Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/5/13 12:16 AM, Raab wrote:

I should have fucking died in that hospital 5 years ago.

I almost feel like I did actually die... and I'm stuck in purgatory/hell now.

Nothing is good.... its all just "ok" mixed with "fuck this fucking bullshit"

Sounds like a helluva story. In a world of sugar coated nothingness, it's actually refreshing to hear something brutal and honest... sometimes I forget how damn lucky I am.

At 10/6/13 09:22 PM, DM692 wrote: I don't know what's with all the cynical fucks, the bottom line is that it looks good and it got to that point for cheap, nice job.

Yeah, well. Newgrounds is an odd place lol ... but thanks! I'm anxious to see how it holds up now.

At 10/6/13 01:34 PM, Satan wrote: Personally, I'd just use a spraygun, it's a lot easier, and a lot tidier than a roller.

Well, yeah but I don't have that kind of equipment nor do I have a place (garage, etc.) that I can actually spray paint in. I'm pretty limited.

BUT

Here is the finished product. BOOM. I'm kinda surprised how well it turned out honestly.

But yeah I cleaned the crap out of everything before I applied paint. Did a compression spray car wash on the whole thing, dry sanded with 80 grit and a random orbital sander and then cleaned off with 1:1 alcohol and water mix using shop towels before applying paint inside at around 70 degrees. I would assume it'll hold pretty damn good honestly.

At 10/6/13 06:15 AM, Auz wrote:

At 10/6/13 03:21 AM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 10/6/13 02:58 AM, DecimatorOmega wrote: Won't that come off though?

Not per some of the forum posts I've been reading. It's just like applying paint to anything else. As long as the previous coats of paint are sanded, you're good to go.

And are you absolutely certain a primer is unnecessary?

I'm pretty sure that's what they apply in the car industry before actually applying the paint. Maybe you can do without but the coating will probably not stick nearly as long as it would if you had applied a primer first.

Have you also cleaned after sanding? That's also better for the durability of your coating.

Well, again. This is a $50 paint job on a $700 truck I bought. If it lasts 5 years I'll be totally stoked. Plus the color is right now is absolutely the most horrible thing so even something moderately resilient is going to be awesome.

The tip I got for this was from here:

http://www.meguiarsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?40341-My-quot-rustoleum-50-roll-on-paint-job-quot

At 10/6/13 03:22 AM, DecimatorOmega wrote:

At 10/6/13 03:21 AM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 10/6/13 02:58 AM, DecimatorOmega wrote: Won't that come off though?

Not per some of the forum posts I've been reading. It's just like applying paint to anything else. As long as the previous coats of paint are sanded, you're good to go.

What about protection of the metal? Can't the paint easily chip away?

Not any easier than roller painting any other kind of surface that gets subject to a lot of abuse I wouldn't assume. I guess we'll see when things progress more.

At 10/6/13 02:58 AM, DecimatorOmega wrote: Won't that come off though?

Not per some of the forum posts I've been reading. It's just like applying paint to anything else. As long as the previous coats of paint are sanded, you're good to go.

At 10/6/13 02:11 AM, VJF wrote: A cheap way to paint your car red?

Throw a bunch of dead babies at it.

Uh, that actually seems relatively expensive honestly. And I don't think your "paint job" will come out right

So apparently it's totally doable to paint your car with a friggin roller.

No. I'm not joking at all. Grabbed a can of black high gloss rustoleum industrial paint, cleaned and sanded my 74 ford f-100's hood down just to really see if this shit would work and ...

holy damn, sure enough. That's 1 coat. WITH A ROLLER.

Complete and sexy car paint job for $60? Yes please. More coats to come.

Moral of the story is if you're in a one-party consent state, carry a recording device of some kind with you everywhere (except, you know... the movie theater or whatever).

At 10/1/13 06:24 PM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 10/1/13 12:12 PM, Rampant wrote:

At 10/1/13 10:44 AM, Elitistinen wrote: I think it's fine as long as you don't tell people.

...because that's precisely how intellectual property law works LOL

You used to hear HL2 SFX all around the net and no one gets sued.

Because you have a magic register that automatically updates when anyone gets sued for game copyright infringement including stuff that's settled out of court?

