Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/21/12 03:21 AM, cast wrote:

At 8/21/12 01:48 AM, ExtraLife wrote:

Just think about the browsing experience you'd have on Newgrounds on a phone, on a tablet, and on a computer screen. Think about how the way content would be displayed and how it would be interacted with.

Pretty awesome.

Not. Not at all.

Tiny buttons. Tiny clickable text entires in close proximity to each other. Lot's of clickable items close to the content (a problem for touch based scrolling).

At 8/21/12 02:58 AM, 24901miles wrote:

At 8/21/12 02:56 AM, WaterShake wrote: NG BBS before chat

"OMFG Tom hurry up and give us that chat you promised! We all want it so badly."

NG BBS after chat

"Chat sucks"

Seriously you guys, what did you expect...?

You forgot:

In ten years

"Remember all those good times in that awfully simplistic NG Chat? I miss the awfully simplistic NG Chat."

In ten years

"Remember when chat's slogan used to be "No new features ever"? That was such a badass slogan.

NG BBS before chat

"OMFG Tom hurry up and give us that chat you promised! We all want it so badly."

NG BBS after chat

"Chat sucks"

Seriously you guys, what did you expect...?

At 8/21/12 01:36 AM, ExtraLife wrote: Is Newgrounds headed towards becoming a "desktop-only" website?

Thoughts?

Yes.

Newgrounds does not work well on mobile devices like smartphones or tablets. The best work being done within web-deisgn today is being done in the mobile sector, a sector that NG is largely ignoring.

Ok, I tried.

Back to complaining and going nowhere I guess.

At 8/20/12 10:35 AM, w33zl wrote: But we like not enjoying things.

Evidently

THE GREAT THREAD CATALOGUE

A large amount of posts within General, are posts about the posts in General. My favourites are:

"This thread sucks"
"Threads like these are awful"
"Your the worst kind of poster"
"If you don't like General, leave"

If you've posted something to the affect of the above, don't feel bad, i'm not trying to make you feel stupid

The amount of users posting this kind of crap and the volume at which these posts are made suggests that something is wrong. The basic premise of the problem is that the content created by the users of General, isn't actually the content that the users of General enjoy.

You are all very vocal about what you don't like, and you seem to take great pleasure in abusing one another. That's fine, keep at it. What i'm trying to do with this thread isgive people that want to create threads, an idea of what kind of threads that General is looking for.

I'm largely different from the average user of this forum and as such haven't a clue what you guys want. So please, submit your ideas for great threads in here, for the benefit of us all.

What is it that you actually want?

At 8/20/12 09:33 AM, Decky wrote:

At 8/20/12 09:13 AM, Lepy wrote: WHO'S WITH ME?

I am a 90's kid so I guess I'm the enemy of this thread here to fuck shit up. The 90's were awesome and nowadays is shit, the technology just annoys me, especially smart phones and the new Macs. Everything is handed to you now. To hell with 2010 kids!!!!!!

I am an 1890s kid so I guess i'm the enemy of your post here to fuck up your shit. The 189-s were awesome and nowadays is shit, the technology just annoys me, especially the power gird and the new motorised vehicles. Everything is handed to you now. To fire and brimstone with 1990s kids!!!!

At 8/19/12 01:59 PM, Confucianism wrote:

At 8/19/12 01:53 PM, Gagsy wrote: How completely over the top.

Well of course. I was joking.

Of course. I've never read something that was obviously a joke.

At 8/19/12 11:17 AM, Razz wrote:

At 8/19/12 01:46 AM, WaterShake wrote:

At 8/19/12 01:32 AM, yugimt wrote: You're getting money AND sex, yet you're thinking about it? This is a once in a lifetime win/win situation, take advantage of it while you can.

It really isn't as marvelous as you think.

I get offered money for (gay) sex maybe 3-4 times a week from different people. I'm attracted to maybe, 1/50 of them. If that.

(anecdote about a porn star you talk to that i've edited out)

No, you're getting paid to fuck people you wouldn't otherwise be fucking. What are you thinking?

I'm not a professional prostitute. I have no obligation to accept all the offers I receive.

The only time I do accept is if it's someone I would have slept with anyway. You can have your cake and eat it in certain situations it seems.

At 8/19/12 11:13 AM, Confucianism wrote:

At 8/19/12 10:32 AM, WaterShake wrote: If I want sex, I simply open Grindr and talk to other people that are close by. I do pretty well for myself.

You're the worst kind of person. I hope you know that.

Because I like casual sex with other people who like casual sex? Yeah, that's awful of me isn't it.

At 8/19/12 07:29 AM, CashClock wrote:

At 8/19/12 07:11 AM, wankwest wrote:

At 8/19/12 01:46 AM, WaterShake wrote:

I get offered money for (gay) sex maybe 3-4 times a week from different people. I'm attracted to maybe, 1/50 of them. If that.

How exactly do you meet so many people who want to have gaysex with you?

He might live in San Francisco.

