jak722

4 itchy tasty... Also, Zon, lay off the warhammer...

Ninjas are nerds... Pirates are jocks... the worst kind... I say that AND I have a pirate bunny on my avatar, even though im more of a ninja myself... :wall:

Wait... My left or your left? :-s

Its probably one of those things people say like... Masturbating causes blindness and ache... Eating watermelon seeds makes them grow in your stomach... Swallowing gum gets them stuck in your gut... Stories to scare people. :-k

I got one and I have yet to figure out how to set my tabs... :lol:

Its still pretty stable right now. I can still buy things, and people still sell.

Im bumping this thread just because its eerily accurate, even if it was posted 4 days ago. You guys really didn't know what hit you... :?

You better not regret this decision the day after you give away all your stuff. :?

You can now bank and take out "members objects" when you are in a F2P world, but you still cant trade them. Dunno if its old though.

New job for the tip.it research people I guess. :-k

We've ALL been though this before. Don't go in if you dont want to lose items, or dont bring items at all...

You guys have until January 2008 till the drop trade thing will be abolished. :wink: What's wrong with Party house? Well, other than the fact that everyone gets spammed that there's a drop party happening... Nothing wrong with it, but its alot more fun to do it in open spaces with good scenery. :) The last time ive been to a TET christmas drop party, it was held in Lumbridge castle upstairs. That was a good party. :

You guys have until January 2008 till the drop trade thing will be abolished. :wink:

I thought you quit runescape a long time ago. o.o

WOOOOOOOOOOO! F2P! F2P! F2P! F2P! F2P!

He isn't gonna come out of jail for these murders... So that means we can have a cage match between him and Paul Bernardo. :-k

What i like about him: [ ] Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. [ ] Ron has never voted to raise taxes. [X] Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget. [X] Ron has never voted for the Iraq War. [ ] Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. [ ] Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. [X] Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay. [X] Ron has never taken a government-paid junket. [ ] Ron wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the IRS, the Department of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security. [ ] Ron voted against the Patriot Act. [X] Ron votes against regulating the Internet. [ ] Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA. [ ] Ron votes against the United Nations. [X] Ron votes against the welfare state. [X] Ron votes against reinstating a military draft. [ ] Ron votes to preserve the constitution. [ ] Ron votes to cut government spending. [X] Ron votes to lower healthcare costs. [ ] Ron votes to end the war on drugs. [X] Ron votes to protect civil liberties. [X] Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform. [ ] Ron votes to eliminate tax funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade. [ ] Ron votes to protect religious freedom. Im sure he has nice intentions, but based on his records up there... To me he sounds like someone who wants to please EVERYONE. I mean, yeah I agree with him on a couple of fronts, but the guy is chuck-full of promises that 90% of will probably be never even fulfilled... He's like... Ralph Nader... During the 2000 elections... Al Gore would have won... He's gonna split the vote between people who can actually do something more meaningful... Well maybe its a bit unfair to say that, but still.

Well it was a free for all... :?

I was going to suggest something simular to that, being a mercenary. A singing mercenary! :o

People don't know this... But im actually an unusually intelligent dog who was taught by University of Berkeley researchers how to use the internet. Im just pretending that im one of you people online. PS, "She freaking blocked me! Trust! She freaking blocked me! La la la la!"

Wait, so you can't actually read your OWN laws? Pretty serious contradiction with the rule of law there, that is one seriously fudged up system #-o . The government is required to post the text of all laws in such a way that it be open to the general public. If you want to read the exact text of the law, try the library of congress. Yup, most of it are in the library of congress, but in this case, the changes weren't shown in public until after they passed it, and even then, its still unclear on some parts... My thoughts exactly. :-k Yeah its only in the US, but damn... if they ever manage to regulate and patrol the internet, then im sure world peace is not far away... My prediction would be this is gonna turn out like those filesharing lawsuits. You know, like students getting sued for thousands of dollars for sharing a couple of songs just to make an example out of everyone... :? Well it didn't take long for someone to ask this question... :lol: Yes if its "legal" I guess... But don't get caught with anything weird in public, or hosting stuff thats deemed 'illegal' now... Im still watching how this goes. Im interested in whether or not they will actually succeed in enforcing this. :-X

Here is the 'original' version of the bill above, but the one above has been drastically changed... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.03791: The passed bill however, isn't available for review by the public... :( Im not entirely sure why they do this in the US, but I know in Canada, bills and statutes are open for the public to read before and after they are passed.

