FuBai

I like the idea, let me sure I understand it correctly, in an abstract way to make it clear. Let's say the drop rate is 1 per 50 people killing the monster for an hour. So, in an hour of 50 people killing the same monster over and over (i'm assuming equal stats and equipent etc), only one of them will get the drop. As the number of people increases, the drop rate is still 1 per hour, but this time it's spead across, let's say, 100 people. So now, although there is 1 drop per hour, in that hour the number of people wanting that drop has doubled, so the price goes up for that drop. Thus, whilst is not "discontinued" per se, the drop rate is so slow that population growth outstrips it. I.e. the total drop number per capita of the population gets smaller. So whilst there are more of that drop in the economy in numerical terms, there is less of it per capita? Or that it matches population growth so that there is always going to be the same amount of it per capita? Either way it works along the same principles. An interesting idea, but I see two problems - firstly they do not want new rares in the economy - Jagex have always expressed regret over the whole rares thing, and secondly a sliding drop rate that matches population growth seems a bit of a complicated thing to make. I rather think that they are just very rare, but thier rarity will decrease over time as the drop rate is a fixed value - so lets say 1:50 clues. More people will do more clues, and more drops will be achieved. People will naturaly keep doing clues to get something that valuable, so I would wager that they will steadily decrease in price as more of them hit the economy. Give it a year, accounting for inflation of course, and thier net value will have decreased.

Note: I have written this on the forum, so spelling mistakes are likley, et en plus I am absolutley wasted on a combination of asparine and alcohol, which will give extra reasons as to why this is so bad. I'll probably delete this as soon as I am sensible again. edit: deleted

China is socialist at best. not eveyone is paid the same, by the way. And Hong Kong is booming for a few reasons - it's semi-autonomous, a hang over from 1999, and so has the right to control some of it's policies in a more indepandant manner. Also China is good for investing, as, whislt it is nationaly run in a vaguley socialist manner, allthough getting less and less, the country is, in effect, a massive company in some respects. It also has a massive workforce...something liek 1.6 billion now, which means it is the largest national market in the world, I think. So there is lots of capitalist investment coming in to try and sell thier products. If you can crack china, you are going to get pretty rich. The massive opportunites allow for quite a large profit, eventhough taxation is pretty punative. Well...I have to say your wrong my friend. Click thishttp://www.chinaelections.org/en/readnews.asp?newsid={0C7C0178-7057-4E83-9B28-EBE9AC8F986D}&classid=12&classname=People%20Congresses for all of you who are to lazy to read this it basicallly says that many of china's leaders including their president voted in elections. Also it says that More than eight million voters in Beijing voted at about 12,000 polling booths to elect 4,403 legislators at district level, and 9,983 at the township level. yes, they got to choose between about two or three candidates chosen from the one and only party allowed in China, the CCP. It's a one party state, remeber. So all of them might have voted, all 1.6 billion, but they could choose between the CCP, or the CCP.

yay for religious freedom.

manner sind schweine - Die Artze trans: men are pigs - The Doctors A wierd german song sent to me by a friend (Don't like to consider the implications of why she sent it to me :? )

:? Ignore this post.

That's a self-refuting statement. Is it absolutely true that there is only one absolute in the world? If so, then that makes two absolutes, and your statement is void. Ah, but can you prove it that it is the only absolute? There may be more, we just havent though of more yet. Yeah, I suppose you could say something about 'The following statement is true' but as I say, thats not very far going. Perhaps the better term is base absolutes. So I suppose its the only known absolute in the world. Hang on, can we even prove that? My brain hurts. :( No, the fact that you have demonstrated that an absolute can exist, gives grounds for others to exist. Apart from you didn't demonstrate the existance of an absolute, you simply stated that it existed.

Not a good idea. Why should I be 45 smithing so I can cut a yew? What if I hate smithing but love woodcutting. I should be able to train that skill without bothering about smithing if I want to. Skills should be able to function on thier won, so people can choose to do a skill independantly. It's like saying to a pure, yes, you have 60 attck, so you can wield dragon! But the mini-quest that you need to complete to wield dragon requires 30 defence. Sorry about that old chap.

