Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/7/14 11:37 PM, SentForMe wrote: I don't know about this common core stuff. All I know is the result, which is that the US education system continues to rank lower every year vs. the rest of the world. Even though every ten years or so some people come up with a new idea to "save" the US public education system they don't seem to actually improve it much.

That's a misrepresentation of the state of education in America.

Affluent school districts in the United States have the best public schools in the world. Many private, boarding, Montessori, charter, preparatory, etc schools in the United States are top tier.

The average and mean for performance in education is low because less wealthy school districts and states which purposely underfund their public education for political reasons have a performance which reflects that starvation and neglect.

America does still have most of the world's best colleges and universities. The Ivy League is so pumped full of 4.0+2.0, 2400 SAT, 8 AP, team captain, pseudopolyglotic, musical, entrepreneurial, humble, charitable, 12 extracurricular middle-to-upper-class applicants from American and international schools that they dump the overflow into nearby state schools.

However, students in financially needy districts aren't often granted the mentoring necessary to become one of those excellent sheep. Usually the ones that find that role model are looking outside of the schools, where they're unlikely to find someone who demonstrates the need to develop a passion for learning.

Why are we outraged about Common Core again? I always forget because there's no cohesive strand of arguments beyond "nah man it sucks! Look at how different it is from my schooling!" from people who quite clearly lack comprehensive education.

Kids today have the Internet. Just because the schools teach them one thing doesn't mean they're going to be stuck with that same limited view on the world for the rest of their lives.

Unless…it's all a liberal conspiracy to make kids afraid to search for new perspectives online and turn our kids into tree-hugging pro-choice atheist Democrats. Oh lord have mercy.

Maybe, then.

It's very difficult for the brain to pick up new languages later in life. It's even more difficult for the brain to connect written language to spoken language as you age.

She demonstrated some literacy to you. Maybe that's evidence enough to support her developing some reading skills. And it should be evidence enough that she wants to connect with you through written language. You could try introducing some word games into your discussions. Anything that gradually forces her to sound out words, then sentences, then longform.

If she were adamant about wanting to become more literate, you could ask a doctor to help. Some anticonvulsant medications given to epileptics have been proven to reenable easy language learning in adults, pick up new instruments, and gain perfect pitch.

No, I do not think your grandmother is not a genius. She's also not illiterate.

If she were a genius, I would expect her to know how to read English fluently. Since she speaks and reads Portuguese, she has at least 1 language in her skill set, meaning she isn't illiterate either. Does she speak any languages other than Portuguese?

Also, one part of any standard IQ test does involve rotating shapes, recombining letters, and similar puzzles. But, figuring out that letters are similar to other letters when flipped upside down isn't particularly difficult by comparison.

At 9/5/14 02:58 AM, satanbrain wrote:

At 9/4/14 02:37 AM, ComicD wrote: The title says it all.
Here's mine:
E=mc2

It does not. The correct equation is E = (mc^2) / [( 1 – v^2/c^2)^0.5]

Well ain't you special.

At 9/5/14 02:39 AM, SubparTony wrote:

At 8/30/14 10:36 PM, Lemonardo wrote: We will only ever be equal when the weak are eliminated.

What's the point of keeping people in life when they have zero contribution in the mass production/are not as qualified as the average human being?

Many autistic people have above average intelligence. More intelligence, when applied to specialized labor, results in greater economic growth.

Do you think Einstein spent 20 years pbsessing over the idea that light might have a velocity the same way sound does just because he saw a hammer drop on a dock? Of course not. He was predisposed to obsession as a result of a trait which is know referred to as part of the Autism Spectrum.

At 9/5/14 01:39 AM, ComicD wrote:

At 9/4/14 02:43 PM, The-Great-One wrote: Evolution is real.

to you.

Reality isn't subjective; it's absolute. Evolution is part of that absolute. Everything which is real is a part of realit--

At 9/5/14 01:46 AM, i-am-ghey wrote:

At 9/4/14 06:56 AM, solamander wrote: Imaginary time is a concept derived from quantum mechanics and is essential in connecting quantum mechanics with statistical mechanics.

This trick is also useful in describing the representations of the lorentz group by connecting it to the rotational group SO(4) through analytic continuation.

--Oh God damn it.

^ ** post-history deletions
Mobile devices have weird autocorrect dictionaries which lag sometimes.

^ ** features
Typing on a mobile device can be clumsy.

I also want to add that the reason I brought up giving users the ability to lock their own threads is that it is another issue which users have been "hot patching" by messaging moderators for post deletions in the same way that posts history deletions and username changes are dealt with. I really don't understand why Newgrounds is so unwilling to hardcode these options into the system directly instead of forcing us to bother staff members about every little thing.

At 9/4/14 07:40 PM, BrenTheMan wrote:

At 9/4/14 07:30 PM, Sheizenhammer wrote: Most of them either don't need fixing at all, or can be easily fixed with the bare minimum of ingenuity on the users' part.

