acenator

If you still have the hard drive from the old computer, try sticking it in a working computer (unplug the computer's current HD and plug your old one in its place so that it's the boot drive). If the hardware's compatible to the drivers installed on it or available to be installed on it, then you should be able to get your files back (I've replaced motherboards without getting new hard drives or a reinstall of the operating system and it works fine; you just have to install all the drivers when it starts up). I'd post pictures, but, unfortunately, all the ones I have are from the past 2 years or so.

That's not how an argument works. You don't set up a theory and then ask people to prove you wrong, you set up an argument and then first have to show your evidence. Mindless speculation does not constitute valid evidence, and it may seem like a copout but "no proof, didn't happen" is indeed a valid response. I never said he had evidence for it, but was merely asking what evidence there is against his theory. I know he has no evidence, but unless there's evidence against his theory, I have to consider it a possibility. I doubt his theory will come true, but there's always that chance that it can. It's like last year when people were saying that Jagex would get rid of the Wilderness; nobody had any real evidence for or against it (there were the other recent changes (duel arena, etc.) to look at, but no statement saying ti would happen), but it still happened.

It's an interesting idea and it very well could happen. We'll just have to wait and see. And for all those people asking for proof: Is there any proof that this WON'T happen? I'm not saying it will or anything. It's just something to think about.

First off, I haven't heard of any fully free capitalistic economy in a long while. Secondly, it was government regulations that caused what's happening in the real world right now. Janet Reno, Clinton's Attorney General, practically threatened companies with audits and investigations if they failed to give out enough sub-prime mortgages and the government told Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they had to have something like 42% of their mortgage assets in sub-prime loans. This, in turn lead to more people (as in, people who wouldn't have been able to get them without the government stepping in) buying houses and getting adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) thinking they'll be able to refinance before their rates go up. More demand means higher prices. Prices go up at extraordinary rates and eventually reach the point where the market can't take them any more. Prices plummet and people with these ARMs can't refinance. People default on their loans and the secondary market (known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (together they owned about 50% of the market) collapses because of it. Had the government stayed out of the market, these people being forclosed on wouldn't have gotten their loans in the first place, prices wouldn't have skyrocketed and plumeted, and we wouldn't be in this mess. Also, markets go through cycles. Back in 1889, the markets crashed even harder than in 1929, but the government didn't do anything and it picked itself up and started growing again in about 2 or 3 years. Not to mention that FDR's New Deal caused a recession within the depression and WWII deserves most of the credit for rebuilding the U.S. economy and giving people jobs. This was copied and pasted from a previous post on this thread (with a few changes). Please try to look into these things a little more closely before making accusations. Again, sorry to be off topic, but I have to make sure people understand what's happened.

I'm pretty sure I speak for all of us when I say that this does not affect your average Slayer. Not unless the average Slayer dies 10 times a task. :| I think he was referring to the affects this could have on the prices of these items. I'm not going to make any specific predictions, but, if this has the intended effect (or at least a mild version of it), then prices are likely to change because of it.

Regulations to stop fraud and monopolies and such are fine, but what happened to the housing market started with the government trying to make it so that anyone could buy a house. Janet Reno, Clinton's Attorney General, practically threatened companies with audits and investigations if they failed to give out enough sub-prime mortgages and the government told Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac they had to have something like 42% of their mortgage assets in sub-prime loans. This, in turn lead to more people (as in, people who wouldn't have been able to get them without the government stepping in) buying houses and getting adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) thinking they'll be able to refinance before their rates go up. More demand means higher prices. Prices go up at extraordinary rates and eventually reach the point where the market can't take them any more. Prices plummet and people with these ARMs can't refinance. People default on their loans and the secondary market (known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (together they owned about 50% of the market) collapses because of it. Had the government stayed out of the market, these people being forclosed on wouldn't have gotten their loans in the first place, prices wouldn't have skyrocketed and plumeted, and we wouldn't be in this mess. Also, markets go through cycles. Back in 1889, the markets crashed even harder than in 1929, but the government didn't do anything and it picked itself up and started growing again in about 2 or 3 years. Not to mention that FDR's New Deal caused a recession within the depression and WWII deserves most of the credit for rebuilding the U.S. economy and giving people jobs. Sorry for being a bit off topic. EDIT: Added in some extra information that I used in a later post.