Why would you "hide" behind it? What does it conceal? Surely the world would be a much easier place if right and wrong were absolutes? You hide behind relativism to justify any action you make. I killed five people? Who cares! That's right for me! My response was mainly retaliation to your calling absolutism and theism a fiction without any shred of proof. Of course, both are basic beliefs, just like your atheism and relativism are basic beliefs, so no evidence can really be brought. That's what makes calling one belief a fiction as an insult so heinous. I said it was a convinent fiction. You have no proof that absolutism and theism exists. They cannot be empircialy measured. Much like God, I choose not to say "They can't be proven, there for I don't beleive in them", but rather "They can't be proven or disproven, yet there is not a shred of logic in them, so I will act as though they were disproved."

Why would you "hide" behind it? What does it conceal? Surely the world would be a much easier place if right and wrong were absolutes? No it is a difficult thing to accept, which is why even some of the most distinguished atheistic philosophers create some kind of inherent value they can rely upon.

Does that make it right? The Morals you judge it by are simply your culture. Right or wrong ar not absolute. It is part of your culture that this does not happen, it is part of theirs that it does. Culture has nothing to do with being against arranged marrige. It is based on culture that people use arranged marrige, but being against it is just being a decent person by basic human stanards. To make it clear, its in the human chemistry to love and its part of life, and thats why marrige exists. But treating marrige as a way for the family to get money is wrong by basic human standards. Wrong. None of those concepts you presented have inherent moral value separate from your society. If someone disgarees with you, all you can state is that it's "wrong" without being able to say more than "because I think it is". What you think is based upon your culture, to a large extent. Why is killing wrong? Shall I just give you a link to the morality debate? So youre saying that if you were raised in an enviorment where nobody told you that killing is either right or wrong, you wouldnt mind just stabbing you sister for a few dollars? Or the only reason you are attracted to women is because you were told that thats how it should be? All of what you said is possible - forced homosexuality in spartan society being an example. And what you are discussing is primal to an extent - something that is physical, or an external influence (I know it feels internal, but I mean external in the compatablist sense.). Where as we have a choice about certain forms of morality - we can choose to ban drugs, or to re-distribute wealth. These are choices we make based on the prevelant moral values of the culture. And to insane - If he beleives in God, then he can have his "morals". Such a convenient fiction.

several things surprised me about this: 1) You spelt "Becks" "Bucks" as if she had married a dear 2) You were talking about tabloid trash 3) You spelt disgrace correctly in your title, then, whilst commenting on it, you spelt it incorrectly 4) how the hell did you put an "e" into "moving" - the "e" key is so far away from the "o". You may have a different keyboard I suppose. 4) You care about this trash?

Does that make it right? The Morals you judge it by are simply your culture. Right or wrong ar not absolute. It is part of your culture that this does not happen, it is part of theirs that it does. Culture has nothing to do with being against arranged marrige. It is based on culture that people use arranged marrige, but being against it is just being a decent person by basic human stanards. To make it clear, its in the human chemistry to love and its part of life, and thats why marrige exists. But treating marrige as a way for the family to get money is wrong by basic human standards. Wrong. None of those concepts you presented have inherent moral value separate from your society. If someone disgarees with you, all you can state is that it's "wrong" without being able to say more than "because I think it is". What you think is based upon your culture, to a large extent. Why is killing wrong? Shall I just give you a link to the morality debate?

Does that make it right? The Morals you judge it by are simply your culture. Right or wrong ar not absolute. It is part of your culture that this does not happen, it is part of theirs that it does.

I've done them all including contact on my main - mo gui gui

I know there is help out there if you need it - I've seen a pamphlet about it recently.

all A's thank God. Otherwise he would have been justifyed and I would have killed myself. Thanks for asking.

Thought I would continue this with some recent news: Been playing Barbarian Assault: Been mage training a bit recently: and done some mage boxing: (those are the stakes I remebered to screen. Usualy I don't stake over 500k at a time, but this guy i had beaten by 70 hp when I staked 150k against him, so I went for a 1m stake (or close) and won) And now I'm working at mage arena for inifnity bottoms My Goal is to get 99 mage right now.

