Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
#1831 - flyingoat
Reply +8
(08/02/2012) [-]
#1565 - phonecorded
Reply +8
(08/02/2012) [-]
by far my favorite rage post ive seen.
#1545 - alZii
+8
has deleted their comment [-]
#1542 - magicspoon
Reply +8
(08/02/2012) [-]
#1513 - jholt
Reply +8
(08/02/2012) [-]
**jholt rolled a random image posted in comment #76627 at Brony/MLP Forum **
#1517 to #1513 - anon
Reply 0
(08/02/2012) [-]
This is why bronies need to die. At least it was human form though.
#1532 to #1517 - anon
Reply 0
(08/02/2012) [-]
they still need to die
#1520 to #1513 - entreri
Reply +4
(08/02/2012) [-]
You made a gamble, and you lost



...hard
#1144 - orangezombie
Reply +8
(08/02/2012) [-]
Congratulations, you're smart.   
Nobody really cares about this except for you.
Congratulations, you're smart.
Nobody really cares about this except for you.
#1110 - kapnkrunk
Reply +8
(08/02/2012) [-]
seriously
#693 - anon
Reply 0
(08/02/2012) [-]
There are 40 dicks in OPs mouth.
#698 to #693 - funnaycraptwo
Reply +8
(08/02/2012) [-]
#557 - kevinzheng ONLINE
Reply +8
(08/02/2012) [-]
#489 - glacierkiwi
Reply +8
(08/01/2012) [-]
Yeah you tell 'em OP!
#309 - robotrino
Reply +8
(08/01/2012) [-]
I've never seen OP so mad before.
#250 - romar
Reply +8
(08/01/2012) [-]
but i was told the answer to everything is 42...im getting confused.
but i was told the answer to everything is 42...im getting confused.
#234 - aBlindMoron
Reply +8
(08/01/2012) [-]
Comment Picture
#43 - dexterslabs
Reply -19
(08/01/2012) [-]
I'm sorry, but if the question is how many squares are in this box, the answer is 16. Lines of separation matter, it is like asking how many states are in America , then just removing the borders between 2 of them and stating there are 49 states.

The lines matter, so the answer is 16.
#45 to #43 - AcidFlux
Reply +8
(08/01/2012) [-]
Wrong. State borders don't overlap, but the lines of squares can. You're a dumbass for trying to argue semantics.
#47 to #45 - dexterslabs
Reply -15
(08/01/2012) [-]
That is besides the point, lines of separation are there to distinguish one from the other and a square is defined as a four equally sided rectangle of 90 degrees. Which means, that box only contains 16 individual squares, 4 on either side and 8 smaller ones in the lower and upper middle parts.
#48 to #47 - AcidFlux
Reply +5
(08/01/2012) [-]
Show me the definition of a square that suggests that squares cannot overlap, or even have congruent lines.
Think about it this way: A coin is a circle. If I stack three coins on top of one another, and look down from above, how many circles are there? Three. Or if I have a deck of cards, and lay them all out so the edges are touching and overlapping, there are still a set number of rectangles.

Therefore, in this case with squares, unless you want to allow for perfectly congruent squares with simultaneous overlap (in other words, one square is overlapping another square of the exact same size, orientation and position), then the answer is 40 squares.

Your logic is fail, young padawan.
#49 to #48 - dexterslabs
Reply -14
(08/01/2012) [-]
No, because the square in question is in 2 dimensional space, there is no overlapping, there can't be. So unless you use 3 dimensional objects, like your own argument suggests, a deck of cards, some coins, the answer is going to be 16.
#50 to #49 - AcidFlux
Reply +6
(08/01/2012) [-]
A two dimensional space can allow for overlapping lines. Were you stoned during geometry class?

Here's a pic. Notice how the center square moves up to the upper left... it's doesn't stop being a square, it simply has some overlapping lines.
#94 to #50 - dexterslabs
Reply -12
(08/01/2012) [-]
guess which one is the square.
#105 to #94 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(08/01/2012) [-]
Derp, there's only one square visible. Seriously, that's your reply? I draw you a ******* picture to explain it to your shriveled brain, and you STILL don't get it? LOL!

