Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I AM AMBERLAMPS.

At 7/4/11 02:56 PM, djack wrote: One is a bowl of shit, the other is a bowl of crap. I'll let you decide which you think is which.

This man has it all figured out!

Idiot

At 7/22/11 09:21 PM, Travis wrote: How about an IMDB link or something.

Here

Btw op I didn't cry. You pussy.

I only cried after I started it over again and re-watched the first couple scenes

Bump.

If parents don't impose either religion or irreligion on their children, what percentage usually end up becoming religious by their adulthood? My guess is not many, but I want to see an actual survey.

Google doesn't turn up anything like this. Mainly though, I'm not sure what to Google.

Forget revenge. Forget hatred. Forget punishment. Forget all these savage, irrational human emotions that we had to satisfy following 9/11.

What real purpose did it serve that putting him in a high-security prison would not have?

At 7/5/11 01:17 AM, bgraybr wrote:

At 7/5/11 01:15 AM, Ninjafap wrote: You dont have any evidence..

Everything could be possible, but it doesnt have merit unless the inference has a logical basis

If our world existed only inside his mind then evidence and logic would be irrelevant because it's imaginary just like the rest of the world.

But first we must use evidence and logic to infer the world exists within his mind?

At 7/4/11 10:50 PM, Wegra wrote: You're all just a bunch of illusions I created with my mind . Deal with it.

You dont have any evidence..

Everything could be possible, but it doesnt have merit unless the inference has a logical basis

Fuck you.

At 7/2/11 08:27 PM, citricsquid wrote: all they hide is the spam prevention methods and that != normalization of karma.

Could very well be. All they have to do is apply an increasing number of downvotes to an increasing number of upvotes, as the bar graph demonstrated.

At 7/2/11 07:45 PM, citricsquid wrote: What reddit does to scores (fudging) is not anything to do with scores over time. Also the reddit model can't be compared with Newgrounds, the front page of reddit is *never* older than 24 hours, whereas the Newgrounds top50 has no time restrictions.

The all time top scoring front page also has no time restrictions, and yet it represents submissions from every year since the site's conception. Newgrounds' portal represents submissions almost exclusively from the last two years, and greatly inflates their quality.

Also reddit changes scores so that people (eg: spammers) can't look at the scores and work out how they're affecting scores. The actual scores used for ranking are based on the actual votes, the only fudging reddit does is what you see listed under total votes.

You know what you're basing this on. The FAQ, right? It's all false.

At 7/2/11 04:45 PM, Newgrundling wrote: I'm skeptical. You say users want unseen content, so why's it a problem that our top 50 reflects newer stuff rather than older?

Because the largest portion of our user base joined within the last 2 years. It gives the site a very narrow scope to those who view it through the flash portal (despite the years past box, which is the only one currently displaying early submissions)

And even if someone were to support automatic fake downvotes because of some sense of "unfairness to older submissions," what would that formula be, and how could it possibly not create MORE unfairness to either newer submissions or others more generally?

Lets start with the core assumption that the actual quality of submissions doesn't change over time. This is true for Reddit, but debatable for Newgrounds (generally I hold that production values increased, but technical and storytelling values decreased). What would betruly fair is that scores don't change also.

Reddit does this by normalizing scores. For example, if a new submission gets a certain number of upvotes relative to other current submissions, then it will be made to have the same total score as a submissions which had a similar ratio in 2010. That way, the rankings on the front page and what content gets to it stays the same, but the scores stay fair to past precedent.

So today I found out Reddit.com normalizes submissions scores (those numbers you see on the front page), by applying an increasing amount of fake downvotes to approach real upvotes. The reason why? Apparently it's to accommodate for the increasing popularity of the site and avoid grade inflation.

While it seems unnatural and unfair, it works on the long-term, and for the best of everyone. We didn't do this here, and look what happened. 94% of the top 50 submissions were submitted within the last two years. Users seek it unseen content, and simply can't, because it's been buried underneath mountains of grade inflation. Indeed this treatment of older flashes alienated most of our old user base, causing a chain reaction.

Athiesm doesn't mean you're 100% sure there is no God. Soft atheism is the position most people espouse. Even though it's possible that there is a God (just like it's possible we're in the matrix), we can still formulate a belief based on sheerly inductive and probabilistic principles. My belief is that the universe can be satisfactorily explained through naturalistic principles and religion is a merely a form of a past (failed) form of inquiry in it.

and im a guy

no symptoms whatsoever

problem, conspiracy theorists?