... And Article 17 states "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." For a political treaty, I have to say I think that section is pretty [bleep] unambiguous. No room for "well, we weren't really going to kill him". The first sentence of Article 13 is also an interesting - albeit slightly ambiguous - statement; "Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated." Yes. Well done. What I was getting at though, was the significant number of detainees released without actually being sentenced for anything. "These people", are not guilty of anything because the US military saw fit to throw them into lock-up. Which is why so many - I believe someone quoted a number earlier - have been released. You're not talking about brutal treatment for individuals whose guilt is beyond all reasonable doubt; You're talking about brutal treatment for people who were in the wrong place, at the wrong time. The fact that the preceedent that sets for your governments actions doesn't scare the [cabbage] out of you, well, scares the [cabbage] out of me. Very well, the Geneva Accords do, in fact, restrict countries from torturing prisoners of war. One little fact we both missed: the accords only apply to the "high contracting parties" or those that have ratified the accords (Article 2). Article 1 does state that "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances," but if it really meant that the "high contracting parties" were to follow the accords "in all circumstances," then why (in Article 2) does it state that the Accords "shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them," if not to exempt nations of the restrictions of the Accords when fighting against enemies that do NOT belong to a "high contracting party" (or, in the case of terrorists, don't belong to any nation at all)? Also, these actions don't scare me because, although the president has the power to detain American citizens without charges as enemy combatants (Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), I am still protected by the Constitution. They should also not scare you because, chances are, you belong to a "high contracting party" of the Geneva Accords and would therefore fall under their protection were the U.S. to go to war with your country.

They were fixing a problem they were partly responsible. They split the market instead of the company. Partly responsible? More like fully responsible. They created the company, gave it the funds to get started, and gave it a very big edge by making it tax-exempt. Just the tax-exempt part spells a monopoly in the makings. Then, to top it all off, their solution to the monopoly was to create another company on the same level spending more tax-money getting it started while still partially owning both and taking up the same piece of the market. Smooth. He downsized because there were fewer investors willing to buy as many mortgages? Because that would be a decline in investor confidence. And I meant a decline in investor confidence in the secondary housing market in general, not just Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He downsized because they weren't writing any mortgages. The banks and investors were there to back him as he tried to write mortgages while also buying another mortgage company and starting negotiations to buy his own federally chartered bank (a deal he's just closed, I believe). As for the secondary market in particular, I'll deal with that along with the next quote. The majority of the people rented in the early 1900s. Very few had the money to buy a house, so the only way to buy a house was to get a loan from the bank. However, banks only had so much money they could loan out, which made it hard for the average family to get a loan. Companies like Fannie Mae bought up mortgages from banks (creating the secondary housing market), which allowed banks to create more loans. This allowed the average family to buy a house no longer leaving home ownership to the wealthy. Okay, so the secondary market bought mortgages from banks to give the banks more capital with which to write more loans so that more people could "own" houses. They then use these mortgages as bonds or securities to sell to investors. So they buy them, "package" them, and then sell them to these investors who then treat them kind of like currency that, historically, generally gains value. It seems to me that this whole thing was a mess from the start. You got people who can't afford mortgages getting them, people selling these mortgages to get capital to write more, and people investng in them thinking they can only gain value. That's a disaster waiting to bow up if I ever saw one. And now it has. House values declined and it blew up in everyone's face. And to think this entire things was started back in 1934 with the introduction of the FHA, the initial move by the government to enter the housing business. I swear I don't know that much about history, this just happened to coincide with one of my classes. That was my poorly done point; Hoover did little to help the Great Depression because of politics. I never said that WWII didn't bring us out of the Great Depression. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac own half the secondary housing market. If they went under, a lot of people would have lost their houses and we could have easily slipped into a very bad recession. It seems we are entering one anyways. I'm hearing that the stock market is dropping like a rock now. Too bad the government's so involved or we might have been able to hope for a 1889 repeat where the economy just picked itself back up again rather than slowly dieing as the government tries to save it. And, again, Hoover tried doing what Congress is doing today. He tried saving large companies in order to keep jobs in tact and the money circulating (companies pay employees, employees buy things from companies, etc.).