You're such a failtard.
#110 to #105 - dexterslabs
Reply -10
(08/01/2012) [-]
Think of it as a visual representation of the visual representation of the picture we are discussing, the 8 squares in the middle prohibit the other squares from being squares. The same ******* stupid way that the image you posted shows a square connected with a 6 sided object to its right and under.
#118 to #110 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(08/01/2012) [-]
And you couldn't even orient the irregular hexagon in the right direction in your example. Fail, again.
#117 to #110 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(08/01/2012) [-]
No, those center 8 squares don't prohibit ****, except in your very limited, very specific, wanna-be psuedo-intellectual ******** explanation.

Stop dancing around it. Just admit you looked for a way to 'prove Op wrong' and get over it.
#52 to #50 - dexterslabs
Reply -13
(08/01/2012) [-]
Yes, but consider the fact that the squares are empty space, and the lines are the barriers between them and according to the Pauli exclusion principle, no two objects may occupy the same place at the same time, therefore there can't be any overlapping of matter in 2 dimensional space. And this is a drawing, therefore 2 dimensional and my argument stands.
#55 to #52 - AcidFlux
Reply +5
(08/01/2012) [-]
You're mixing quantum physics with a two-dimensional drawing? Fine. I counter with the fact that the image is depicting, in the best possible manner given the available technology, multiple squares that are two-dimensional, but exist within a three-dimensional space. In other words, it's a 2-D representation of a 3-D event. The overlapping squares are not actually touching, but rather 'stacked', with only a few zeptometers of distance between them. At no point do they actually touch, nor do they exist within the same space. And for precedent, I cite 90%+ of all images & pictures, which are 2-D representations of 3-D events.
#57 to #55 - dexterslabs
Reply -14
(08/01/2012) [-]
Yes dude, I will grant you that. But the question of how many squares are in the picture is flawed: If you use my interpretation of no two objects can occupy the same position concurrently, then there are 16 squares, because of how squares are defined as four equally length sided sided rectangles with 90 degree angles.

Or if you use your interpretation that the squares are overlapping, both simultaneously correct until the author states his intent or meaning on it. This is why i don't get why OP is so ******* butthurt about it and being such a faggot.
#61 to #57 - anon
Reply 0
(08/01/2012) [-]
Stop talking. Seriously.

<--- you.
#70 to #52 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(08/01/2012) [-]
So, two-dimensional drawing can never be used to represent three-dimensional objects or groups of objects?
I think you were stoned in art class as well.

Seriously, just shut the **** up. Sit down, you've embarrassed yourself. You tried to apply quantum ******* physics to a discussion about a two-dimensional picture.

If it's solely a two-dimensional drawing & nothing more, then quantum physics doesn't even apply. You can't have it both ways, you stupid, pathetic troll.
#72 to #70 - dexterslabs
Reply -8
(08/01/2012) [-]
I know you can google, but the Pauli exclusion principle may be states as applying to identical ferimions having half integer spin, but that does not mean it doesn't apply to the macro universe you ******* retard.

two objects cant occupy the same position and time, if you dont get that you're a retarded that doesnt deserve to live. And explain how this is a 2 dimensional representation of anything in this universe.

The fact that you don't understand it doesn't make it not true.
#73 to #72 - AcidFlux
Reply +2
(08/01/2012) [-]
You're confusing theoretical and imaginary concepts. I guarantee that I have a more solid grasp of this than you do. Seriously, sit down and stop embarrassing yourself.
#75 to #73 - dexterslabs
Reply -8
(08/01/2012) [-]
Yes according to you, you do. But you're an idiot so what the **** do you know.
#80 to #75 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(08/01/2012) [-]
I know the difference between theoretical and imaginary. For example, in theory, you have a girlfriend. But actually, she's imaginary.
#81 to #72 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(08/01/2012) [-]
Do I need to go and make 40 squares out of wire and lay them out on top of each other and take a ******* picture? This isn't a difficult concept.
#85 to #81 - dexterslabs
Reply -8
(08/01/2012) [-]
Try laying 40 square books on each other, then ask the ******* question how many books are inside these books, the answer will be 0.0000000000000000, because the books are on top of each other, not inside of them.

Now that is not the case with this, in this case the question is how many squares, well if you consider the lines to be real, then there are per definition 16 squares. No more, no less.
#86 to #85 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(08/01/2012) [-]
The question is how many squares are in the picture, you ******* idiot. You're taking a simple logic problem and trying to apply quantum physics? You're trying too hard. No one is impressed with your ********.
#89 to #86 - dexterslabs
Reply -7
(08/01/2012) [-]
Yes how many squares, there are 16. How hard is that for you to understand.