Exactly. Maybe this is a good example of Occam's razor.

I think you have it backwards. Maybe it seems simple to you because you already have the ability to lock/edit your own posts and you would be the one who needs to actually change the site code to include new festures. From the perspective of a user who has been here 12 years: getting any mod's attention, the right mod's attention, and getting their cooperation is actually a lot more annoying than clicking a button to close a thread on other forums. Or clicking a button to edit a post. Or just shrugging it off and avoiding the hassle of trying to coordinate with another person who may or may not agree to help out.

At 9/4/14 05:15 PM, BrenTheMan wrote:

At 9/4/14 04:55 PM, Profanity wrote: Types of threads which could use more OP control:

Sorry, I'm just not in the least bit convinced that this is necessary. Most of these scenarios are easily handled by mods most of the time.

…the times they're online, willing to help, and users realize they have the option of asking a mod to lock their threads, yes.

It's added functionality. You're preempting the need to PM a moderator once for a lock, twice for an unlock, three-or-more times to schedule an unlock from a different moderator than the one who locked the thread. You're preempting the need for a mod to post in the thread saying "user requested a lock" (which changes the character of the discussion). You're preempting the need for users to be here long enough for their PMs to be valued highly enough by active moderators to do them a favor by locking the thread. You're preempting the need for users to become aware that requesting a lock is permissible.

You're also taking a step away from the "helicopter parenting" style of moderation that's necessitated by the low functionality of NG's forum.

When users in the early days of NG asked for another feature to be added to the site, it was met with the same skepticism. "Why would we need to add a PM system to NG? Moderators have their AIMs listed in their profiles, and there are usually one or two in the chatroom." Now we rely on that added functionality in lieu of other changes. "Just PM a mod and they'll delete your posts so you can change them. If you argue your case, have tits, or have never angered that moderator." doesn't need to be the status quo.

At 9/4/14 04:31 PM, BrenTheMan wrote: Oh OK, but just out of curiosity, do you have even 1-2 good reasons for allowing users to lock threads?
Aside from "sometimes a mod isn't around"...

Types of threads which could use more OP control:

1. Topics which are centered on the OP making new posts instead of community members posting. ie Art Forum sketchbooks
2. C&C threads which often get out of control and need to close for a short amount of time.
3. Threads which have "served their purpose" or lived out the entire discussion from the perspective of the OP. ie "Should I X by Y o'clock?"
4. Threads for AMA style interviews
5. Threads for polling or forum contests
6. Threads which shouldn't be able to be bumped in 4 or 5 years for whatever reason our all-knowing minds haven't considered
7. Giving OPs this ability means less work for moderators, giving them more time to do push-ups or brush their teeth

At 9/4/14 04:36 PM, stafffighter wrote: Because of how hilarious it would be for someone to make a bunch of alts and load the front page with locked threads at 2 a.m?

My second suggestion, when I mentioned this, was to allow all users to toggle off the ability to see locked threads.

At 9/4/14 02:14 AM, Gagsy wrote:

At 9/4/14 02:03 AM, Profanity wrote: You mean once every month when the guy who's doing that is finally unbanned for half an hour.

Are you serious?

Why wouldn't we ban someone for that? Nobody wants their search engine indexed results on accounts which are easily traced to their identity to misrepresent their beliefs and opinions. It's an obvious abuse.

Why are you (and a few others) so set on treating the invisible anonymous NGBBSer as a complete moron and saboteur? Surely you can't be saying that YOU would be the person making ridiculous spam threads to abuse the new features.

Because I've been on this forum on a long time. I've seen the morons come and come and come and only a few go.

Your attitude smacks of elitism and selective memory. If you don't like the people here: leave.

I personally don't get why some of you are hell-bent to get an edit button. Does it really change your posting experience all that much in the positive sense? Besides correcting a small typo which everyone could understand anyway, why is it so important? I'm honestly indifferent to it. I just know what certainly the first few months of having an edit button would entail.

As you are someone who obstinately refuses to demonstrate creative thought and a thorough examination of positive results in your other posts, I suppose I shouldn't expect you to be able to anticipate the benefits of a new tool.

Another favourite, someone makes a thread with a pretty agreement message. People post "yeah me too" "I agree", then the jokester op changes his post to say "I think we need a second holocaust guys" or whatever. Is that kind of torture really worth it.

Ban. Or let moderators revert changes.

You spend so much of your text looking at the worst possible outcomes of small changes to the BBS. You should try to be positive for a few paragraphs. There are plenty of ways to use editable posts to improve these discussions.

At 9/4/14 12:33 PM, BrenTheMan wrote:

At 9/4/14 01:42 AM, Gagsy wrote: Sure. Don't ever let people lock their own topics though.

That's never been discussed and I can't see why we would ever do that.

That was my suggestion.

People have to message moderators for thread locks all the time. There are plenty of reasons why a person might need to disable new posts to their threads. However, mods aren't always online, some mods have blocked specific users from messaging them, some mods have disabled PMs entirely.