Well, sounds brilliant. I guess we won't need those pesky lawyers anymore.

It took me a second to remember it, but you're the guy who trolled me over the conversation of whether or not geothermal energy could stop the rotation of the earth. For some reason your posts are now missing from that thread (hmmm). I really have a hard time taking anything you say seriously with that kind of track record.

At 9/1/13 12:23 AM, 24901miles wrote: Yes, I pretty much expect that if there are two subjects: Bob and a Job, you would be able to match them up with the other two subjects: Nameless employee who should move somewhere else and a minimum wage job. If you need practice with that sort of logic, there are a few games you can order online.

You've trolled me in the past but this is just mind-boggling. I'm really curious what you do for a living honestly.

Even if Bob manages to save up a couple thousand dollars while working his McDonald's job in NYC, moves out of the area and manages to find a job in a place with lower living costs, little live-at-home Bobby will take his spot.

Who takes his place is not the point. Obviously at that juncture you've introduced too many variables to pretend any person can even have a reliable argument without delving into a huge clusterf**k of guessing at what the most statistically common living situations in a big city are. Do you have any hard data in regards to that? No? Well then it's a moot point.

OK? So Bobby is a kid living at home with his parents. He doesn't pay for his own food, he doesn't pay for his own living expenses at all. Great, so now McDonald's has to hire someone to work while Bobby is at school. And they have to replace him when he moves out of his parent's house because we're not allowed to have people earning under a living wage if they're not declared dependents. And let's hope Bob wasn't a shift manager; there aren't many people under 18 who would make good managers. Let's hope this second person is just Roberta (a bored housewife who has no living expenses) so she doesn't ruin JoshHunsaker's fantasy scenario where he might actually be right.

Do you even have a clue what my actual point was? You're living in some place in your head where you've somehow determined everything I think about minimum wage and poverty and probably my stance on abortion. And again, you've created an entire slew of "stacked deck" scenarios which you're pretending will support your position. That's really wonderful, but it doesn't allow for much of a rebuttal because at this point, it's become a little ridiculous.

Well two can play at that game. So Bob is replaced by Jim, a trust fund kid who has too much money but wants to have something to do so he's not incredibly bored. When Jim is fired for not showing up 4 months later, he's replaced by Charles, who has lived with his parents for the past 10 years and literally just works and plays video games. Charles finds more gainful employment a year later, so he is then replaced by Steve, who has a second job making minimum wage and lives with 2 other friends in a decent apartment. Damn. I'm pretty good at this. Maybe I should try stacking all my arguments too. This is good fun.

You're right, the cost of living is lower in places outside the city. But it's certainly not low enough to justify paying full time employees ten cents over the poverty line.

Since when did I voice my opinion on what minimum wage should be? Would you like to maybe review all my comments and realize not once have I voiced anything in regards to how I feel about minimum wage?

At 8/31/13 11:44 PM, 24901miles wrote: Jesus fucking christ, you're slow.

Bob is a name for a hypothetical person who works a job. People (Bob) who work at a McDonald's in NYC (Bob's job) need to live in NYC, but they aren't paid enough to cover their living expenses.

So you created this hypothetical name for a person working at a job, and just expect everyone to be clairvoyant and know what you're talking about. Right. That's ... wow, ok. Moving on.

You keep saying that Bob needs to get a new job and move out of town.

Yes, this is the basic argument I'm making.

Don't you realize how completely stupid that is?

I have the feeling you're going to explain precisely why.

When Bob quits, his job will just be filled by another person who can't pay their rent and has to supplement their income with food stamps because McDonald's refuses to pay their workers a living wage.

The point is minimum wage is a living wage elsewhere in the country. If "Bob" moves and finds a lower cost area of the country to work in, then he's solved his problem. Which is fantastic. The person moving "into" that job afterwards is a totally separate case that you're building a really grand assumption for which is that the new person is somehow magically guaranteed to be a dude who again gets locked into a bad "living wage" (at least for the area) and has all these bills and so on ad naseum. Well, you see the problem with that is you have no way of predicting that the person to take "Bob's" job isn't a kid who's living at home and ends up just needing disposable income.