And i noticed how you aren't really capable of having and winning this argument, so you have resorted to child like behavior to try and change the subject.
#91 to #89 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(08/01/2012) [-]
I've already won the argument, a long time ago. Now I'm just laughing my ass off watching you squirm. You admitted that the answer could be 16 or 40, depending on perspective. Your perspective is extremely narrow and specific. The other is general and realistic.

Your argument is like saying the sky isn't blue, because technically the atmosphere filters out the other colors, but they still exist. From a very specific point of view, you're correct. But everyone else still thinks you're a dumbass.
#95 to #91 - dexterslabs
Reply -9
(08/01/2012) [-]
Well, considering the fact that OP was butthurt that most people didn't get it that the answer was 40, i would say probably more people have stated there are 16 squares in the picture, rather than 40. And i am stating they are correct in doing so.
#108 to #95 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(08/01/2012) [-]
No, they aren't. They got the wrong answer for the wrong reason. You found a very odd way of 'proving' the 'wrong' answer. That simply proves you were looking for a way to be contrary, to start an argument for no good ******* reason.

In short, you're an idiot. You may have some intelligence, but you have no common sense.
#112 to #108 - dexterslabs
Reply -8
(08/01/2012) [-]
I am not the one who made a rant post pissing on everybody that got the answer wrong. I merely correct the OP fag.
#115 to #112 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(08/01/2012) [-]
You didn't correct him. You didn't prove anything wrong about what he said. You tried to be a 'big brain' and came up with an esoteric explanation to support your ******** premise. That's what happened.
#120 to #115 - dexterslabs
Reply -8
(08/01/2012) [-]
If OP can for some reason ignore all shapes and lines to prove his point, then anyone can do it. If 36 is a square that can ignore lines, then how is the other one not true aswell.
#142 to #120 - AcidFlux
Reply +1
(08/01/2012) [-]
I understand your perspective. It's odd that you can't read well enough to see that I've said, that from your very limited & specific perspective, you're correct. But ONLY from that perspective. And a broken watch is still correct twice a day.
You're refusing to admit that you intentionally sought out that very limited & specific perspective, just to 'prove' your point.

You're right from 'a certain point of view'. But that point of view has no common sense involved.
#130 to #120 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(08/01/2012) [-]
You added lines. How does that make you right? You've resorted to grasping at straws, because deep down, you know you ****** up. If you'd simply offered your explanation as a possible alternative, instead of attempting to make it a 'disproof' of the OP's statement, you'd be fine. But you ****** it up. You got cocky. you wanted to be the big man that comes in with your psuedo-logic and 'save the day'.

But you failed. Miserably. Your reach exceeded your grasp.
#131 to #130 - dexterslabs
-8
(08/01/2012) [-]
Well if you don't understand, then you don't understand. I don't know if you lack the capacity of understanding what I am saying, or you are to stubborn to admit that I am right, and that you and op are wrong.

Which is it?
#122 to #120 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(08/01/2012) [-]
Because you're adding lines that are not shown in the picture, instead of accepting the fact that some lines can overlap. If you can't see how that's different, then you truly are more idiotic than I thought.
#124 to #122 - dexterslabs
-6
(08/01/2012) [-]
But I am right, you can't disprove that so you have resorted to name calling.
#79 to #72 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(08/01/2012) [-]
Comment #57, you said: "I will grant you that." Now, you're trying to backpedal. Seriously, you've lost. You tried to hard to be a big-brain, and you failed.

Go watch a few more episodes of Big Bang Theory. It's a great show. You'd like it. Granted, you'd only understand 5% of it, but it's still a good show.
#83 to #79 - dexterslabs
Reply -7
(08/01/2012) [-]
If you don't understand that the question is flawed, that the answer is both 40 and 16 at the same time depending on if the squares exist in two dimensional space or three dimensional space, and until stated as such by the author, both are correct, then you sir are a moron, and saying other people are wrong for stating that because you don't get the concept makes you a megamoron at that.
#84 to #83 - AcidFlux
Reply 0
(08/01/2012) [-]
Oh, look at that, now you're backpedaling! You made a definitive statement in comment #43 (The lines matter, so the answer is 16.) , and now you're trying to get to a compromise.

