gonpost

My only concern is that the building isn't economically practical...

My only problem is the term "sex offender". You can have that status applied to you for relatively small things...the media only gives examples of the big cases, however. Even the bad ones deserve to not be forced to live under a bridge...at least give them the chance to work and give something to society. I could go on with this, but meh.

Hey guys, I did a small comparison for strength training. Toktz-xil-ak + rune defender (w/ onyx necklace) - 64,008 Dragon Scimitar + rune defender (w/ fury amulet) - 59,712 That's after 1 hour...it's actually not too bad.

Updated with the Toktz-xil-ak for the strength training section. I'm glad to report the new onyx necklace has made it quite good for strength training.

Hah, I'm the biggest guy in my entire family (although there are two who are close). I'm 6'4" (at 18 years old), and I've been quite tall throughout most of my childhood, so luckily I didn't end up with stretch marks anywhere or a lot of pain from big growth spurts...only the occasional pains in the legs. My mom's 5'6", dad is 6'2", and sister is 5'8". My dad's side is all quite tall, with one cousin being just *barely* shorter than me, and my mom's side is all regularly sized (5'10" guys and 5'6" girls). It's nice to be tall, but not tall enough to run my head into doors...although it is weird at school dances when everyone can see me because I'm so high above everyone else, and I can't hear a dang thing because there's no one blocking the speakers from my ears. That and I can reach things...hehe.

The Incarnations of Immortality series by Piers Anthony were some of my all time favorite books...I really enjoyed the story. For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnatio ... mmortality On a pale horse is really just an intro...once you start reading the others, you'll get into the major story line.

Aquashock, you have a very good point. I should have done the shades... My combat level has changed a little since I did this study, however... so any results I'd get would be skewed a bit (although I could re-do one monster, and make a comparison based on a ratio, perhaps). I'll see about that. My plans for any further expansion would be to *possibly* include a ranged section once summer comes, if I get that bored. Either way, it'd be at least another 2 months before I would consider doing that. As far as the rock crabs are concerned, I've aimed this guide towards a somewhat higher level player (80+), so I skipped over hill giants, rock crabs, experiments, and other little creatures. Otherwise, I don't see what else I can expand in the guide as it is. Any ideas?

warri0r45, you make me feel all warm and fuzzy. How do you come across? From my vantage point, one of the most open minded, interested, kind people I've seen on a forum before. Is seeking the truth an unhealthy obsession? I'd certainly hope not...that's one of the things I do a lot of in my life...although I've now come to avoid the word truth after learning so much. Anywho...the world could use a few more people like yourself. And please, feel free to be a little proud of that.

Seen? I saw a guy with just over 1 bil... Otherwise, I've seen a few guys in the 100's of mils, and myself I see all the time at about 115M.

Before anyone complains about the bracelets: Shadsonic1 24-Apr-2007 11:36:13 Ah, I see. In regards to the new update: What happened to bracelets? Mod Ash Jagex Mod 24-Apr-2007 11:38:58 Nothing. They're up next. April hasn't ended yet. And even if we slip a day or two (which we can't always avoid), I'd like to imagine that people will have the patience to wait a little longer...

Interesting...if you google my name, anything that comes up has something to do with me (with one exception...some program named gonpost).

I have food around here...the only problem is getting *healthy* food, because it's more expensive than anything else. As in I can eat dinner for $1.50 if I have an instant noodle dish, or I can pay for chicken, green beans... Basically any meat and vegetables. So I end up eating a lot of pasta. Luckily, my mom buys ensure so I drink one or two of those per day to help out. But tbh I don't really get hungry...I can have a 200 calorie ensure in the morning and not be hungry until near dinner time (unless I'm running track, in which case I'll eat two dinners per night when I get home). I guess it's a blessing...I won't be getting fat. Even if I do end up seeing that stomach go out even a little then I'd cut my eating right away. Unlike some people I have some self-control.

Providing that heaven/hell exist, I'm not sure. If God doesn't accept non-believers, then I'm going to hell. If he accepts non-believers who live their lives very well (and I seriously have), then I could probably squeak into heaven. After taking that test I'm in level 1 of hell, the place for the virtuous non-believers. It's not so bad...I'd get to hang out with Aristotle and pretty much every great mind who has ever lived throughout history. No suffering either, just a little gloomy.

Could you tell me why it would be so atrocious to be killed if you carry a gun? If absolutely no one was allowed to carry a gun, then there would be no need for anyone else to carry one. Yes, people would still find and use the many other ways of killing a person, but why make it easy for them and legalise one of those methods (guns). Anyway, I just want to know your reasoning for why it would be so horrible. :) Well in my opinion it wouldn't necessarily be horrible. One could also say that we chop off the hand of anyone who steals, and as long as you don't steal, you have nothing to worry about. The point is that tons of other people would a) object to the outlawing of guns B) object to a "police state" c)object to a law which is nearly unenforceable under current property laws (ie can't go onto someone's property without proper suspicion) d)object to having such an incredibly harsh punishment for merely carrying a gun e) object to killing anyone at all as a punishment, seeing as they don't have the death penalty in any European nations, even for the worst of crimes. There are simply too many caveats.