House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved a bill saying that anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public must report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000. That broad definition would cover individuals, coffee shops, libraries, hotels, and even some government agencies that provide Wi-Fi. It also sweeps in social-networking sites, domain name registrars, Internet service providers, and e-mail service providers such as Hotmail and Gmail, and it may require that the complete contents of the user's account be retained for subsequent police inspection. Before the House vote, which was a lopsided 409 to 2, Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) held a press conference on Capitol Hill with John Walsh, the host of America's Most Wanted and Ernie Allen, head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Allen said the legislation--called the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act, or SAFE Act--will "ensure better reporting, investigation, and prosecution of those who use the Internet to distribute images of illegal child pornography." The SAFE Act represents the latest in Congress' efforts--some of which have raised free speech and privacy concerns--to crack down on sex offenders and Internet predators. One bill introduced a year ago was even broader and would have forced Web sites and blogs to report illegal images. Another would require sex offenders to supply e-mail addresses and instant messaging user names. Wednesday's vote caught Internet companies by surprise: the Democratic leadership rushed the SAFE Act to the floor under a procedure that's supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial legislation. It was introduced October 10, but has never received even one hearing or committee vote. In addition, the legislation approved this week has changed substantially since the earlier version and was not available for public review. Not one Democrat opposed the SAFE Act. Two Republicans did: Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian-leaning presidential candidate from Texas, and Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia. This is what the SAFE Act requires: Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image must; (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's "CyberTipline" and, (B) "make a report" to the CyberTipline that, © must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and, (d) the illegal images themselves. (By the way, "electronic communications service" and "remote computing service" providers already have some reporting requirements under existing law too.) The definition of which images qualify as illegal is expansive. It includes obvious child pornography, meaning photographs and videos of children being molested. But it also includes photographs of fully clothed minors in overly "lascivious" poses, and certain obscene visual depictions including a "drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting." (Yes, that covers the subset of anime called hentai). Someone providing a Wi-Fi connection probably won't have to worry about the SAFE Act's additional requirement of retaining all the suspect's personal files if the illegal images are "commingled or interspersed" with other data. But that retention requirement does concern Internet service providers, which would be in a position to comply. So would e-mail service providers, including both Web-based ones and companies that offer POP or IMAP services. "USISPA has long supported harmonized reporting of child pornography incidents to the (NCMEC). ISPs report over 30,000 incidents a year, and we work closely with NCMEC and law enforcement on the investigation," Kate Dean, head of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association, said on Wednesday. "We remain concerned, however, that industry would be required to retain images of child pornography after reporting them to NCMEC. It seems like the better approach would be to require the private sector to turn over illicit images and not retain copies." Failure to comply with the SAFE Act would result in an initial fine of up to $150,000, and fines of up to $300,000 for subsequent offenses. That's the stick. There's a carrot as well: anyone who does comply is immune from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions. There are two more points worth noting. First, the vote on the SAFE Act seems unusually rushed. It's not entirely clear that the House Democratic leadership really meant this legislation to slap new restrictions on hundreds of thousands of Americans and small businesses who offer public wireless connections. But they'll nevertheless have to abide by the new rules if senators go along with this idea (and it's been a popular one in the Senate). The second point is that Internet providers already are required by another federal law to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is in turn charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency. So there's hardly an emergency, which makes the Democrats' rush for a vote more inexplicable than usual. ORIGINAL SOURCE Okay, for one, NO MORE CAM [bleep]! (Hurray...?) Secondly... does anyone else think is has to be one of the most stupidest thing ever slapped on the face of the internet? I mean, im sure it has GOOD intentions... (Hitting on child pornography, etc...) But we're talking about the internet here... You don't even know where this picture or that video is coming from most of the time, and yet if you fail to report it, you get a $150,000 fine?! What the heck ever happened to net neutrality?! Bah... to think we almost had one of these in Canada... :wall: Well happy hunting US Government. I hope you have fun charging half your population... -.-

The evil tip.it army marches on! I salute you, my future evil overlords! :D

[cabbage]s and giggles my [wagon]! :( A few more detail and you could have had a picture as if its taken by a real camera instead of being made in Paint! :-X