What's a little bit obnoxious about your position is the fact that you're building a premise where the person to replace Bob is only whoever you dictate it to be, which is obviously not how life works. This is called a "stacking the deck" fallacy because you've inherently loaded the proposed situation to favor your position with no possible exceptions, regardless of if it makes any sense in real life.

At 8/31/13 01:40 PM, Earfetish wrote: But yeah, people in big cities need to be able to buy hamburgers.

I have to quote this one more time. This is nearly the most hilariously arbitrary thing I've ever heard.

It's like saying that new york needs fake watch vendors, or Texas absolutely needs to have rodeos and cowboy hats. Is there some kind of government commission for "Ensuring People Eat Sufficient Fast Food Burgers"? Do they have to ensure the general populace hits a kind of yearly quota during their big city stay?

Because, as awesomely funny as that would be, I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist. "People in big cities need to be able to buy hamburgers" is honestly quite possibly the most indefensible argument I have ever heard in my entire life.

At 8/31/13 06:55 PM, 24901miles wrote: It's not about Bob, it's about the job. Are you illiterate?

Bob? What? What the hell are you going on about?

The job doesn't pay enough to cover the employees living expenses. The only way someone could possibly get a job at a McDonald's in NYC is by living off their parents or couch-surfing.

I'm not arguing that. Obviously I'm in agreement that if you're living in NYC and make minimum wage at whatever industry then you either living with your parents or in for a pretty shitty time. Now that it's clear we're both on the same page with that whole thing (I have no idea how anyone got the impression I wasn't already pretty well aware that duh, living in NYC on minimum wage blows), I'd like to emphasize that that is precisely why I advised moving as reaaaally the only viable option.

How do you move and get the hell out of there? I have no idea. That's obviously well outside the scope of what could ever hope to address (i.e. too many variables).

At 8/31/13 04:24 PM, Earfetish wrote: joshhunsaker, maybe it's best you don't post here any more you fucking douche

Wow, you took that a tad personal sounds like.

"omg you'd never survive on a debate team" rest assured I could mop the floor with you any day, alongside the other members of your douchey debate team, just because you don't like the arguments I made doesn't mean they're not valid arguments

I'm not on a debate team. Also, It really has nothing to do with the "quality" of the arguments you made. It's that your "arguments" addressed nothing I was talking about, so they were totally irrelevant.

The range of different arguments I am making is because there are a range of different arguments that support paying fast food workers a fair deal, you saying "move out of New York" is the fucking dumbest argument against a living wage I have ever heard in my life, for countless reasons. "If all the minimum wage workers moved out there'd be no McDonald's in New York" is just one of these countless reasons.

Except that it's not a dumb argument at all. I've moved plenty of times to avoid high living wages. Had a friend recently who moved to Arkansas and now rents a 2 bedroom apartment for like $450. Are you really worried about McDonalds disappearing if a bunch of people decided to up and move away from New York because they got tired of the ridiculous living expenses? Something tells me you don't actually have more of a hard on for saving crappy fast food burgers in the inner city than you do for trying to make it look like you have any basis for an argument on those grounds.

I guess that's what is so crazy about your argument. It's like you're standing up for a fast food chain's right to exist in a big town before you'd stand up for someone's right to move where-ever the hell they need to in order to make it and not suffer. That's completely asinine.

Here's a fun tid-bit. An average studio apartment in palo alto, ca is about $1200. Obviously no-one living there is either not living with their parents, making minimum wage or living with 20 other people in a shared home. No-one is going to think for a second they can live in most places in the Bay Area on anything under $15 an hour and not have a terrible situation. You simply have to move, that's it. End of story it's really pretty simple. If you can't, then that really sucks, I don't know what to tell you.

you sound like a total high-and-mighty muppet with that response anyway, get back to your fucking debate team

Cute response.

At 8/31/13 04:31 PM, Earfetish wrote:
So if you said to your debate team buddies, "my solution to the problem of working people in New York receiving poverty-level wages is that they should move somewhere else," previously stating that the relatively unimportant and small city has cheap rents, your debate team buddies would clap and applaud you and tell you this is the best damn argument they have ever heard? Because you can say 'red herring'?