The screenshot I posted earlier was taken from an application called Grindr. Grindr is an app popular amongst gays looking for casual sex.

If I want sex, I simply open Grindr and talk to other people that are close by (in almost any city you can be guaranteed there will be other users extremely close by). It's then just a matter of picking and choosing who you want to sleep with. There's an incredible amount of very attractive people on Grindr. I do pretty well for myself.

At 8/19/12 01:32 AM, yugimt wrote: You're getting money AND sex, yet you're thinking about it? This is a once in a lifetime win/win situation, take advantage of it while you can.

It really isn't as marvelous as you think.

I get offered money for (gay) sex maybe 3-4 times a week from different people. I'm attracted to maybe, 1/50 of them. If that.

Interesting you should mention this. Some guy offered me a similar thing a few days ago (1500 dirhams = 408 US Dollars).

I declined though. He's not my type.

At 8/18/12 10:43 PM, ratchetrockon wrote:

It literally takes 10 minutes to download a 1gb file off of Piratebay when it should be taking less than 1 minute.

I feel no sympathy for you. Here's a film i'm downloading just now:

At 8/18/12 07:07 AM, BumFodder wrote:

At 8/16/12 06:39 PM, WaterShake wrote: The popularity of MacBooks demonstrates that the balance between supply and demand is being totally satisfied. Ergo, they are priced effectively.

If MacBooks weren't selling well, then you would be able to make a convincing argument that they are "overpriced".

If they were a normal product then yes.

Lol, lets go with this. Can you please link me to a list that explains the difference between a "normal" product and a "special" product.

But computers are priced by whats inside them, not how popular they are.

Computers, like all other consumer products, are priced at a level that is deemed acceptable by their audience.

True, the components of a computer will impact on wether or not consumers see a price as acceptable, but it's not the only factor. If it were the only factor, luxury computer manufacturers would be unable to operate.

Thats something thats always happened and will never stop, particulary since its by Apple, which has no influence whatsoever on the computer market.

This is a less clear-cut point.

You clearly don't believe Apple hold any influence over the computer industry. I do. Here is a short list of reasons explaining why I do:

- Tablet computers were largely unpopular before Apple entered the market with the iPad (since Apple entered the market, it has gained traction and encouraged a variety of other manufactures to also release tablet computers)

- Apple's 2nd model of the Macbook Air sparked a huge trend within the computing industry for "ultrabook" devices.

- Many of Apple's competitors have released laptops that bear undeniable resemblance to Apple's MacBooks Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4 Example 5 etc.

I'd like to know why you don't think they have any influence over the computer industry, as almost every industry analyst, stock trader or IT department (just ask them about the consumerisation of IT that came about after the iPhone) would likely disagree with you.

You must know something that all of these professionals don't.

At 8/18/12 05:45 AM, WaterShake wrote: Hopefully this should help to add some clarity for those claiming Macbooks are "toys" and deisgned only to be used by the computer illeterate and "retarded"

Look can you just stop this crap, literally no one cares that you are trying to prove Macs are better

I'm not trying to prove Macs are "better". I'm indifferent to them. Read what i've posted in this thread, i've never inferred Mac computers are "better" than others, i've just tried to help diffuse misinformation - e.g :

Macs being "overpriced"
"Macs are for retards"

:, because most people judge computers by the specs and price and Macs fail horribly in both aspects.

Yeah this is true. I wouldn't use the word "horribly" but there are definitely computers with stronger specs that you can get for a lower price.

You look like an absolute tool.

Oh dear. How embarassing.

Hopefully this should help to add some clarity for those claiming Macbooks are "toys" and deisgned only to be used by the computer illeterate and "retarded"

"Mars Curiosity Team Prefers Macs to PCs". If anyone wants to infer the people involved in this NASA project are "retarded", be my guest.

People in this thread are vastly overestimating the effects of a 40/8.

I can tell you from experience, 40/8 hours is very, very achievable. You'll begin to reach your limit much closer to the 5 day mark.

At 8/16/12 07:10 PM, Thegluestickman wrote:

At 8/16/12 06:50 PM, WaterShake wrote:

At 8/16/12 06:45 PM, Thegluestickman wrote:

At 8/16/12 05:40 PM, WaterShake wrote: I understand that these people feel macbooks are priced too high. I'm explaining why they aren't priced too high.

But they are.

(I edited out your nice and detailed break-down of the price of components etc. because it was far too long).

I appreciate the compliment.

What your list demonstrates is that people are willing to pay more for MacBooks than the net-cost of it's internal components. If the product line were overpriced, people wouldn't be willing to do this.

Yes but the number of people willing to do so is very few.

That works out fine for Apple as they're not interested in market-share, they want profit-share.

But if you do want to look at market-share, look at it in context. The ratio of Mac to PC sales was 50:1 in the 90s. It's now 3:1. Source

At 8/16/12 06:45 PM, MrSoxfan wrote:

At 8/16/12 06:39 PM, WaterShake wrote: Mac advertising

This isn't mac advertising, at best it's mac public relations

So how much does Apple pay you to post this stuff?