I don't think it's necessary to go through and list every conceivable use under the sun. Suffice it to say that some types of discussions can't happen without giving the original poster a greater amount of control over their own threads.

At 9/4/14 01:42 AM, Gagsy wrote: Sure. Don't ever let people lock their own topics though. Everyday there will be a "First one to reply wins.." topic where no one can reply (bar mods) cause the user has locked it seconds within posting.

You mean once every month when the guy who's doing that is finally unbanned for half an hour.

Why are you (and a few others) so set on treating the invisible anonymous NGBBSer as a complete moron and saboteur? Surely you can't be saying that YOU would be the person making ridiculous spam threads to abuse the new features.

I would also support giving regular users the ability to lock/delete their own threads.

And the option for users to browse the forums without seeing locked threads.

A few simple tweaks could make a world of difference <3

At 9/3/14 01:29 AM, Rad wrote: I really doubt anyone would be too torn up if a functional edit feature sprung up overnight. It just seems like sour grapes to me.

But what about EDITPOCALYPSE?!

If people can edit their posts after they've been read by one, two, or even three people… hunthoumillBILLIONS of NGers will start abusing the edit feature to post gross things and then replace them to make the first five or six posters look irrelevant!

At 9/2/14 11:58 PM, Sensationalism wrote: halite

Sodium Chloride, NaCl aka table salt. Despite being assumed safe by many people who grow up douaing their food with the conpound, it is terrible for you in large quantities. Table salt related sodium exposure is a leading cause of preventable illness in the first world.

NO CHANGE.

WE FEAR CHANGE.

ALL HAIL THE CONTENTION THAT DOING THE SAME THING WILL SOMEDAY YIELD DIFFERENT RESULTS!

They had better sue the universe for making the water molecule, Mars, and disfigured fruits too.

Or should the universe sue them? After all, water's been around for billions of years.

At 9/2/14 07:03 PM, Nickisabi wrote:

At 9/2/14 06:55 PM, Profanity wrote:

At 9/2/14 06:30 PM, Nickisabi wrote: 9. [Theist]

I don't think you quite get how this works, my friend.

Please explain. I haven't had the chance to read The God Delusion

The scale goes from 1 (believing wholly in God) to 7 (knowing there is no God).

A rating of 9.0 would place you off the spectrum two full notches into pure atheism.

At 9/2/14 06:30 PM, Nickisabi wrote: 9. [Theist]

I don't think you quite get how this works, my friend.

Get the sports watch. Or a Jawbone UP and sync with your cell phone. Scio won't be useful to anyone but developers and market ready on a consumer scale by new years. There will be unforseen issues that will be fleshed out in more usable future models.

And Scio is just the first of many gimmicky tools which will eventually be incorporated into cellphones. The only reason for a consumer to buy one now is disposable income, conspicuous consumption, and early adoption for bragging rights.

At 8/31/14 03:47 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote:

At 8/31/14 01:31 PM, Profanity wrote: Each pair of Wood.Head.Phones is custom made to fit the head of the customer for maximum comfort.

Lol, those are the ugliest fucking things I've seen in a long time. Looks like something out of a Saw movie or an early 19th century medical brace.

They're square, made with high quality hardwoods, feature square full length speakers, and have superior sound quality.

It's minimalist. If you're going by looks, maybe Beats by Justin Bieber would suit you better. I won't judge.

Puppets, you say? Puppets are about to get a whole lot cooler.

Congratulations! You are experiencing both the Capgras Delusion and minor conspiratorial persecution.

Have a history of mental illness in the family? Approaching your early 20s? Your friends have noticed the onset of your inherited mental illness and are instinctively distancing themselves from you. See a doctor.

8.0

There is no God. I know why people like to believe there is. I know why the world's religions exist. I know the good and the bad of each religion. I know when to discuss the truth, when to raise questions, when to let a person remain devout, and when to help a person become more devout.

At 8/31/14 10:46 AM, Bit wrote:

At 8/31/14 02:57 AM, Profanity wrote: Replace them, but don't listen to these fools lauding Audio Technica.

Buy a pair of Wood.Head.Phones by Anders Stai Fougner

Those are the most awful looking headphones I've ever seen. Seriously. You should just buy a pair of [pic related] at Walmart if you hate being comfortable that much.

Each pair of Wood.Head.Phones is custom made to fit the head of the customer for maximum comfort.

The reason you associate fluffy pads and moulded plastic or spring-pressed spines with 'being comfortable' is that those are tricks audio companies use to make headphones that fit many different heads with different surface features and sizes.

Replace them, but don't listen to these fools lauding Audio Technica.

Buy a pair of Wood.Head.Phones by Anders Stai Fougner

At 8/31/14 01:48 AM, tahm10 wrote: Shit, new username? I have been trying to get my "t" capitalized for years.

I love it when bitches capitalize my "t".

At 8/30/14 04:10 AM, gamejunkie wrote: I'm still here.

*singing* Old Man River.

noob!