Zybez RuneScape Community was shut down on September 17th, 2018. You're viewing an archive of this page from 2018-12-01 at 02:20. Thank you all for your support! Please get in touch via the Curse help desk if you need any support using this archive.

Join us on Discord, ZybezNet clan and Zchat friendchat.

We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Dismiss

Jump to content


No1's Photo

No1

Member Since Dec 24 2002 4:50 PM
Offline Last Active Nov 30 2018 7:33 PM

#17224819 Exit post: The End.

Posted by No1 on 17 September 2018 - 6:43 AM

So long, and thanks for all the cabbages.


  • 12


#17224510 Remembering 17 years of Zybez

Posted by No1 on 16 September 2018 - 10:01 AM

Some stats, as of 2018-08-19:

Most posts Arno (24,750)
W13 (20,431)
Highest rating Jack (6)
9Mm, Andrew, Angel, Apollo, Arno, Awong, Ben_Goten78, blackspy, Brad, Brian, Broski, Cecil DeLuna,
ClydeFrog, Colton, Cremonte, Cuzza123us, D-MoB, Damea, Dark, Evil_Jesus, eVotion, Fire.Freek,
Five Aces, Fuzion, Gloibin, Guybrush, Hemlock, Hobo, HowAbominable, Icedrop, Ile, Islamia,
J36, Jaya, Jeff, John, Justin, kitemac, Koppen, Krazykat, Krazymonkey5, Kuroda, Lachy,
LunarKnyght, Malinor, Matchu, McShieldSniper, Michael_West, Minion V, Modoc, Molson, Mr Geoff,
No1, Peyton, Phobia-*, PlayTrumpet, Prinx, Rashy, Robin Hood, Rocky, Scuzzlebut, Seji, Sir Wild,
Sleepy, snoozles, Sportstorm, Super Girl, Tha Hanzz, TheExtremist, Twizlers300, Tyler, Veracon,
W--Mage, World 1 Host, Xeophonix, YanOmeE, Yoeni, zamz, zbart99 (5)
Most time online Arceus (768d 12h 22m 8s)
Wee Man (696d 23h 58m 49s)
Most topics Jim (2,049)
W13 (1,726)
Most friends Johnyisbest (1,105)
spoonheb (744)
Most PMs Debenkey (1,717)
HAR (1,530)
Most profile views Murdoc (130,528)
Aragon (117,608)
Most reputation points given Sv. (25,026; net +10,018)
unbiased observer (23,841; net +12,421)
Highest reputation points Molson (10,637)
George (8,619)
Lowest reputation points Dalejamesw (-8,891)
Abkb24 (-4,393)
Most replied topic Top Rated Clans ~ 2009 (16,382)
Football (15,500)
Top Rated Clans ~ 2010 (14,900)
Most viewed topic Top Rated Clans ~ 2012 (5,989,008)
Drop Log Dropoff (2,502,242)
My Bank Is Better Thank Yours (2,006,938)
MM9 ∫ 15 AUG: SOMETHING BETTER THAN MOUNTS! (1,422,097)
Highest rated post .Qwerty's Tii's Guide To 99 Summoning. (+314)
Pk3d by mike's Kuradal's Dungeon Throwing Knife Tip (+312)
Most controversial post Scotty dont7's (Jc)Runescape Dinasty Vs Reign Of Terror (208 votes; net -28)
Cera S6's Violent Resolution vs Reign of Terror (ft Di+Df) - Feb 15 (177 votes; net +1)

  • 4


#17220887 Remembering 17 years of Zybez

Posted by No1 on 15 August 2018 - 5:43 PM

If you haven't seen the announcement, best start here: http://forums.zybez....t-post-the-end/

 

Last call for memories. This is your chance to say goodbyes, share memories, swap information, etc.

 

Anything posted will be part of the archived site, and stay online as long as the site itself.

 

What's your earliest memory of Zybez?

What did Zybez or the community mean to you?

What did you enjoy most?