I have no idea, I've never been on a debate team. I've had a couple of friends who were (in the past) and my current job involves reviewing legal and manufacturing contracts so I have to be pretty cognizant of language that could cause problems later in a business arrangement.

Oh btw that last line is an 'ad hominem', wtg master-debater, logical fallacy means you lose

I was wondering if you would catch that. Yes, it was an ad hominem so it's not a tenable stance to build a point from.

However, it now looks like you've built the bulk of your argument off of them, so that's a much more unstable place to come from. Considering that vicious tone you're taking now, I'd be hard pressed to believe you'd "mop the floor" with anyone on a real debate.

At 8/31/13 04:01 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: If it were that easy, then why isn't everyone doing it? Because they're lazy?

Sure, because that's what I'm assuming everyone who isn't me is. Lazy. Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I realize everyone has a different situation. But honest to God there are a lot of people who don't realize that they do have options.

Regardless of where you're moving to, moving costs a substantial amount of time and money, and people living hand-to-mouth can't spare either.

When I moved to Reno, I had $1k to my name and a car. I found a room for rent the night I got there and had a job 1 month later. I scraped by but I made it. I moved from San Jose, CA... which is 4 hours away.

And that barely scratches the surface of the many, many socioeconomic barriers preventing people from leaving inner cities. Not to mention that uprooting your entire life and leaving all your friends and family behind isn't an easy proposition at any socioeconomic status.

Look, I'm not here to try to solve the worlds problems. I'm saying if you never lived out of your car before then honestly you really haven't tried to move out of a town. If you're REALLY starting out from ground zero (homeless, no parents or friends, whatever) then I don't have an answer. Obviously I wasn't trying to address the most incredibly destitute of possible situations.

At 8/31/13 09:30 AM, Earfetish wrote: But people in New York want their hamburgers too. You sound a little high-and-mighty - I think that working for minimum wage should be an essential part of everyone's growing-up and the time I spent doing so did me a lot of good as a person.

I'm going to respond to this specifically, because it's a pretty hilarious example of how not to craft an argument.

First, you've introduced 3 completely separate, totally unrelated points... none of which even remotely addresses my original argument:

1. People in New York want hamburgers
2. I'm one of those holier-than-thou types
2. Working for minimum wage should be a part of the inception of someone's working life

None of these arguments deals with a rebuttal to why an individual should (of their own free will and volition) go ahead and search out cheaper living expense situations so that they can sustain themselves on minimum wage. So I guess I can now respond to your arguments:

Argument #1:
I'm sure they do. However there will always be people in the position of living in their parents house who have minimal expenses to fill those jobs. Case closed.

Argument #2:
Entirely possible. I have to admit I get frustrated when I see people so bad at arguing a point that they literally can't even define what the "points" were.

Argument #3:
I've never spoken to the opposite of this. I worked for minimum wage for a period in my life. I also survived off it on my own by renting a single room out of someone's house. No-one says you have to have a full apartment.

See, isn't that better than producing and endless string of changing targets that no-one actually directly discusses? Absolutely it is.

At 8/31/13 01:40 PM, Earfetish wrote:

At 8/31/13 01:34 PM, joshhunsaker wrote: This has nothing to do with not working for minimum wage. I'm talking about finding a cheap part of the country to live so that a person doesn't have to pay exorbitant housing pricing.

So how would people in New York get their hamburgers? If McDonald's pays its New York employees wages that are bound to be impossible to live on, then surely it should pay them more?

But yeah, people in big cities need to be able to buy hamburgers. Do you not understand the problem with your 'answer'? If they all left somewhere else, who would flip hamburgers in New York?

Why is the question your posing even pertinent. It's not, it's a red herring. Some of you people are terrible about how many logical fallacies creep into your responses. The major point I actually responded too up to my comment was "the rent is too damn high" and I responded "move to a place where it is not" and provided examples. You've not totally side-stepped the fact that I concretely addressed what would otherwise be a legitimate concern (surviving off minimum wage) and introduced an entirely new issue that has nothing to do with survival of someone on minimum wage. In fact, it is so completely off base that it deals with the exact opposite issue which is "how will people now buy hamburgers"?