No. **** you and your compromise. You just realized you ****** up, and are trying to save face. You didn't allow for two possible interpretations in your original comment, and fought so hard to prove me wrong. You're a spineless moron. Get back in your hole.
#87 to #84 - dexterslabs
Reply -7
(08/01/2012) [-]
No, i state that the lines are real not imaginary, so the answer is 16, but unless stated by the author, it can be interpreted either way, i choose my way and i have proved my point in choosing to see it that way.
#88 to #87 - AcidFlux
Reply +2
(08/01/2012) [-]
You're choosing to see it in a very limited and specific way, in order to prove someone else wrong. And you didn't allow for alternative perspectives in your first post. Perhaps if you'd written your first post in a more intelligent & less condescending manner, you wouldn't be stuck right now.

You dun goofed. And you're too cowardly to admit it.
#58 to #52 - anon
Reply 0
(08/01/2012) [-]
wow...
you just want to be stupid.
#1585 to #47 - shaddz
Reply +2
(08/02/2012) [-]
you HAVE GOT to be ******* kidding me, please explain to me how on earth someone as retarded as you can survive long enough to access the internet, you should have gotten yourself killed by putting your head under the lawnmower by now to prove the blades arent dangerous... in fact please go and do that right now you moronic waste of human flesh, just because you do not comprehend something does not mean it is wrong.
#1594 to #1585 - anon
Reply 0
(08/02/2012) [-]
also enjoy ur thumb ban, you are obviously not going to last long
#1600 to #1594 - shaddz
Reply 0
(08/02/2012) [-]
was that directed at dexter or me?
#1612 to #1585 - dexterslabs
Reply -5
(08/02/2012) [-]
If you're having comprehension problems I feel bad for you son
I got 99 problems but your retarded mind ain't one
#1810 to #1612 - shaddz
Reply 0
(08/02/2012) [-]
aaand hes banned now, too many thumbs down so none of us need to put up with this retard again
#24 - bluekisses
Reply +8
(08/01/2012) [-]
for someone see this for the first time and the first thing i see is THE ANSWER IS 40!

i had no ******* clue what you were talking about, i proceeded to continue scrolling down to make more sense of.

......................then i came realize that it was some bitch raging so hard.

i just finish reading a long ass rant.............**** off op
#6 - tehcreepinone
Reply +8
(08/01/2012) [-]
Wow... Just wow. Someone finally came out and said it. *clap clap*
#1724 - bateking
Reply +7
(08/02/2012) [-]






Calm down pressed ass *****
#1718 - saxrolled
Reply +7
(08/02/2012) [-]
5 minutes of my life wasted...
#867 - rsca
Reply +7
(08/02/2012) [-]
You know, I'm getting a ********** of red thumbs but I'm gonna go for it regardless.

What we have here is some lurking douche bag who thinks he' smart because he can look into something. ************************ would you like a medal friend? You must have the worst case of anti-social behaviour I've seen... if this is honestly how you perceive and treat people then you REALLY need help. You obviously hate the world and love yourself (In my opinion if I was you I'd hang myself by the balls [If you have any]).

The last thing this website needed was a smart-ass white-knight ************ bitching about how people cannot find 40 squares. Oh.. My.. Gawd.. people can't find 40 squares.. it's the end of the ******* world. But yeah, let's treat a website full of everyday people to a nice big cup of ******* **** because I truly believe I am smarter and better than anyone else.

In all seriousness, this wasn't needed. As far as I agree with you that yes, there are 40 squares; really a better approach could have been made.. the type of approach where you didn't have to make people feel like ****... people are here to have ******* fun and laugh... and they last thing they need is you calling them basically stupid ******* scum of the earth because again.. you think your better than everyone.

You have issues dude... your ranting about squares and ******* facebook... yet insulting people for having "facebook-like intelligence"... a little Ironic isn't it? Why don't you go and have a nice big cup of **************** and get some help with your ******* problems.. because if thats how you see everyone and treat everyone.. you won't survive one day in the real ******* world. And I say this on the behalf of the FJ Community: **** YOU.
#900 to #867 - garnykins
Reply +2
(08/02/2012) [-]
Huh. Did I give you permission to speak on my behalf? I don't think I remember it... hmm...

I actually found this absolutely hilarious. And even if his rant was actually legitimate (still unsure), do you REALLY think you should be taking it to any sort of heart? This doesn't even register on my 'rustled' meter.

So thank you for taking something somewhat humorous and throat punching in the dick by being a smart-ass white-knight ************ bitching about a post that bitches about people that can't find forty squares in a simple puzzle and thinking that it's a stain on this little corner of the internet. I bow to you, sir.
#810 - garyleneville
Reply +7
(08/02/2012) [-]
There are 41 squares, the 40 in the picture and the 1 who bothered to make an extensively long content about it.