ha, no it's not, War is when two armies are attacking eachother, we invaded, overthrew saddam and now we're just making sure no one steals any of their chickens [/hide] I bolded the key parts. Just because they don't belong to any particular nation or aren't organized the same way as a conventional army doesn't mean we can't be at war with them. We're not even going to war with an opposing power or parties, we're basically just fighting anti rebels and gangsters and making sure the iraqi people's chickens are safe from harm. You really believe that? Yes, we are there to help make Iraq a better, safer place (a noble quest in and of itself), but we are also there to make sure that terrorists, who want to blow you to smitherenes by the way, can't set up/return to any bases from which they can attack innocent civilians around the world. Going into Iraq and Afghanistan has taken the fight to their homeland and away from ours. Would you rather we kill them there or try to stop each individual "terror cell" as they carry out plans to blow something up in the U.S. or Europe? Because I can tell you right now that if we hadn't forced them all to protect their own land, they'd be in ours planning and carrying out more attacks. No one currently interned at Guantanamo Bay deserves Geneva Convention rights (Common or full) because they're all terrorists anyway. Would that accurately surmise your position? edit: Hilarious grammatical error. If you read Articles 84 and 105 of Part 3, Section 6, Chapter 3, you would see that the trials they were set up to receive in front of a military tribunal were perfectly fine under the Geneva accords. As for interrogations, if you check Part 2, Article 13, you'd see that, so long as the prisoners aren't tortured to a state of health that puts their lives at risk, killed, or left to be harmed by anyone outside of the military's control, then the interrogations are perfectly legal. My position is that we should do what it takes to save the lives of those whom these people would murder were they left to roam freely.

Where have any of us said "Poor Terrorists"? People saying that the terrorists should get constitutional rights could be considered a less precise way of saying "poor terrorists." As for this whole thing about the U.S. revolution, yes, they tarred and feathered the tax collectors and sometimes even the British governors sent over to help" keep the colonists in check." The difference between them and terrorists is that those weren't the general population of England and they were fighting for their own rights instead of the right to take away other peoples' rights and/or to obliterate a race of people. It is true that, at first, most didn't want to secede, but after the Declaration of Independence was written and signed, each seperate state had their congressional body meet and they voted to secede. Whether they originally wanted to "just make a statement" or secede didn't really matter at this point; they were at war with the British and when you're at war, you try to win (at least, that's how it was back then; nowadays, we got people saying to just give up and wuit even when we're winning)). Of course there were also the loyalist Tories who thought all the taxes and everything was fine, but these were an even smaller minority than those who thought secession was the only choice. After the Revoutionary War started, many Tories were forced off their land, but, had they been left alone, could have aided the British even more than they did from behind British lines (give them their crops for food, their houses for shelter, information on colonial troop movements, etc.).

Those shields could come in handy. I think I'll let the prices drop a bit, though. :P Oh, and did anyone else notice that the KB doesn't say the shields are members only? Is that a mistake or are they really sellable to f2p?

ha, no it's not, War is when two armies are attacking eachother, we invaded, overthrew saddam and now we're just making sure no one steals any of their chickens I bolded the key parts. Just because they don't belong to any particular nation or aren't organized the same way as a conventional army doesn't mean we can't be at war with them.

They were getting trials. They're called military tribunals and they let people make their case. Also, where in the Constitution does it say we have to give prisoners of war constitutional rights? This is war. If torturing someone will get our military information that can be used to save American lives, then that's what needs to be done. Not to mention that the people from our side that they capture are probably tortured quite a bit more and treated much more poorly than those that we capture. Ummm... You left out Oklahoma city and all the embassy bombings. Afghanistan was a mission to try and find Bin Laden while also freeing the people from the oppressive Taliban and keeping the Taliban from supporting more terrorist attacks. I agree that we haven't won there, yet, but I expect to start hearing more good news from there as we start moving people over from Iraq. And Iraq wasn't about catching the "mastermind." Iraq was about making sure Saddam didn't have any WMD's (something most politicians and military/intelligence personel agreed that he had), liberating the Iraqi people from Saddam's oppressive rule, and ending the funding of terrorists by Saddam. War costs money. Add that to the facts that Congress has been on a [social/economic] spending spree (something I don't agree with; markets should work on their own and government handouts only make people dependent on the government) and that the Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue and I'd say he's done a pretty good job. Okay, so I shouldn't have made the comment about who I thought you supported. Forgive me. As for the two-party system, I would agree that it has its problems, but that discussion topic isn't related to this one, so I'll leave it at that. However, I do believe that the majority of un-patriotic people in the U.S. are liberals because liberals have been proclaiming failure in Iraq ever since we went in (although some of them are coming to see that we're close to victory, now).