This is why I rarely post on here. Some of the responses are just flabbergasting. You wouldn't last a second on a debate team.

At 8/31/13 09:30 AM, Earfetish wrote:

At 8/31/13 03:27 AM, joshhunsaker wrote:

People who work for Fast Food places in NYC probably need to live in NYC, not commute 4 hours a day for shitty pay.

It's called finding a different job. Criminy. Does no-one here understand the concept of moving somewhere

But people in New York want their hamburgers too. You sound a little high-and-mighty - I think that working for minimum wage should be an essential part of everyone's growing-up and the time I spent doing so did me a lot of good as a person.

This has nothing to do with not working for minimum wage. I'm talking about finding a cheap part of the country to live so that a person doesn't have to pay exorbitant housing pricing.

At 8/30/13 10:31 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 8/30/13 10:10 PM, joshhunsaker wrote: And someone is forcing you to live in New York? Why the hell are we talking about having to live in a big city? Has no-one heard of moving before?

People who work for Fast Food places in NYC probably need to live in NYC, not commute 4 hours a day for shitty pay.

It's called finding a different job. Criminy. Does no-one here understand the concept of moving somewhere?

If you work in an industry, more than likely unless you suck at life you can find another job in that industry. Not hard.

At 8/30/13 08:35 AM, 24901miles wrote: No kidding. JoshHunsaker, people would kill for $600 a month in a single room with shared utilities and common areas in places like Boston, NYC, LA, and Miami.

And someone is forcing you to live in New York? Why the hell are we talking about having to live in a big city? Has no-one heard of moving before?

At 8/4/13 05:56 PM, HighWay wrote: Minimum wages were created to help people who had low level jobs afford somewhat of a decent standard of living, but that was a long time ago. Spoiler: nowhere in the US can you afford suitable housing if you work for minimum wage now.

Such B.S. First off, you can get food stamps and TANF. Second off, I rent a room for $250 a month. Bike to work and use a prepaid cell phone and an individual can live with zero problems on a minimum wage job. Hell, you can even have a car payment and eat out all the time.

At 8/4/13 05:33 PM, Earfetish wrote: If you can get an apartment for $600 a month, with all your utility bills paid, then you are fucking lucky. I could ask you to find an example of such an apartment, but I'm sure it exists somewhere. People in cities need their burgers too.

Lol, I can rent a 3 bdr house where I live for $625. It's not a po-dunk little town either.

An apartment for $600 being difficult? Riiiight.

FreeCommercialMusic.com

Just made that today. I'm going to give my music away for any and all commercial application. I've just started learning CSS/HTML so it's nothing super flashy but I should have a large number of songs up within a short period of time. There's really a huge dearth of easy to understand open licenses for music that can be used in a straight-forward commercial way. It seems like a lot of that stuff is either too confusing or easy get into hot water over (i.e. tons of music here ends up being used outside the constraints of the license it is under for example).

Hopefully this is useful. :D

• 
  Charlie Bravo by joshhunsaker

  blingin

  Score

  0 / 5.00

  Type

  Song

  Genre

  Video Game

  Popularity

  5 Views

• Loading...
• 
  Bigness by joshhunsaker

  heeeyo

  Score

  0 / 5.00

  Type

  Song

  Genre

  Drum N Bass

  Popularity

  1 Views

• Loading...

At 8/20/13 02:22 PM, megabad wrote: A machine which does your product developing for you. OH WAIT! THE INTERNET!

hahahah! Natch. You got me ;)

At 8/20/13 11:01 AM, Scintillating wrote: Uh, it has. You're insulting the intelligence of millions of people that worked on those devices. They made them as silent as they could without making them lose efficiency. Lots of vacuums are billed as being "ultra quiet".

Honestly, I don't think I have ever heard a "quiet" vacuum in my life.

At 8/20/13 02:10 AM, MrSoxfan wrote: Less noisy versions of loud things. Like vacuum cleaners and semi trucks.

Actually, this is pretty brilliant. Now that I think about it I'm a little surprised this hasn't been more a focus for that area of industry. Definitely going to look into this (vacuum cleaners especially makes a ton of sense).