ilovecuttingyews

Doubt it. His son is only 27, and though their political policies are extreme I doubt they're foolish enough to place their country, which is in an extremely precarious position as is, in the hands of an unproven youth. The most likely scenario I see is a power struggle among the lead generals, which could have two results: partial consolidation of power, which would lead to a civil war between factions and make the whole county even shittier, or full consolidation of power, which would lead to war on South Korea. On the other hand, he could easily have been dead for months now and nobody would be the wiser. From the little I've heard of Kim Jong-il, he was considered a god. So if the son of a god is next in line, they'll let him rule no matter his age. In the article I read about Kim Jong-il's death the author (western) seemed to think that his son is fine for the job of ruling the country since he's embraced most of his father's ideology and tactics, which is exactly what the people "want".

The way I see it, rares were in a pretty big bubble since FT came back because the massive volumes of bots drove raw material prices into the ground. It had to burst eventually, and as more and more bot companies essentially give up (or push back release dates indefinitely), raw prices just keep going up (both for training, and investment opportunities).

To add to this, a little tidbit of info that many people don't know: The buy limit after you sell the item is equal to the number of items you sell. So if you can buy 25k yews/4h normally, you can increase that to a higher number by buying lots of an item over a long time and selling it at once. Example: I was away for 3 days this summer, so I stuck an offer in the GE for yews. Over the 3 days I bought ~500k yews. Then when I returned I sold them all and spent a few hours flipping with a 500k buy limit instead of the normal 25k. It doesn't really help if you're just looking to buy/sell in small amounts, but if you have large amounts of GP, the extra high buy limit helps quite a bit.

I love butter and peanutbutter toast. I first ate it as a young teen because I only ate PB on my toast but when ordering toast from a restaurant it always comes buttered so I just layered the PB over top. Fantastic! The sweet just compliments the salty in a wonderful way. I'm definitly going to try it on 'raw' bread later today though.

Since it's not worth a new topic: I find it quite odd that they're doing an update at midnight. I don't think I've ever noticed an update being that late (even if it's just a bugfix).

Congrats Randox!

Quite honestly, the Jets have a pretty good team. I heard someone say that we were planning on rebuilding through the draft (like Edmonton has done so well) but I just looked at them like "what....!?". I think that playoffs this year would be a stretch, but if we keep the same core group and add a little here and there, playoffs next year, maybe 2 years down is not a stretch at all. Also, Pavelec has been phenominal as of late.

This is incredible, thank you. I've made these before. They're not as good as real brownies, but for late night snack attacks, they're wonderful.

Yeah, I often have people trading me and offering to give me GP for my 'services'. I just decline and say that I don't need GP to help. I do it because I genuinely care about the community. There are nice people out there, they're just fewer and fewer these days.

Considering my bedroom is ~13C when I wake up, I need my hot shower in the morning to thaw my body. Maybe one day I'll try it, but during winter? No thanks.

It makes a lot of things more convenient. Say you're on a slayer task and you have a couple more kills to go but you're out of food/prayer. You ask the fellow beside you if you can buy a shark. He says 'sure, for 20k'. All you have is 1000 fire runes and some untradable potions left in your inv. If only you had a ginat stack of cash with you.... well now you do!

It's where the p-mods meet in-game. [spoiler=It looks like this.] http://services.runescape.com/m=rswiki/en/Player_Moderators#What_tools_do_Player_Moderators_have_for_their_role.3F

When people talk about global warming, it's a long run average. The most common timeframe for human caused warming starts in ~1750 (industrial revolution). In that time, it has gone up and down, but the overriding trend is up. It stopped in the late '90s because China was using high sulphur fuels in the early days of their insane expansion. The problems is that as they look to reduce sulphur emissions (curb acid rain etc) they are no longer creating that sulphur haze that slowed the warming. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/07/05/science-china-pollution-climate-change-coal.html It was saying that the markets are not free now and the only way we can get to free markets is government intervention (because industry is more than happy doing what they're doing now). Free markets must have no externalities, and that can only happen when governments step in and say 'you must include your environmental impact in your product price' (that gov intervention is itsself a violation of some free market principles, but IMO the benefit vastly outweighs the costs). Take SO2 emmission legislation. It didn't 'take over an entire economy' as you claim. It did however force polluters to pay for the negative effects that they were causing to society. I can't tell you that lobbying won't be involved, it always is. But I have at least a little faith that governments have at least a little integrety in dealing with it. From what I've seen of the SO2 cap and trade, the government will always err on the side of cation and over allocate credits. Meaning there will be less reduction than there should be, but more than there is before the system. The DRC example was tied back to the concept of externalities. In order to create a truly fair and perfect economic system, you have to include all costs. As a thought experiment, lets say that; - 1 worker dies for every 100 tons of coltan mined in the DRC (arbitrary) - 100 tons of coltan costs say $5M (arbitrary) - Princeton has calculated one human life to be worth $1.54M. Therefore, should we not include the price of the lost human life in the price of the coltan to make it $6.5M/ton? In that, you are taking into effect not just the supply and demand for coltan, but also the TRUE TOTAL COST to aquire it. The same concept occurs in tabacco sales. The health costs used to be externalized until the government stepped in and started heavily taxing it. Why? Because I shouldn't have to pay for your health care bill through my taxes (Canadian universal health care) when you knowingly did that to your own body. You should have to pay for your own decisions. That's to say that I should have to pay for the CO2 I emit that degrades air quality because I buy gasoline for my car. This was all taken into account in the paper I cited in my second post (post 7 of the topic).