So a company created by Congress became a Monopoly? Why didn't they take them to court (or wherever that whole thing was decided) and split the entire thing up like they did with Microsoft? I sense a bias in favor of government-created (and partially-owned) things. A lack of regulation? Maybe people should have just looked at their annual income before signing their contracts. Not everything is the fault of the company, you know. And investor confidence? If investors aren't investing in the company, then that should be a good sign the company is doing something bad for itself. And don't tell me the whole housing market crash thing was the reason for it. My grandpa's been getting investors to help him out for the past 3 years. The housing market crash forced him to temporarily downsize a few things, but he's still getting investors to help him out same as before (and, yes, he is in the mortgage industry). The relevance is that the Democrats are more likely to support the government bailing them out when/if they go under. Just something to think about. As for people renting without them, if they were renting before, then they probably weren't in a position to buy before either. This is evident now that all these mortgages have gone south. Just let the market do its thing and people will do what's best for them; get the government involved and people will start thinking that the government will give them money (that was taken from taxpayers' pockets) and, in this case, that assumption was right. I know they happen periodically. My point is that the recoveries tend to be much faster when the government stays out of it. Also, Hoover did NOT try the laissex-faire approach. He did exactly what Congress is doing now; he started bailing out companies that would have otherwise gone under. And WW2 did help the US economy in the respect that it gave people jobs and money to spend on things from other companies. After it was over, there was a short recession that the government didn't do anything about and it recovered fairly rapidly. Back in the 1920's it was customary for the woment to stay home and look after the children and the economy was obviously able to support that.

Actually since most of them were let go and very few were charged, I think you should have referred to them as *suspected* terrorists, because all prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were just that: SUSPECTED. And of course they would want a lawyer present during interrogation. Lawyers know which questions are loaded or which can be used to twist the truth (obviously you did not watch the video I posted which clearly shows how that can happen). I'm starting to think you would have fit right in with the Bush Administration. They might want a lawyer during interrogation, but I think you're forgetting that WE'RE AT WAR. These people, whether suspected or caught in the act, are the ENEMY. As for giving them lawyers and rights, I think you forget that the constitution only applies to U.S. citizens. Or at least it used to before the Supreme Court decided to legislate from the bench. I guess you like the idea of increasing these peoples' chances of getting back out in the world where they can make more bombs and blow more people up. Tell me. Why, in the past 7 years, have we not been hit with another terrorist attack if not for the fact that the Bush administration is doing what it's supposed to and getting rid of those who would LOVE to come blow more of us to smithereens. Oh, and let me guess. You're an Obama supporter, aren't you? That's nice because it's not like he's a good friend of a CONVICTED TERRORIST who says he WISHES HE'D DONE MORE, or anything. :wall: As for conspriacies as a whole, watch this. It's got quite a bit of cussing in it, but they make some great points.

What most people are forgetting is that these two companies were started by the government (can't have something started by the government go under, you know). Add this to the fact that the people in charge of them were corrupt (at least one was, not sure about the other; oh, and the one that was/is corrupt is now a "cheif advisor" to the new head of one of the two companies #-o ), the fact that people are dumb and didn't think about whether or not they were going to be able to make their payments #-o , the fact that the government has been bailing out so many companies lately that people seem to expect to get bailed out, and the fact that these companies were partially controlled by the federal government from the get-go :roll: and this is what you get. Oh, and I think I heard something about some rule saying they had to give these people mortgages even though they shouldn't have. Kind of like the FHA, but on a much larger scale. Also, these companies have been donating to Democrat (as in the political party) organizations and candidates, too. Reverend Jackson's Monochrome Coalition, for example. I wouldn't be surprised if they've even been giving money to Obama's campaign. These two (and why'd they need two, anyways?) "companies" (remember, started and partially owned by the government; now completely owned by the government) should never have been started in the first place and the people who got the loans that are now defaulting never should have signed the contracts. Heck, I might as well go ahead and front the idea that letting them go bankrupt might have been a good idea since it would have shown people how stupid they were for getting such loans and because the economy would've recovered soon enough (did you know that there was a stock market crash in 1889 that was actually worse than the one in 1929? You just never hear about it because the government did nothing and the economy rebounded within like 3 years. How long did FDR take to get us out of the Great Depression? Oh, wait, WWII probably helped mroe than any other factor ;) ).

