices are still decreasing. Few people are willing to buy in yet, much less get a loan. Even if banks suddenly were loose with their money, the rate of houses being foreclosed/sold would still outkick the number of houses being bought by a large margin. You're also still wrong about the bailout being a magic potion that suddenly will cause the economy to recover- source here: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/17/news/ec ... 2008091814

As in, the real problem is that housing prices continue to fall. Until they hit bottom, no amount of bailing will actually solve the true reason the economy is in this mess. What's necessary is time, for the housing market to finally hit rock bottom. Once that happens, people will finally be willing to buy back into real estate and stabilize the economy. The bailout on its own doesn't solve everything. Your explanation is also wrong because 1) The problem isn't banks being unwilling to spend money (they don't spend money), it's the fact that no one knows exactly how much in bad mortgages each bank is holding. This makes every bank terrified and unwilling to lend money first to EACH OTHER, then to companies that depend on those loans to buy inventory, pay payroll, etc. 2) The idea that the government will generate a profit off of these mortgages is refuted here- http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/ ... .html#more

I find it absolutely hilarious that everyone's irate about 700 billion dollars of money that has to be borrowed/conjured up/etc. In case none of you noticed, this has been going on for decades. Ever hear of the national debt? This country has been living on rolling over debt for decades and decades. As for the bailout that many of you also don't actually comprehend (see whoever thought we were bailing out the government), the reason it isn't a stupendous idea is because the crash in housing prices has yet to run its course. As long as home prices continue to fall, no amount of bailouts will solve the root of the problem. The important part is that once the housing crisis is done running its course, banks need to be confident enough to loan money to everyone with good credit who is then willing to buy into a house. I freaked out about the bailout because of the utter lack of oversight- if there were draconian oversight measures combined with a cap on CEO salaries and a guarantee that the government would receive a share of the bailed companies once they turned themselves around, I would feel much more comfortable as is. And surprise surprise as to politicians instantly playing the blame game the second the bailout was defeated in the House.

Debunking courtesy of http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/show ... =210603982 Myth 1: The U.S. economy will collapse and fall into a deeper recession. Even Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke admits to not being 100-percent certain the plan will work. The economy is already in a recession and pouring $700 billion into it won't change the equation. The economy is experiencing a major hiccup, but it will recover once the excesses of the past are flushed out. Myth 2: Lenders will stop lending. That's a huge exaggeration. If you are in the lending business, you don't turn around to start selling bread and milk. Lenders temporarily stopped lending to any Jack and Jill because they needed first to clean up the mess they created. They needed to examine their books, review which loans were bad and which ones should be or could be salvaged. That's why they temporarily stopped lending--when you are in a hole, stop digging. We should let the process run its course. Let the lenders review their operations, adopt better practicies, set new loan terms for borrowers, monitor them and let regulators do their work.

If you haven't heard about it, the latest news is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/busin ... ei=5087%0A A key thing to note here is that outrage over this is coming from both sides of the aisle- many Republicans are also going berserk at the thought of 700 billion dollars going to rich and irresponsible banks headed by CEOs that make millions. The Bush administration and Paulsen/Bernanke are pushing HARD to do this QUICKLY and are pushing everyone aside in their efforts to do it quickly. If you live in the United States, here are the two links to contact your local State Rep and Senator: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_i ... rs_cfm.cfm https://forms.house.gov/wyr/welcome.shtml Unless you're an executive at bank that's being bailed out, and I highly doubt you are if you're reading this, write to your local Senator and Congressman. It doesn't take very much time. Let them know how bad of an idea it is to spend 700 billion dollars this quickly with such little oversight.