Wisp

I could join rusco if someone new joins zombea :o I have no idea what to do next in zombea. I think right now we are barricaded inside the station with zombies outside. I guess I'm in charge of it now, so I could add a strongarm in. Anyway, I'm female, songs.. um You're gonna go far kid- the offspring Dani California- Red Hot Chili Peppers (well, I love all there stuff, have bought over 100 of their songs, but this one stands out Handlebars- flobots The pretender- foo fighters Inside the fire- Disturbed

There's a chance I may of known your Kiersten online. If I remember right she died last fall. I think her boyfriend's name was Alexis. Are we talking about completely different people?

81,82,91,92. I may have to drop one or two if my idea fails.

A single dictator would probably not be able to rule the world, and either way, dictators can only live so long, and there is no way all humans will die in like 70 years. An epidemic will do nothing, as it has an epicenter, and is focused on what spot, a pandemic has no epicenter, and is everywhere. We had a pandemic and a world war at the same time, around the end of WWI. Soldiers coming home, spread the spanish influenza around the whole world, killing up to a hundred million, but in the end, isolation would save the human race. Cities would be devastated, the country would not. An asteroid, we would know a fair amount of time in advance, and be able to destroy it, or take measures that enough people survive. Oil, are you serious. We are not talking about the end of the world as we know it, we are talking about the end of the human race altogether. If you really think that america would nuke places to get oil, you are clueless. For a start, it would make the oil nearly impossible to get. Currently, from the world's oil reserves we are only losing a few hundred barrels a day, at the rate of production. The issue is how much is left in the ground. I did the math, and at our current rate of using up oil, and including how much oil is in the ground still, we will have over 100 years before we run out of oil. In the past 100 years let's review what happened Tanks Nuclear Power coming to prevalence Television Satellites Cell phones Space travel Nuclear Missles Television Artificial intelligence Computers Internet Do you honestly think that in the next hundred years that there will not be at least some sort of alternative? Sure it would be expensive, but who knows, maybe cars will have solar panels on their roofs to give them extra power during the days, and then run on an alternative energy source. We currently have the technology to make cars carbon neutral, but it extremely un-cost-effective. The thing with WWIII is that nuclear weapons are blocked by something called mutually assured destruction. In the modern world, if you lose a war, your whole country isn't destroyed, and everyone in it killed, it is merely the government who loses, and possibly changes, or the borders of the country change or something. But, if you a country launched even a single nuclear missile, everyone in their country would die, since nukes would be launched in return. If you honestly think that a world war will start over oil, then you are most certainly wrong. I am not saying I support the war in Iraq, but Saddam did need to be removed. He had killed hundreds of thousands of iraqis in the past, and was a dictator. The way we did it was not good, however, and caused about as many deaths as he caused. America would probably come out mostly ok in a world war, if they were anything like the first, mainly because of our location. The previous world wars were fought mainly in europe, and china. (China attacked by the Japanese) In order to move a sizable army from Europe to america would be nearly impossible, as we have both the strongest navy, and air force in the world. The only type of nuclear missles I could see being used in a nuclear war are tactical nukes, and those aren't nearly a bad as the big ones.

Could someone link me to that thread, I can't find it. I remember reading it, but I want to reread it.

Gears 2 IMO is what gears should have been like originally. Better netcode and non-random shotgun, more balanced weapons, stylized executions, more game modes (even though horde and guardian seem to ripped straight from RSV2). The best thing is that they're keeping the core gameplay the same and not drastically changing anything, like the change from Halo 1 to Halo 2 to Halo 3. As someone said before, sequels should be like that in general. Balanced a bit more, graphically better, but not a large lurning curve between the two. Hope that Fable 2 doesn't end up here though. The whole dog thing has me worried with fable 2. Fable 1 was too short, even with the expansion, for me at least. People are gonna hate me for this, but oblivion disappointed me merely because of the moddability of it versus morrowind. Morrowind was much easier to mod, and there are many more mods for it. I currently have about 12gb of morrowind mods, and only a few hundred megabytes of oblivion mods.