Nothing. Although I do work in PR, Apple are not a client of my agency. (I work for Coca-Cola and Samsung).

Macs sell well because of the same people who keep vinyl records in production, and I believe we all know who they are.

Apple has become the 1st/2nd most valuable and profitable company within business. It takes an audience much lager than they audience you are inferring to reach that size.

The iPod Touch and iPhone are good products, though. But the idea of buying a Mac is retarded.

The agency I work for uses Mac computers, as does every other agency owned by WPP Group. Are you seriously inferring that WPP Group (one of the most influential conglomerates in the world) is "retarded"?

At 8/16/12 06:45 PM, Thegluestickman wrote:

At 8/16/12 05:40 PM, WaterShake wrote: I understand that these people feel macbooks are priced too high. I'm explaining why they aren't priced too high.

But they are.

(I edited out your nice and detailed break-down of the price of components etc. because it was far too long).

What your list demonstrates is that people are willing to pay more for MacBooks than the net-cost of it's internal components. If the product line were overpriced, people wouldn't be willing to do this.

At 8/16/12 06:03 PM, BumFodder wrote:

At 8/16/12 05:46 PM, WaterShake wrote: "If Macbooks were overpriced they wouldn't be popular"

That's exactly what i'm saying.

I guess cancer must be all the rage too.

Cancer isn't a consumer good.

But seriously, thats such a fallacious and bad argument that I cant tell if youre trolling.

I obviously disagree. Economic literature, also disagrees:

"Economic theory asserts that in a free market economy the market price reflects interaction between supply and demand: the price is set so as to equate the quantity being supplied and that being demanded. In turn these quantities are determined by the marginal utility of the asset to different buyers and to different sellers. In reality, the price may be distorted by other factors, such as tax and other government regulations."

The popularity of MacBooks demonstrates that the balance between supply and demand is being totally satisfied. Ergo, they are priced effectively.

If MacBooks weren't selling well, then you would be able to make a convincing argument that they are "overpriced".

At 8/16/12 05:42 PM, psychopathy wrote:

At 8/16/12 05:40 PM, WaterShake wrote:

these people probably know that macbooks are popular but feel that in their opinion the price is too high

how do you not understand that

I understand that these people feel macbooks are priced too high. I'm explaining why they aren't priced too high.

i think you looked a little too much into these people's complaints

i'm not saying they're geniuses at economics but if they felt that these macbooks actually were overpriced according to the economic definition then they wouldn't be so popular

I'm going to rephrase your words here to make your point clearer:

"If Macbooks were overpriced they wouldn't be popular"

That's exactly what i'm saying.

At 8/16/12 05:36 PM, psychopathy wrote:

At 8/16/12 05:14 PM, WaterShake wrote:

If Macbooks were overpriced, nobody would buy them. A price is the meeting point between what consumers are willing to pay and companies are willing to charge. Apple's sales figures show consumers are more than willing to pay for Macbooks. They are not overpriced.

*sigh*

these people probably know that macbooks are popular but feel that in their opinion the price is too high

how do you not understand that

I understand that these people feel macbooks are priced too high. I'm explaining why they aren't priced too high.

At 8/16/12 05:30 PM, BumFodder wrote:

At 8/16/12 05:27 PM, BumFodder wrote: Just because people are willing to pay for overpriced products, doesnt mean they are overpriced. Considering what they have to offer in software and hardware, you are really just paying for the name.

*arent

To be honest, in any case of paying more for the name more than the product, it is most definitely overpriced,

No. That's not how economics work.

A "name" is just as valuable a feature as any hardware spec on a computer. As shown by people's buying habits.

Just because you don't attribute value to it, doesn't mean that others don't.

All of the posts that i've read in this thread that attack Macbooks are claiming that the Macbook is overpriced.

If Macbooks were overpriced, nobody would buy them. A price is the meeting point between what consumers are willing to pay and companies are willing to charge. Apple's sales figures show consumers are more than willing to pay for Macbooks. They are not overpriced.

It's interesting that despite the reasonable amount of posts in this thread, only a handful have actually featured any significant analysis.

Come on people. You like to claim you're intelligent. You like to claim you're analytical and able to understand the motivation of "sheep" behaviour. Demonstrate it, please.

At 8/12/12 01:15 AM, YenMuffin wrote:

I can't believe how well thought out this thread is...never see that on General now.

I work in public relations. Being able to communicate clearly is important to me.

At 8/11/12 09:41 PM, InsertFunnyUserName wrote: A great post

More posts like this please. It lists ways in which the poster filters themselves and he motivation behind doing so.

At 8/11/12 03:46 PM, MrSoxfan wrote: Why do people still buy that shit? For fuck's sake, you can go down to a pharmacy and get a bottle of caffeine pills for under $10, yet 5 Hour Energy is about $4 a piece. And the pills are more effective.

Shocking. People are spending their money in a way you don't agree with.

It's almost as if they live their life independently of you, and your judgement of them has no effect upon them.

Further research required.