Have we found another source for petroleum based plastics and other goods? We could probably live without oil as a fuel in a few years, but I'm not sure we could live without plastics. There are biobased alternatives for most kinds of plastics.(All the commonly used ones, PET, PE, PA etc.) They cannot replace all of the heavily specialed plastics, but they don't need to, since the volume of production of those plastics is so small that there will be enough oil available for centuries to come basically. There are already biobased plastics being sold, they're just still a bit more expensive, and there's the same problem associated as with bio-fuel, the destruction of food-producing farmland in favor of farmland producing raw materials for plastics, fuels etc. Yeah, there are alternatives for fossil fuels for plastics, but using land for biofuels and the like isn't very good for humans as a whole. One of my professors said that a grad student in my faculty had calculated that the amount of corn it takes to make 1 hummer gas tank worth of ethanol is enough to feed a person in the less-developed world for 8-10 months. I don't know how accurate that is, but it goes to show that using crops to fuel our cars or make our plastic only ends up hurting the people that need the crops the most. As the Dean of my faculty has said "petroleum should be for making plastics, and not fueling our world". Turning fossil fuels into plastic doesn't convert them into CO2 so it does nothing to influence global warming.

They never realized the Earth was cooling (except for some work done in the '60s which was based on Milankovitch cycles, which are poor indicators on planets with changing atmospheres), in fact, the more studies done, the more we find the Earth is warming faster than we previously though. The focus has switched to climate change because it's the broader problem. Global warming is only one issue withing all of climate change. Climate change includes various other factors such as changing precipitation patterns, desertification, and mass extinctions.. There is no scientific debate about whether or not the Earth is warming, but scientists have stopped calling it 'global warming' because it's only one problem of many. Markets can only truly be free with perfect information and no externalities. Both of which are not satisfied under current systems. Our current economic system is not adequate for a globalized world. Chances are that a forced labourer in the DR Congo died for the battery in your (and my) cellphones, laptops, etc. Tell me, is that price included in the purchace price? Externalities are HUGE in the globalized economy because we can ship all of the negative effects to the 'third world' and take all the possitives for ourselves. It's not about killing the free market, it's about making the market truly free. That includes taking everything, including the negatice impacts half way accross the world, into account. Sure, some people will profit, but the ones that do are the ones that are doing the thing that`s best for the entire global system. Also, I`m pretty sure that under proposed `cap and trade`ideas, no one really profits except the people that reduce their CO2 emissions. You don`t buy credits from the government, you buy them from your compedators. So if you have to pay your compedator because he`s being greener than you, why don`t you go and increase your efficiencyÉ. Cap and trade systems fuel innovation in huge ways.

It's true that there is no definitive proof of human caused global warming but through general logic we can see a very high likelyhood. -Humans produce massive amounts of CO2. -CO2 is a greenhouse gas that keeps the Earth warm. -Therefore we can conclude that humans are causing the Earth to warm. I know, correlation doesn't imply causation, but to me as an environmental science major, all the info that I've learned about how humans interact with the Earth tells me that we're messing with a very touchy and complex system. We may not be the major cause, but our extra little added stress could very well push the Earth past the tipping point to irreversable* warming patters. *irreversable in a human timeframe. The Earth has always fluctuated in temperature but it takes a bloody long time for the natural cycle to correct things. The problem is that modern humans have only been around for what, 10k years? Those last 10k years have been very stable in terms of CO2 and thus climate [see image below] which means that we're not built for change. Of course, we can always rely on technology to bail us out, but like the frog in the boiling pot, when things change slowly, it's hard to know when to jump out. There are massive ancient coral reefs under many of our coastal cities which means that in the past, they were underwater. How much effort, money, and politics is going to be involved with moving entire cities, or building up levies? Future technology can only do so much if we're so neglegent in the present.