Still, the military only needs so much nonradioactive uranium. Let's be serious here, global warming gets bad from overuse of oil. Many die, but we are not talking about full out extinction here, people will die, some animals will be wiped out, but in the end, humans will remain. I'm not saying we should just let it happen, but it will not wipe out humanity. The world would not end if we ran out of oil. It would cost money, granted, but all we need now is a cheap way to convert cars and all to an alternative, and make sure there is enough of the alternative to run everything. Interesting fact: How does the mantle of the earth stay molten. Although the crust serves as an insulator, heat from the sun is not enough. The mantle remains molten because of heat generated from radioactive decay.

oil won't run out at our current rate of use for a long time, and during that time alternatives that are suitable will be found in all likelihood. Nuclear for example, if we can find a safe way to dispose of waste than we have a very clean energy source

Sad truth: He's mostly right. Looks fade, true, but what are the chances that the hot girl/guy you're trying to date is really going to be the one you marry. Looks are important, but personality is too. Truth: Most guys can't pull of long hair. In my life, I have only seen one guy who really could, and the rest eventually got shorter haircuts, and looked much better. Cool clothes, sure if you want to go running around in a silver reflective jumpsuit because it reflects heat, and a hat with a fan on either side pointing down at you, even if it's the most comfortable thing in the world, you wouldn't wear it, or if you did, I can almost guarantee everyone would think you were crazy. Fashion-wise, I've found that a lot of nice "cool" clothes actually are comfortable, and I think what he meant was, ditch the shirts that say something like "wow is my life" and buy some clothes that people won't label you as a geek or a loser if you wear them, without even getting to know you. Fat, it's usually pretty disgusting, no offense to anyone, and unlike looks, it definitely will not fade with age. Sports wise, I would suggest it. In my school, the kids who are the best at sports and commit themselves are very well known, and the best sports guy in the school is also a pretty big geek, but everyone still likes him. Looks are as important as personality in a lot of cases. Most girls wouldn't go out with really attractive guy if he was a pure jerk (not the sensitive jerk thing that has been talked about, I mean like abusive), or if they were really stupid, but most would not go out with a fat kid who doesn't care about his social image, even if he is the nicest guy in the world (which is also not what most girls look for). Just about anyone can look good if they try, all it takes it a little effort. Run a bit every day if your overweight, deal with acne/etc. Looking attractive does not sacrifice personality, and in general, it can be healthier for you, not only because of weight, but also because of confidence and such. Anyway, that's probably my biggest point, making yourself look better does not sacrifice personality.

I think people have huge misconceptions about ice-ages. 1: The difference in average degrees over the course of the year is very small during ice ages , compared to what most people think, only enough for there to be more snowfall each winter, and enough so atleast a tiny bit of snow stays the next year, so it builds up over hundreds of years. 2: Again, it takes hundreds of years for an ice age to have huge glaciers, and scientists would, in that time, know it was the start of an ice age, and humans would have centuries to prepare. An ice age would merely temporarily limit what areas we could live in. Hell, at that point we could probably build giant (i mean GIANT) walls in order to stop the glaciers from passing certain points. Humans, as in homo sapien sapiens, have been around for I think 1-2 million years, and in that time period we have gone through many ice ages. An ice age would do little. A pandemic, there was a major one around 1918, numbers are disputed, but, in the course of a year or two up to 100 million people may have been killed (spanish influenza.) However, people were able to stay healthy by isolating themselves. Nowadays it is much easier, as we have internet, tv, refrigerators and all, we could live in a house for months at a time if you stored food. Many would be killed, especially in more crowded areas, like cities, but in the end, there will still be many of us left. Global warming? Even in the worst case scenarios, we would survive. Many would die, animals would die in some areas, but in general, cattle and all would survive, and conditions for growing food would be made better in some areas. Comet/asteroid? it depends on the size, but we would be able to tell that it was coming a fair amount of time before it hit, and preparations and underground shelters could be made. The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs killed the massive dinosaurs, sure, but there were still many animals that survived, and they didn't have underground bunkers to hide in. Nuclear war? Billions would die, if nukes were launched around the world, but there are bunkers, and people might be able to survive in radiation free areas. We have billions of people in the world today, yet we do not need that many to survive as a race. A hundred thousand people would be more than enough to insure the survival of humankind. Sun exploding/whatever? Earth would be pretty much screwed, but that is so far in the future that I can almost guarantee that if we have survived that long, we will be on other planets. Think about it. in the past 300 years we have gone from riding around on horses and such, to electricity, oil, plastics, cars, computers and space travel. Supervolcano/yellowstone? Again, much of north america and that area would be wiped out, it would cause an ice age, but again, it would be a slightly worse ice age that in the past, but it would not last forever, only a few years. There was a small ice age in the 1800s caused by Krakatoa. Invasion of more militarily advanced alien race? Sounds unlikely, but in a few billion years, who knows what could happen. Tons of humans would be wiped out, but unless there earth and all of any possible colonies were physically destroyed, then some humans will survive. That about covers it, but who knows. A black hole would basically kill everything within a huge radius, so watchout. EDIT: Super intelligence? If we design a super intelligent robot, computer, or whatever and for some reason it turns against us or is designed to wipe out mankind, who knows. With this, it is possible, but extremely unlikely. Also, those saying cockroaches will be the only ones left after a nuclear war, they actually have a fairly low tolerance for radiation. If i remember right, on a scale, humans had something like 20, cockroaches had sixty. Fruit flies had a lot, and some bacteria had like 60000.