  • 4


#17210652 Fresh meat

Posted by No1 on 27 June 2018 - 8:45 PM

Please join me in welcoming these newly anointed, the latest additions to Zybez's ranks!
 
Moderator:
I Love You
 
Senior Member:
BrainiacOutcast
D96
Fire Hawk154
Jack
Jusin Bieber
Kingthegreat
Stl Arrow
Torreoria
Venenatis
 
Be like them. :-)

  • 11


#17156771 Las Vegas Shooting 1/10/2017

Posted by No1 on 03 October 2017 - 12:39 PM

I blame Hollywood for so many people believing a silencer actually makes a gunshot (which is LOUD) silent

 

Suppressors typically lower volume by about 30 dB (some as low as 14, some as high as 40). Every 10 dB is a doubling in actual volume, meaning 30 dB attenuation results in a sound 1/8 as loud. Gunshots start *very* loud to begin with (~155 dB), but there's still a huge difference between that and 120 dB. Sounds are generally measured at a distance of 1 m, and that drops off 6 dB per doubling of range--in this case, that's a further ~54 dB of attenuation over distance. An unsuppressed shot at that distance would be about as loud as a motorcycle (100 dB). A suppressed one would be a little louder than conversational volume (70 dB). A concert will run 100-120 dB.


  • 2


#17156703 Las Vegas Shooting 1/10/2017

Posted by No1 on 02 October 2017 - 8:39 PM

He could have been stopped if somebody in the crowd was carrying.

 

http://www.slate.com...d_security.html

 

[the shooter] apparently fired on concertgoers from a room on the 32nd story of the Mandalay Bay hotel, across the street and approximately 400 meters from the concert. He did so during nighttime, when it would have been difficult to see an open window from the street, let alone someone preparing in the shadows behind it. The distance, elevation, and obscuration make this kind of attack an almost impossible tactical problem for security services. No perimeter security measures or screening checkpoints would help ... It would have been incredibly difficult for any bystander, or even local law enforcement personnel on the ground, to return fire and stop [the] attack.

 

Pistols aren't generally accurate to a quarter mile, nevermind the conditions here.


  • 1


#17155998 Limitations on Free Speech

Posted by No1 on 27 September 2017 - 10:28 PM

Good question considering recent happenings.

 

I don't have any answers, but a few things to point out:

 

  1. Usual spiel: 'Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.' If you get in someone's face and curse them out, you're liable to be rewarded with a punch. If you say something unconscionable by your employer, you're liable to not be employed anymore. It seems to me 'but free speech!' is often used as a block to cower behind for voicing opinions that are otherwise obviously objectionable. There's always room for thoughtful consideration and tact.
     
  2. In the US at least, rights are limitations on the government. You have no right to free speech on private property any more than you have a right to trespass. Someone not acting for the government, and acting lawfully, cannot be said to be infringing upon your rights.
     
  3. Disregarding constitutionality, there is merit to the idea of banning hate speech (overt prejudice or inciting violence).

    For it: Allowing hate speech does have a compounding effect--it gives voice and strength to people that would otherwise keep to themselves or might not feel as strongly. It can also be used to intimidate, and that doesn't go away just by shouting over it.
    It's all but impossible to change a mind by arguing and reasoning unless the person wants it to be changed (case in point)--so I strongly dispute that "bad ideas are relatively easy to dismiss, and the best way to defeat a "bad" idea is to publicly challenge it". We should educate against prejudice and encourage everyone to be considerate, but that doesn't solve the problem. The very fact that Aryanism is still a thing indicates extreme views won't just go away on their own when exposed to 'better' ones. The quality of an idea is entirely subjective.

    Against it: Slippery slope argument. Who decides what constitutes hate speech, and where does it end? 'I know it when I see it'? That is a bit frightening.

  • 1


#17123134 Trump Watch / General US Politics

Posted by No1 on 24 April 2017 - 6:38 PM

 

 

 

 

Its a smart move to deny climate change, if you acknowledge it you're going to be expected to act on it, and nobody tryna spend that kinda money and resources. Its a smart move for our economy.