Okay, let's use Victor's example from below. If the punishment for using a gun to kill someone was death, d'you think it'd have no effect? How about we take it another step and lets say the punishment for unlawfully owning a gun was death too. Just like a damn police state, if you get caught possesing a gun you get death, there would be no 'Oh! But he's innocent!' crap, because there are very very few reasons for anyone to ever actually carry a gun without malice aforethought. Would there or would there not be a huge reduction in gun crime? America is so addicted to its gun culture that it will simply never change. Yet similarly you could not pass that law. People would view it as atrocious. Hell, that'd be viewed as absolutely atrocious in most part of the world. (it would probably work, however)

The reason every home has a gun is Switzerland is because every male under the age of 45 is a soldier; military service is compulsory. They are required to keep weapons in their home so the military can go into action in minutes in case of foreign invasion. There aren't shootings in Switzerland because the people who have access to them (almost everyone) are disciplined soldiers and know what those guns are for. However in America the culture is different and neither outlawing guns altogether nor giving everyone a gun is a viable solution. Rather, more education and research should be done into why shootings occur and how to prevent the vast majority of them. Yes, Agresser, I completely agree with you. Tbh I wish the US had compulsory reserve service for a year or two after high school. Our society needs a hell of a lot more discipline. Just look at all the fat people we have...lol. Obviously we need self-discipline. It's got to start somewhere, and we obviously can't ban guns (for reasons mentioned earlier). I say teach people how to use them responsibly, and teach them some discipline while they're at it. Although, I have to admit, if our president keeps these pointless wars up...well...I'm assuming we'll have smart presidents.

There is a HUGE difference between a semi-auto pistol and a full auto rifle. A semi-auto pistol means that every time you pull the trigger a shot is fired; there is no need to [rooster] it back for each shot. A full auto rifle means you can hold down the trigger and unleash hell very quickly. Also, rifles have much better aim...you can mount a scope and they are made for engaging multiple targets and targets at medium range. Furthermore, a rifle's clip and be modified to hold over 100 rounds (typically about 90), whereas a pistol usually holds between 7 and 19 shots. A rifle is much, much more deadly. The law is not stupid, trust me. Regulation gives guns to criminals and cops (and rednecks :)). It leaves the rest of the majority of the populace quite vulnerable. If you know EVERY one of your neighbors has a gun in his/her house, you'll be much less motivated to break in or try to kill someone. That's how it is in Switzerland. Hence the reason that there is a lot of all or none in this argument.

My bad, scratch that.

No...the guy had a semi-auto 9mm pistol and a semi-auto .22 pistol. But good points otherwise Barihawk.

I'm not really sure where to stand on this, but I can say this. If anyone attempts to say that the UK doesn't have any guns and it's fine...that could NEVER happen in the US. The US borders Canada and Mexico, so illegal guns could get into the US if there is a demand. Not to mention the government would have one hell of a time getting all the guns that people own now; it's simply not possible.

18 Yet sometimes I feel as if I'm regressing... And I've been playing rs since I was about 13.5. I also think that most of you have been playing a while as well, because I remember threads like these a long time ago being filled with more younger people.

In some ways, yes. In other ways, no. Yes because I have become jaded on reports of murders, rapes, car crashes, and other things that I hear about every day. No because I haven't actually seen/experienced any of these things, and so therefore I simply don't have the ability to completely understand things like that. As far as curse words are concerned, you could look at that several ways. They really don't mean that much to me. Unless you are really trying to make a point, they are used like spam. I honestly think people need to not be so shocked by them. The only reason they are curse words is because people make them curse words. And then there's when people cry... I used to be that way. I used to be able to not cry. But now...ever since about a year ago, I can't do that. I watched a youtube video called "Kiwi!" a little while ago, and then cried for about two minutes straight after watching it. It's really a beautiful piece. My mom had on the doctor Phil show this morning and I couldn't help but tear up when a little girl started crying. It's rather odd. I can also, if I need to (and I don't like to do it), turn off all emotion. I can pretty much stand anything and not react to it all. I just get myself into a mood, and I can do it...I'm not sure how to describe this...I've seen pictures of things most kids my age can hardly imagine, and have been able to look at them purely from a scientific viewpoint, for lack of a better description. But please, whatever you do, don't blame video games. They really aren't at fault. There is a _huge_ difference between a "death" in a video game and a death in real life. As for your idea about becoming "un-desensitized", I'm not completely sure. The only real way for that to happen is for you to either A: experience said terrible event, or B: imagine said event happening to you, step by step, gruesome detail by gruesome detail...imagine the suffering, the sadness, the guilt, the pain. Imagine every little bit of it. Maybe you can grasp a glimpse of how terrible it is, and then maybe you can begin to appreciate it.