1Nobel prize 2Victoria Cross 3International aclaim as being THE best in your field.

Someone has to ask this...you did put dog lover in you sig...no, i'm too embarassed.

You're not supposed to die when it's a noob quest :P I don't see why people say it's for noobs when level 80+ keep dying lol... didnt took anti, got teled to fally by rol lagg off with 1 hp left... loged on in a f2p world walked up stairs died walked upstairs lumi castle teled back took my stuff (untradeable cuz p2p stuff) also died at quests like fairytale part 2... i hate lvl 100+ monster in multi :( my nub does only have 54 def... Some one died at the underground route, filled with all the different monsters. If anyone can name the stuff lost, the type of food they were using, and the teleport they had on them, I will give back what I looted.

Who are you to say they are fools? Read David Hume "Suicide". It doesn't matter. I might not live untill tomorow. I don't care. I might walk under a bus, and who can tell if I chose to or not? It would be irrelevant. Of all the wonders that I yet have heard, It seems to me most strange that men should fear; Seeing that death, a necessary end, Will come when it will come. Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 2, Line 34. Forgive me. I believe far too much into fate. We all die when we are supposed to die. We jail people for murdering others. By that same logic, I look down on people who take their own. They cheat life, they cheat death. Death is not an escape, it is a beginning. Anger flamed in dirty cleansing At the box men, for thinking They knew, when they could Barley think at all. So bound And shackled, their brains in Cages they loved and held

Who are you to say they are fools? Read David Hume "Suicide". It doesn't matter. I might not live untill tomorow. I don't care. I might walk under a bus, and who can tell if I chose to or not? It would be irrelevant. Of all the wonders that I yet have heard, It seems to me most strange that men should fear; Seeing that death, a necessary end, Will come when it will come. Julius Caesar, Act 2, Scene 2, Line 34. If suicide be supposed a crime, it is only cowardice can impel us to it. If it be no crime, both prudence and courage should engage us to rid ourselves at once of existence when it becomes a burden. It is the only way that we can then be useful to society, by setting an example which, if imitated, would preserve every one his chance for happiness in life, and would effectually free him from all danger or misery. David Hume, "On Suicide"

This is a question that calls our anthropological and metaphysical beliefs. If you're a materialist, then of course, we couldn't exist any further. If you're a dualist (material and non-material things exist), then our material body would cease to live, but our non-material, or spiritual, or soul, would continue to exist. Of course, you can be a dualist and believe that humans are purely material beings as well, in which case you would agree with the materialist. Belief is required in all things, we must believe the world exists, we must believe that our sense-data is an accurate representation of of a non-mental object, we must believe that, if we ceased to recieve sense data to the effect, the object neverthless is not dependant in it's being percieved to exist. I use "must" in a highley tentative fashion, because we "must" nothing at all. If we take for granted that we must beleive something (again the word must here is not necesarily true), wether that be that a demon is feeding us images, or that all objects are ideas in the mind of God, or that there is a physical reality, the only thing that is possible to be said then is "there are thoughts" (and even this assumes something to my mind - the existance of logic). So, we take this senario where we "must" believe something. So what seems most prudent to me is that we should believe what our sense data tells us exists. There may be a God, there may very well be an invisble demon made entirley from cheese sitting on your shoulder telling you what to think, but I doubt both because my sense data does not tell me they exist. I do not percieve ghosts, I do not recieve information to the effect of the existance of an afterlife, so I do not beleive it. Of course, I have made several assumptions, in that I seem to be saying that if I cannot see an object, or sense it somehow, I should not believe it exists, which is idiocy to some people, but seems rather sensible to me, if you stretch what you mean by sense data. There are many other assuptions, but every argument to the contrary contains even more flaws to my mind, or simply bigger ones. So I conclude I believe what I sense.

Nothing. The inescapable reality of the end is all that happens. You just end. You are no more than a pile of flaesh and bones and liquids and chemicals. How would you exist any further.