Clearly that is not correct. Gold buyer puts up a bronze dagger for sale at 100m. Gold seller puts an offer in for a bronze dagger at 100m. Yes it is anonymous to a certain extent, but without the price controls that are in place RWT would be stupidly easy. Don;t get me wrong, I think there are several flaws with the GE, but removing price restrictions totally is not an option. And those sorts of transactions would probably be pretty easy for Jagex to track and ban people for it, but if it does become a [major] problem, then just make the 5% rule into a 100% rule (you can only sell for up to twice market price) or, if that seems like too much, the 50% rule without a min price.

All they really need to do is remove price controls and the 5% rule (the GE is anonymous and random, anyways, so RWT is covered) and just calculate the average price every so often. That way, people get a nice "suggested" price while also being able to trade for whatever price they want. Of course, Jagex seems to like the power the GE gives them, so this probably won't happen, either (just look at phat and 3rd age prices; if Jagex didn't like their control of the economy, they'd have changed those prices a loooooooong time ago).

I think you're forgetting that you lose 7 potions when you convert a full inventory from 3 dose to 4 dose. Your profit would be only the extra cost between 3 and 4 dose after subtracting the price per dose, plus the vial. It gives no exp and most GE worlds are laggy. I think you're forgetting that potion prices are tied together based on dosage. You lose nothing converting them from 28 3-dose potions into 21 4-dose potions (or possibly even gain some (I heard that 3-dose potions bought at min and 4-dose potions sold at max)) and get 7 empty vials to sell seperately. Sounds like a money-maker to me. And they got granite prices tied together now based on the number of 500g pieces you can get from them. Another [short-lived] money-maker bites the dust.

They probably set up a nice little price dependency system so that all granite prices are connected. Although it seems that prices for the larger pieces are still low enough to make a profit off of buying them, cutting them into pieces, and selling the 500g pieces (currently at 1,058 each) :-k. Maybe Jagex is getting smart and knows they'll drop like rocks (pun intended) and don't want another junk item on the market.

DFS went up 50k, but what's this about Bandos? I suggest you look at the GE Database again for that one. 3rd age is still rising though. Heh i just bought myself a dfs at max =0 also of course 3rd age is gonna rise, if every 3rd sold on ge wasnt on max id be surprised.....do you have any idea what the junk prices are? All I know is that most, if not all pieces are going for over 100m and that some are even up to about 250m. My best guess would be that, if the GE prices continue to rise, they'll get close to the street prices (maybe 85m-225m depending on the item) and then bottom out and fall like rocks to who knows what price before bouncing back up and down several times like most junk traded items do once the GE catches up. Oh, and good luck with the DFS. I don't know if you just bought it because you just really wanted it or as an investment, but have fun and I hope you don't get burned.

DFS went up 50k, but what's this about Bandos? I suggest you look at the GE Database again for that one. 3rd age is still rising though.

Looks like a pretty god month to me. I love quests, the clan wars thing looks like it could be fun, and the penguins thing sounds cool, but we'll just have to wait and see how it all works. And (as said already) where're all the changes to the BTS they talked about? :-k

I won't believe it [completely] until I see it, but, from what I'm seeing in the GE database, it's definitely a possibility. The partyhats are stuck because barely anyone wants to buy them at their current GE prices and, because nobody's trading them, they're stuck. I'm not sure you can call a +50k price change a rise for something like the santa hat. If you're just talking about the fact that it's about 4 mill more than it was a few months ago, that's because of the santa suit that's coming out this Christmas.

Unless Jagex changed it recently, you can, because I saw a massive suicide festival at the G.E about two weeks ago. The guys doing the suiciding were even handing out free Zamorak Brews, and I used them to suicide as well. You've pretty much always been able to. Once you get down to 1 hp, it can take a while, but eventually it will hit that 1 and kill you.