Right. :wink: It just so happened that this bird didn't mutate into a different species before this, it just stumbled upon the actual beneficial mutation that would save it. Of course there is no way it could have developed organs that would allow it to eat other food besides these nuts. Because if it would have evolved in this manner then predators would have been able to get at it. And the cells realized this and skipped that bad mutation. And of course it didn't evolve into a specie that didn't need a beak because that would have also wiped out the species. You seem to be missing the point of macroevolution. Macroevolution is LONGTERM. Another critique of your bird example. Let's pretend there are two species of a similar bird. One with a large strong beak and one with a slim beak. During times of lots of rain the slim beak would be able to eat the nuts and would have a boom in the population. During times of less rain the slim beak bird would have to eat worms and such and would experience a bust in the population. There is not enough data to say one way or the other. By saying that the bird actually mutated into a different species is ignorant of the possiblity that that specie was infact already there. IF you could disprove that the species wasn't already there then maybe your bird example would hold some water. *sigh* Dude, I give up on you. You're still thinking LINEARLY. You still think A leads to B leads to C etc. I even said that both species could exist at the same time, yet you still said that one is replacing the other. If that were always the case, we'd only have one species of anything because it'd always have to replace its predecessor, which obviously isn't the case. You also seem to think that there are only one or two of every species...no, my friend. There are, at the very least, hundreds (provided the species wasn't just newly "evolved"), and at the best, billions. This gives way to plenty of chance. And I believe you ignored a large portion of my post...because you commented on macroevolution, which I clearly said was not the topic of my discussion towards you, and I clearly think that the idea of macroevolution is, in reality, microevolution over time. We also already said that the idea of a cell "knowing" anything is absolutely ludicrous, yet you continue to uphold that we are saying that, when we are clearly not. Your comment about the bird with no beak makes absolutely no sense. We already established that a bad mutation or change in the species would most likely result in its death. Your second to last paragraph didn't make any sense. If there aren't as many nuts, it's as simple as many of the birds of that specie will die. Your last paragraph makes no sense. It's like you're telling me the earth was made 10,000 years ago, which, by the way, is so completely illogical and implausible compared to the theory of evolution that there should be no comparison. Forgive me if I took you wrong there and you aren't actually saying that. Anyway, I'm done with this, you're impossible to argue with.

First off generally mutations are bad. If by chance you get a beneficial mutation you have already, more than likely, wiped out a species. But this is how I interpret mutation, if it is generally bad the outcome is going to be generally bad. This is basic common sense. Second, what you just described with the birds beak would explain that mutation would know when to occur, this is not the case. The beak would adapt but it would not mutate. You haven't necessarily "wiped out the species". It's simply that another species is born. Perhaps the first species survived along with the second. And no, with my bird's beak example, it does not "know" when to occur. There simply happened to be a tree that has been around for a very long time which happens to have rather large nuts, and the bird happened to have that mutation while this species of tree is around. To be honest I shouldn't really call these "mutations", it's more natural selection. I'm just using that word to get the idea across that it is an unintended variant of the norm. However, I believe we agree that macroevolution doesn't exist? We agree that it is really just a bunch of microevolution over time, yes? If so, then you should know that you're arguing microevolution with me...just so you know... Oh, and adaption is completely different from evolution or anything else. Adaption requires no genetic or physical change what so ever. You could say humans adapted by wearing coats in colder climates, for instance.

How do the cells realize that a mutation is beneficial or not? They don't. No matter how favored or not a trait is does not make cells self aware. Unless you are assuming that cells choose the better mutations over the bad mutations. You are foolish. I'm not saying that to flame you I'm saying that to point out your blunder in trying to say that cells know the difference between a useful mutation and a bad mutation. FFS, XplsvBam, use some common sense. Stop thinking so literally. The organism doesn't choose, the cells don't choose. Duh. There are mutations (completely by chance), and those mutations that are detrimental to the creature will cause it to not reproduce or to die out in time because it cannot live in its environment. If it, on the other hand, produces a mutation that is beneficial to surviving in its environment or allows it to access something new as a food source, then it will go on to live and procreate because it can survive in its environment well. This is called natural selection (essentially). And by the way, mutations can be very small, such as a bird with a slightly larger than normal beak size or something, allowing it to break open a type of nut that its parents couldn't have because they had smaller beaks. That's just an example. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of even the most basic concepts of evolution and natural selection. Please, teach yourself.