ooc: I will I guess

Well, I had a standard poodle for a few years. Really smart dogs, learned all basic commands in a day, never did anything bad in the house, never chewed stuff up. I recommend them.

Some kid was a complete [wagon] to my friend one time, so I took his laptop when he was busy, looked through the files, and set his desktop background as some of the more softcore stuff he had on his computer. He deserved it, and he completely freaked out when he saw it. He didn't even know how to change it at first lol.

I was the last poster in zombea, wasn't I? Well, maybe have three options then, level specific, like 79-89, general level range, what it is now, and an all levels crater.

Um, pika, what are you talking about. He adressed a reasonable issue, and gave a way to fix it, and your answer was the generic "Don't play it then." IMO there should be a crater for all levels, then the more specific craters. And instead of having like 15 caves, just one portal, and it will give you a choice of going to your level's crater, or the general level crater.

Yeah, it does. :) Hypothetically, the vibrations from the sound could affect things. Like when something breaks the speed of sound, but no one is around to hear it, it would still break stuff.

Wanting to borrow: any gs Duration: 2 hours or less RSN: Evil wisp/rek104 I want to use it for the tet c wars event i'm hosting. Pm me ingame or something, or on the forums.

It's renting. During the time that you don't have it, you can't use it. Of course it is.

Same deal with mime mask.

There is nobody at clan wars in other worlds. Go with friends, though I doubt you have any. You realize how stupid that sounded

This thread is what's wrong with the rants forum. Not the post itself, but the response. Whenever someone makes a thread complaining about an update, or something in the game it is constantly met with. "Go do something else" Or for example if it's something little, like there was a change of graphics on something that made a little thing look much worse everyone flames them for not posting something monumentally important. Whenever a thread about pking comes up the same answers are spouted from dozens of people "Get over it" "do something else" If someone didn't like an update, even though it was a while ago, does that mean that is no longer allowed to rant about it? Or what if that was the person's favorite part of the game, and trust me, bounty hunter doesn't compare. Now, if I said that in my own thread, that bounty hunter did not replace pking I would be spammed with people telling me that jagex is making more updates for the wilderness. News flash: It's been 6 months or so without any substantial changes, I think I am allowed to complain now. Fist of Guthix is nothing like pking either, so that doesn't matter. Rants forum is getting ridiculous.

It's literally impossible to do that. At level 90s, when i pked, with my 80 strength 75ish attack and 70 defense, it would be completely impossible for me to beat a rune pure wearing penance torso, rune legs, defender, and a whip. At level 92, a pure could have 45 defence, 80 hitpoints, 99 strength 70 attack and 52 prayer, and be able to do a 35-35 spec or higher with a dds. This would be fully impossible to kill when your max hit was maybe a 20-20 spec, or a 25 with a whip. it would run right through you. Pures were designed for people who enjoyed pking, but their stats had progressed to the point that they could not pk on a main. A pure opened up the ability to play in a different way, and I find that so many people hate pures for no reason. Some people say they didn't actually play the game, but actually fighting other players takes much more skill than fighting a gwd boss, or clicking 10000 times. Gwd bosses always do the same thing, players don't.

Oh well. I rarely used it but, meh.

If they do they would kick [wagon] at arma. I'm gonna try it with a friend asap.

: Thanks in advance