I... I don't... Just... :#

 

 

Basically the only response one could possibly have to this sentiment.

 

And denying climate change is denying science. It's not a debate.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

 

Never said I didn't believe in climate change, its just smarter for our administration to pretend not to from an economic standpoint. I'm just looking at it from our current administrations perspective. They're getting big money from oil companies, why would they try to ruin that and It's just better for our economy to ignore it.

 

No, it's not. I'll ignore the dissonance needed to both acknowledge climate change and think it's better for the economy to stick with fossil fuels long term. Any economic benefit fossil fuels might hypothetically bring with them are completely irrelevant when you think about the consequences of climate change. That should be obvious.

 

But from a purely economic standpoint, you're still wrong. The fossil fuel industry is dying, and it produces far fewer jobs and far less growth than renewables. In 2016, investments in renewable energy was double the amount fossil fuels received. The renewable energy sector keeps growing at incredible rates, with things like solar energy doubling in size 7 times in the last 15 years.

 

Denying climate change makes no sense, economically or otherwise. The only reason the Trump administration is doing it is to line its' own pockets with what are essentially bribes from a dying industry.

 

It's an absurdly short-sighted position, and I disagree that it's smart for our economy, but the basic concept concept of wilful ignorance isn't necessarily wrong. Change is hard, and a lot of people (many of whom supported this administration) would get left in the dust. Or for that matter, already are actively getting left in the dust, and living in denial. I don't have any answers on how to solve 'the rust belt', but I can see how they would cling to a message of hope even if there isn't much basis for it.

 

Saying 'I acknowledge climate change, but we aren't in a position to do anything about it' is a no-win proposition. People on both sides would hate it.

Saying 'I acknowledge climate change, and we'll make a concerted effort to do something about it' would alienate a huge part of his support base--people whose lives are built on the current climate and have no hope of anything else.

 

Clinton had a plan for bringing education and new jobs and industries to the rust belt. It didn't get much attention (that I recall). Trump said he'd make things back the way they were in the 'good old days', before the robots and Mexicans stole our jobs. Trump won.

 

I don't think it's about bribes or lobbying or big money or anything of the sort. It's basic populism. 'Nevermind what happens in 40 years, I won't be around to know or care. What about tomorrow?'


  • 2


#17121491 Site Maintenance - 4/19

Posted by No1 on 19 April 2017 - 6:10 PM

The site maintenance is complete. If you find anything amiss on the site, please let us know.

 

Thanks!


  • 1


#17121181 Site Maintenance - 4/19

Posted by No1 on 18 April 2017 - 7:41 PM

Hello all,

 

Zybez Runescape Community will be undergoing some server improvements over the next day. There will be some brief periods during this process where the site is either read-only or inaccessible. If you run into that, it's expected, nothing is wrong, and we're not going anywhere. Just try again later. :-)

 

Thanks for your patience.

 

Happy 'scaping!


  • 1


#17105402 Trump’s First Legislative Effort Fails as G.O.P. Pulls Bill to Repeal

Posted by No1 on 24 March 2017 - 8:04 PM

trump always wins. u liberal cry babies will learn soon enough

 

In what sense does/will he win here? Getting rid of ACA was one of his (and many others') primary campaign issues.


  • 1


#17100767 Trump Watch / General US Politics

Posted by No1 on 15 March 2017 - 7:04 PM

When the article suggests "pay your fair share in taxes" that was a phrase President Obama used during his 2012 re-election campaign, which while running against Romney was suggesting the average American pays more taxes as a result of his nontaxable earnings (not just his but he was the poster child during that time). The problem I have is we as a society we are either extreme left to where we want to tax the rich more because they make more and redistribute it to the poor, or the extreme right where we give massive tax breaks to the wealthy in hopes the economy will turn around (Trickle down economics). What I'm asking for is a balance. The wealthy shouldnt be taxed to point where its cheaper for them to build new facilities outside of our country and move there to operate, nor should they be taxed so little that its burdens the rest. We need to simplify our tax policies, this in turn will close major loopholes and back doors in our system, I believe a flat tax rate could do this though unlikely to occur.