This. Here's the graph from the latest global warming paper. Not only did it address the statistical issues that most of the climate change skeptics said was showing warming temperatures, but also took into account many factors like the heat island effect and data set sizes. Actually, I believe this was the greatest aggregation of data in a climate research paper, using over 1.6 billion temperature readings. Aso you can see, the average global temperature is clearly rising. The only debate now is whether it's anthropogenic or natural, and the implications of a warmer world.

The e-mails released are from the same data breach as the first ones. They were intentionally kept until now to cause maximum disruption with the upcoming Climate Change conference in Durban. If you want propoganda, that's as big as it comes. As for the contents of the e-mails, I've never gone in depth with reading them, but from what I've read in the news, the vast majority of those involved have been shown to have done nothing wrong in terms of final scientific outcomes. In fact, a self proclaimed skeptic just released his paper (funded largely by Charles and David Koch; known for funding anti-Global warming studies) and has found that the Earth is in fact warming as much -or more- as the 'climategate' scientists claimed. You can read an overview here.. Your candybar wrapper example is a good example of the Tragedy of the Commons. In a world with no punishment for negative actions, and no reward for positive actions people will chose the easier of the options - littering. Eventually everyone littering and no one cleaning it up because they're leaving it for the next guy is going to cause a severe problem. Also, one wrapper isn't too much concern (though in time they all add up, like cigarette butts on my campus) but it's the big polluters who dump thousands and thousands of tonnes of waste that are the major factor. Just look at the Pacific Garbage Patch.. No one is going to go clean that up because it's international waters and no specific entity 'has' to so why spend the money cleaning up someone elses mess? CO2 is not evil. No one claims it is. But too much of a good thing is not good. Without CO2 we would all be dead. Both because we eventually would run out of oxygen, but also because of the natural greenhouse effect. Without the CO2 and other greenhosue gasses, the global average temperature would be ~33C lower. The problem is that our modern civilization has grown up in a relativly stable period of global climate. This means that we've built our civilization based on a climate that is rapidly changing under our very feet and we're not conditioned for that. It's not about saving the planet (she will go on), or even save the human race (again, we'll still be here), but it's about not deminishing the Earth for future generations. In my History of Environmental Change course, we went through the entire history of Earth to see how it has changed over time. There is one thing that is crucial to this constant change and that's CO2. It has been called the 'global thermostat' and rightly so. CO2 regulates everything from air temperature to errosion. Once CO2 levels spike, all hell breaks loose causing a chain reaction that warms the Earth further. Human induced warming will cause the Arctic to thaw. This thawing will allow microbes to decompose the 1.5 trillion tons of carbon (dead organic matter) locked away in the permafrost. This in turn will warm the Earth more. Warm water can hold less carbon so our oceans will start to lose their massive carrying capacity leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere, warming us more. The oceans will warm to a point that thaws the methane hydrates on the ocean floor, causing even more warming. And so on, and so on. I beleive that the UN has said that 450ppm CO2 is the 'cutoff point' where we start seeing irreversable damages to our climate. As of now, we're at ~390ppm and gaining ~2.5ppm/year, giving us just over 20 years before it becomes 'irreversable'. Who knows....these numbers may be off, we may find a way to remove massive amounts of GHG's from the atmosphere, but I for one don't want to leave a mess for my children to have clean up.

Those both look great, but since Gradeskip's can't be used on TIF, and Tigon's only has F2P, I guess i'm stuck using this one I made last night (paint FTW). It's not as easy to change, but I like how it looks.

From what I've seen, they're on the way back up, probably temporarily. The RSOF* offers I saw for purples were ~950M at one point, though they quickly went back up to ~1050M and now someone's buying for 1100M. *I know RSOF is full of manipulators (isn't the whole rare market manipulators?) but they are usually pretty constant in how far off normal they are, so they're a good enough indicator of relative price movements.

Yesteday I bought a santa for 128M, sold 129M. Then 5 Minutes later, I couldn't get one for 132M. Today I got 1 for 135M after the offer sitting for ~30m.

Congrats to you both! *hangs low for the next few weeks while Quy and Kim get used to their new battleaxes*

Could DragonDyce's new irc dicing be considered RWT in itsself? It's taking gambling outside of RS (in this case, and irc channel) and giving RS profits.

I love you Gradeskip! <3: Seriously though, this would make a lot of sense to do. Would you only have the F2P skills on the siggy (like Tipit's F2P version), or will you have an option to show P2P levels too? I'm like 90%+ F2P, but I still like to show off the P2P levels that I got when I was a member. <3:

While I'm not a 'minimalist' lover, they have gone too far the other way. Like you said, it's just bulky now. Even in game I can't even see most of the game tabs at the bottom because of all the wasted space at the top.