At 6/30/11 03:45 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: Some people choose to expand their knowledge actively or passively. Others choose not to do so, or are apathetic to the notion of learning.

yes this is what i meant. the terms smart and stupid are ambiguous, so it needed a precising definition. thank you

Honestly, most people are capable of attaining high intellect. It's just a matter of being willing to do so.

its all really mechanical

At 6/30/11 03:51 AM, MrSoxfan wrote: I blame the democrats. They like keeping people dumb, especially the blacks.

actually i found democrats to be on average slightly smarter than republicans. but there is a vast disparity here too. i met droopy eyes idiots who campaigned for liberal causes and genius conservatives.

There is of course a disparity in every county..

but no

nowhere like here.

It's just massive.

There are stupid people, living in communities and seeing and interactive only with other people.

Then there are incredibly smart people. Those going to our elitist colleges. Breathing nothing but knowledge and excellence.

The contrast is staggering.

There's only the natural world in which your consciousness is physical and reducible. We have tangible of evidence of what happens to your brain after you die.

Everything else is unsupported, wishful thinking.

At 6/27/11 05:20 PM, TheSporkLord wrote: yet YOU blindly follow whatever some moron in a white lab coat says.

Strawman?

At 6/25/11 03:58 PM, RazorHawk wrote: Because it isn't. Microevolution and the long-term development of adaptations is provable, macroevoultion isn't.

Proof does not have to occur in front of us and at the present moment, in fact in the very definition of how organisms evolve it cannot. We have mountains of evidence across many different disciplines from which we can infer the same conclusion.

At 6/25/11 03:58 PM, RazorHawk wrote: No, instead, God gave mankind free will and the opportunity to decide our own fate depending on our actions and faith.

- In order to have free-will, we must be the sole originators of our actions.
- We are not the sole originator of our actions. They can be reduced to simple chains of physical events.

-Therefore we do not have free-will.

are fucking immature assholes.

At 6/17/11 10:35 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 6/17/11 10:33 AM, Ninjafap wrote:

At 6/17/11 10:12 AM, Elfer wrote: v1 = 60 m/h = 1056 in/s (ffffffffffFFFFFFFFUCK IMPERIAL UNITS)

Oops messed up the conversion there.

o rly? What do you get for the conversion?

63360 in/s. I converted hours to minutes instead of seconds.

At 6/17/11 10:12 AM, Elfer wrote: v1 = 60 m/h = 1056 in/s (ffffffffffFFFFFFFFUCK IMPERIAL UNITS)

Oops messed up the conversion there.

At 6/17/11 09:48 AM, i-am-ghey wrote: there is a trick here.

s=u^2/2a, so in fact there are two variables.

you can take differential ds and consider small changes in u and a.

The final velocity isn't zero. Read his post again.

There aren't two variables because we know the acceleration. I suppose he's trying to make position the function of time, not velocity.

At 6/17/11 09:36 AM, i-am-ghey wrote: um... accuracy might be a problem if calculations involve many steps.

You're thinking of precision. And no, this is really just a one step plug-and-chug once you derive (or look up) the formula relating position to acceleration.

it is unnecessary to take a long winded approach to solve this problem. one simple formula that any physics students are expected to know is sufficient.

Exactly. I don't know if any one in this thread has taken physics, really.

of course, you can always consider partial derivatives to estimate the value if you don't have a calculator at hand.

There is only a single variable, time, so you can't take partial derivatives.

otherwise, i don't know why you should need to plot a graph at all.

I suppose it's to show how the position changes between the velocities of zero and sixty miles per hour.

At 6/16/11 11:23 PM, RDSchley wrote: Glad I'm in a philosophy class.

The philosophical argument basically boils down to 'it is highly probable that we are living in a simulation'

This is how I know you're not really in a philosophy class.

It's not an educated theory. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, of which you can make an infinity.

What kind of trig were you trying to do and how do you know physics yet alone had this assigned if the position-velocity-acceleration relationship is one of the first things explained in any physics class (even if it's not justified with calculus)? Why did you type this out on Newgrounds instead of making a simple Google search?

Acceleration is constant. a(t) = a

The integral of acceleration is velocity (acceleration is the change in velocity). v(t) = a t

The integral of velocity is position (velocity is the change in position). p(t) = .5*a*t^2

Substitute velocity in for time. We get: p(t) = .5*a*(v^2/a^2) = .5*(229^2)*(63360^2/299^4) = 22452 inches. Convert it to 1.61 km which you should be using since this is physics.

If you want make a position versus time graph simply plug in your calculator y = .5*(229^2)*t^2 and stop it when time hits (63360^2/299^4) = .502 seconds.

Oh and take calculus. It's fun.

At 6/14/11 02:03 AM, AtomicD00M wrote: History is necessary, so we "wont" repeat mistakes.

What if those mistakes never happened in the first place?