 

That's a fair position. I can't comment on specifics (not my area, not going to pretend it is) except to say that tax codes and trade and import/export tariffs are all tremendously complex subjects--and not just because there are a lot of laws about them. Reality is complex and nuanced. Closing loopholes and backdoors certainly sounds like a good thing, but that's partly from the fact that we call them loopholes and backdoors.

 

 

With this he paid 25.3% in taxes. Now percentage wise according to our complcated tax system he underpaid strictly looking at his tax bracket. Assuming he files married joint he would fall in the 35% range. So he should have paid roughly 52.5mil. But with tax breaks that he has i wont even begin to list the different ones he took advantage of, he fot it down to 38m. Now is this fair? Maybe not but thats how our tax system was set up and i cant fault him for getting around paying that extra 14.5mil.

 

Fun fact: $30m of the $38m he paid in taxes that year was due to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), something he campaigned on abolishing. Without that, he would've paid only 5%.

 

 

I agree with the Fair tax act, or for those not familiar it is the flat tax. It abolishes income tax and increases sales tax to a flat rate. This makes it where you pay the same in taxes as everyone else. To avoid paying taxes you just have to not buy things. Now you will still buy the essentials but this may keep some people from just buying pointless items that they dont really need. Now the rich will be paying more taxes because they will be spending more money than a person who is not as well off.

The government wont allow this though because it takes away IRS jobs as well as lobbyist who cant bribe the congressman to rewrite different tax breaks into the system.

 

The actual proposals are probably (a lot) more complicated to account for problems like this, but your conception of how it works is pretty off base. People don't buy things proportional to their income. If you make $20k, chances are all of your income is going straight into purchases of necessity--$4k for food, $8k for housing, $3k for transportation, etc. But if you make $200k, you don't need to spend $40k a year on food, or $80k a year on housing. Maybe you spend $80k altogether on 'necessities', but then you save or invest the rest. That would mean rich you is paying proportionally less taxes than poor you, by design.

 

There are ways around that, like adding a minimum-income/spending exemption. But if we're adding all sorts of exceptions to make it work, is that really improving things? The existing tax tiers aren't the part that makes our tax system complicated anyway--it's the deductions, exemptions, and special rules for this, that, and the other. Those aren't all going to just disappear.

 

Bigger problem with flat/fair tax plans is the numbers tend to not add up. A few articles I found analyzing them mentioned the expected incomes of the plans (from recent presidential candidates and congress) tend to come about $1 trillion dollars short of the actual US budget (~$4 trillion/yr). That's a problem.

 

Couple links: https://www.forbes.c...the-difference/ https://www.washingt...r-good-reasons/


  • 1


#17096486 Login Change

Posted by No1 on 09 March 2017 - 6:51 PM

We changed our login system several days ago. To log in now, you will need to use your login username instead of your email address. Your password should not be affected.

 

Your login username will be the same as your forum display name unless you had it changed. If you don't know your username, try that first. If you still can't figure it out, and you aren't able to recover your account, please contact us.

 

http://forums.zybez....ntact-an-admin/

 

Thank you.


  • 4


#17096286 Trump Watch / General US Politics

Posted by No1 on 09 March 2017 - 12:39 PM

 

 The burden of proof rests on the individuals making a claim.

 

 

That's funny, because '___ was a lie peddled by ___' sounds a lot like a claim to me. ... which is why I asked. And here I am foolishly believing an official DNI report over an individual saying 'there is no evidence, none'.

 

Silly me.


  • 4


#17096211 Trump Watch / General US Politics

Posted by No1 on 09 March 2017 - 9:58 AM

Turns out the Russian thing was a lie peddled by the DNC  :thumbsup:

 

Any sources to back up that claim (that aren't Breibart, infowars, youtube, or random blogs)? :thumbsup:


  • 5




Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: