This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Kinder Graham
Pages: 1 ... 123124125 126127 ... 243
3721
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:56:26 PM »
So you have a penis?
3722
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:54:13 PM »
Good, now what about the Feudal Japan and Good Modern era that people keep asking for too?
Watch Dogs 2 m8y
3723
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:51:18 PM »
OP, that's Canada
This is UK:
39 school aged children smoking a ciggy
153 chavs wanting to stab you
22 drunks
13 had bad teeth
3724
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:48:10 PM »
The thing I don't like about Common Core.. is we should be striving for the most efficient and simple way on solving a mathematical problem. I've seen that number line crap (or however the teacher is trying to present it) in action and thinking to myself, "That takes twice as long to get the same answer as just stating 30+5 is 35"
So much this. We need to be preparing children for the real life, that means teaching applied skills. In an everyday work scenario, a person will either pull out a calculator or quickly jot down a problem like 2+2x4(5-3) and solve it that way. It's simple, time saving, and the best way to do math.
You are so goddamn wrong. How the fuck can a person apply a skill that he doesn't even have?
. . . . . .
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
And how, exactly, do you expect little kids to apply arithmetic when they don't understand it?
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
So then why the fuck are you against using more than one example to teach children?
I'm not. I'm against the more complex and impractical form being taught. Traditional math has worked for centuries; if it isn't broke then don't fix it
So then why are you against number lines? They have also been used for centuries.
I'm just using number lines as a quick reference example. Others include whatever this shit is called
This is time consuming and VERY impractical and no logical reason to make it the main focus
what even is all this shit
I honestly think half that shit is made up. At the very least the 2nd one has to be, as I don't see how it makes sense in any way at all.
Nah, more enough chances it's real. Hell, check out this shit they teach in Japan
3725
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:46:58 PM »
The thing I don't like about Common Core.. is we should be striving for the most efficient and simple way on solving a mathematical problem. I've seen that number line crap (or however the teacher is trying to present it) in action and thinking to myself, "That takes twice as long to get the same answer as just stating 30+5 is 35"
So much this. We need to be preparing children for the real life, that means teaching applied skills. In an everyday work scenario, a person will either pull out a calculator or quickly jot down a problem like 2+2x4(5-3) and solve it that way. It's simple, time saving, and the best way to do math.
You are so goddamn wrong. How the fuck can a person apply a skill that he doesn't even have?
. . . . . .
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
And how, exactly, do you expect little kids to apply arithmetic when they don't understand it?
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
So then why the fuck are you against using more than one example to teach children?
I'm not. I'm against the more complex and impractical form being taught. Traditional math has worked for centuries; if it isn't broke then don't fix it
So then why are you against number lines? They have also been used for centuries.
I'm just using number lines as a quick reference example. Others include whatever this shit is called
This is time consuming and VERY impractical and no logical reason to make it the main focus
I have literally never seen these as part of the Common Core curriculum.
Wouldn't surprise me if it was FUD spread by the conservative crowd.
So because you've never seen it, it's automatically stuff spread by conservatives? lolk
Well, considering I'm the only person here [to my knowledge] who has actually been a teacher...
Your point? That really doesn't show anything. Plenty of teachers don't see things. My history professor told us a story when they were still in college, they were sent one of those fat "Buddha" statues and showed it to there professor at the time and never seen it before and said it wasn't Buddha because Buddha was never fat
3726
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:44:43 PM »
Traditional math IS quick and simple for many children.
Yes.
The ones it's not are those who are special needs and are placed in specialized classes with others like them.
What? What the fuck are you talking about?
Children with a deficiency in math may have a mental disorder. Kids with mental disorders are placed in class rooms where they are given alternatives to help them
Alright, I'm gonna stop replying to you after this. You're either trolling me or you're too fucking detached from reality to be reasoned with.
You're seriously fucking idiotic "HUR HUR HE SEYENG SUMTHENG I DUN LIEK SO HE MUS BE TROLLENG OR DETCHED FRUM RELTY" If you have any comprehension skills, you would have noticed I used the word MAY, meaning a possibility not that there is in fact a presence
3727
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:39:42 PM »
Traditional math IS quick and simple for many children.
Yes.
The ones it's not are those who are special needs and are placed in specialized classes with others like them.
What? What the fuck are you talking about?
Children with a deficiency in math may have a mental disorder. Kids with mental disorders are placed in class rooms where they are given alternatives to help them
LOL
"kids who struggle with math have a mental disorder"
Ok.
Bye.
OH. MY GOD. You fucking left out MAY from my sentence. You're seriously desperate, huh? May, meaning there can be a possibility not that it is Children with a deficiency in math MAY have a mental disorder
3728
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:37:55 PM »
The thing I don't like about Common Core.. is we should be striving for the most efficient and simple way on solving a mathematical problem. I've seen that number line crap (or however the teacher is trying to present it) in action and thinking to myself, "That takes twice as long to get the same answer as just stating 30+5 is 35"
So much this. We need to be preparing children for the real life, that means teaching applied skills. In an everyday work scenario, a person will either pull out a calculator or quickly jot down a problem like 2+2x4(5-3) and solve it that way. It's simple, time saving, and the best way to do math.
You are so goddamn wrong. How the fuck can a person apply a skill that he doesn't even have?
. . . . . .
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
And how, exactly, do you expect little kids to apply arithmetic when they don't understand it?
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
So then why the fuck are you against using more than one example to teach children?
I'm not. I'm against the more complex and impractical form being taught. Traditional math has worked for centuries; if it isn't broke then don't fix it
So then why are you against number lines? They have also been used for centuries.
I'm just using number lines as a quick reference example. Others include whatever this shit is called
This is time consuming and VERY impractical and no logical reason to make it the main focus
again:
THIS IS ALL TO AID IN CHILDREN'S UNDERSTANDING IN THE ARGUABLY MOST DIFFICULT SUBJECT IN SCHOOL
holy fucking shit
But RC, this shit IS making it more difficult than needed. There is literally nothing complicated with 2+2=4. What I showed is making shit easy math into a form of rocket science
It isn't complicated for you. Put yourself in the shoes of a kid who just doesn't get it. Any possible method that will help that kid should be presented because chances are that the kid CAN get it, he just doesn't yet.
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be shown I'm arguing that it shouldn't take the main focus over traditional math. If a kid learns better with an alternative manner, then great but everybody else will be scratching their heads at it. Instead, work one-on-one with children that are or may have an issue with math and find a solution to better help them. That's how education should work
3729
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:34:04 PM »
Traditional math IS quick and simple for many children.
Yes.
The ones it's not are those who are special needs and are placed in specialized classes with others like them.
What? What the fuck are you talking about?
Children with a deficiency in math may have a mental disorder. Kids with mental disorders are placed in class rooms where they are given alternatives to help them
3730
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:32:53 PM »
The thing I don't like about Common Core.. is we should be striving for the most efficient and simple way on solving a mathematical problem. I've seen that number line crap (or however the teacher is trying to present it) in action and thinking to myself, "That takes twice as long to get the same answer as just stating 30+5 is 35"
So much this. We need to be preparing children for the real life, that means teaching applied skills. In an everyday work scenario, a person will either pull out a calculator or quickly jot down a problem like 2+2x4(5-3) and solve it that way. It's simple, time saving, and the best way to do math.
You are so goddamn wrong. How the fuck can a person apply a skill that he doesn't even have?
. . . . . .
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
And how, exactly, do you expect little kids to apply arithmetic when they don't understand it?
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
So then why the fuck are you against using more than one example to teach children?
I'm not. I'm against the more complex and impractical form being taught. Traditional math has worked for centuries; if it isn't broke then don't fix it
So then why are you against number lines? They have also been used for centuries.
I'm just using number lines as a quick reference example. Others include whatever this shit is called
This is time consuming and VERY impractical and no logical reason to make it the main focus
I have literally never seen these as part of the Common Core curriculum.
Wouldn't surprise me if it was FUD spread by the conservative crowd.
So because you've never seen it, it's automatically stuff spread by conservatives? lolk
3731
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:32:12 PM »
The thing I don't like about Common Core.. is we should be striving for the most efficient and simple way on solving a mathematical problem. I've seen that number line crap (or however the teacher is trying to present it) in action and thinking to myself, "That takes twice as long to get the same answer as just stating 30+5 is 35"
So much this. We need to be preparing children for the real life, that means teaching applied skills. In an everyday work scenario, a person will either pull out a calculator or quickly jot down a problem like 2+2x4(5-3) and solve it that way. It's simple, time saving, and the best way to do math.
You are so goddamn wrong. How the fuck can a person apply a skill that he doesn't even have?
. . . . . .
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
And how, exactly, do you expect little kids to apply arithmetic when they don't understand it?
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
So then why the fuck are you against using more than one example to teach children?
I'm not. I'm against the more complex and impractical form being taught. Traditional math has worked for centuries; if it isn't broke then don't fix it
So then why are you against number lines? They have also been used for centuries.
I'm just using number lines as a quick reference example. Others include whatever this shit is called
This is time consuming and VERY impractical and no logical reason to make it the main focus
again:
THIS IS ALL TO AID IN CHILDREN'S UNDERSTANDING IN THE ARGUABLY MOST DIFFICULT SUBJECT IN SCHOOL
holy fucking shit
But RC, this shit IS making it more difficult than needed. There is literally nothing complicated with 2+2=4. What I showed is making shit easy math into a form of rocket science
3732
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:30:45 PM »
The thing I don't like about Common Core.. is we should be striving for the most efficient and simple way on solving a mathematical problem. I've seen that number line crap (or however the teacher is trying to present it) in action and thinking to myself, "That takes twice as long to get the same answer as just stating 30+5 is 35"
So much this. We need to be preparing children for the real life, that means teaching applied skills. In an everyday work scenario, a person will either pull out a calculator or quickly jot down a problem like 2+2x4(5-3) and solve it that way. It's simple, time saving, and the best way to do math.
You are so goddamn wrong. How the fuck can a person apply a skill that he doesn't even have?
. . . . . .
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
And how, exactly, do you expect little kids to apply arithmetic when they don't understand it?
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
So then why the fuck are you against using more than one example to teach children?
I'm not. I'm against the more complex and impractical form being taught. Traditional math has worked for centuries; if it isn't broke then don't fix it
You understand that this method isn't taught as a replacement for traditional stacked adding methods, right? You understand that it's taught as a supplement to that method for the kids who, for whatever reason, can't grasp it initially?
I understand both
My point is that in the past, the main focus has been the traditional 2+2 approach. Now it's putting more emphasis towards these alternative ways that have no practicality. Part of educating children is to prepare them for the working world and as I've said, people use a calculator or do quick and simple math to get the answer
The math that you consider "quick and simple" isn't for many children. Like I fucking said, this method isn't replacing anything. It's supplementing it.
Traditional math IS quick and simple for many children. The ones it's not are those who are special needs and are placed in specialized classes with others like them. I never said it's replacing it, I said it's given more focus than needed
3733
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:28:31 PM »
The thing I don't like about Common Core.. is we should be striving for the most efficient and simple way on solving a mathematical problem. I've seen that number line crap (or however the teacher is trying to present it) in action and thinking to myself, "That takes twice as long to get the same answer as just stating 30+5 is 35"
So much this. We need to be preparing children for the real life, that means teaching applied skills. In an everyday work scenario, a person will either pull out a calculator or quickly jot down a problem like 2+2x4(5-3) and solve it that way. It's simple, time saving, and the best way to do math.
You are so goddamn wrong. How the fuck can a person apply a skill that he doesn't even have?
. . . . . .
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
And how, exactly, do you expect little kids to apply arithmetic when they don't understand it?
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
So then why the fuck are you against using more than one example to teach children?
I'm not. I'm against the more complex and impractical form being taught. Traditional math has worked for centuries; if it isn't broke then don't fix it
So then why are you against number lines? They have also been used for centuries.
I'm just using number lines as a quick reference example. Others include whatever this shit is called This is time consuming and VERY impractical and no logical reason to make it the main focus
3734
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:24:25 PM »
The thing I don't like about Common Core.. is we should be striving for the most efficient and simple way on solving a mathematical problem. I've seen that number line crap (or however the teacher is trying to present it) in action and thinking to myself, "That takes twice as long to get the same answer as just stating 30+5 is 35"
So much this. We need to be preparing children for the real life, that means teaching applied skills. In an everyday work scenario, a person will either pull out a calculator or quickly jot down a problem like 2+2x4(5-3) and solve it that way. It's simple, time saving, and the best way to do math.
You are so goddamn wrong. How the fuck can a person apply a skill that he doesn't even have?
. . . . . .
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
And how, exactly, do you expect little kids to apply arithmetic when they don't understand it?
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
So then why the fuck are you against using more than one example to teach children?
I'm not. I'm against the more complex and impractical form being taught. Traditional math has worked for centuries; if it isn't broke then don't fix it
You understand that this method isn't taught as a replacement for traditional stacked adding methods, right? You understand that it's taught as a supplement to that method for the kids who, for whatever reason, can't grasp it initially?
I understand both My point is that in the past, the main focus has been the traditional 2+2 approach. Now it's putting more emphasis towards these alternative ways that have no practicality. Part of educating children is to prepare them for the working world and as I've said, people use a calculator or do quick and simple math to get the answer
3735
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:10:41 PM »
The thing I don't like about Common Core.. is we should be striving for the most efficient and simple way on solving a mathematical problem. I've seen that number line crap (or however the teacher is trying to present it) in action and thinking to myself, "That takes twice as long to get the same answer as just stating 30+5 is 35"
So much this. We need to be preparing children for the real life, that means teaching applied skills. In an everyday work scenario, a person will either pull out a calculator or quickly jot down a problem like 2+2x4(5-3) and solve it that way. It's simple, time saving, and the best way to do math.
You are so goddamn wrong. How the fuck can a person apply a skill that he doesn't even have?
. . . . . .
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
And how, exactly, do you expect little kids to apply arithmetic when they don't understand it?
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
So then why the fuck are you against using more than one example to teach children?
I'm not. I'm against the more complex and impractical form being taught. Traditional math has worked for centuries; if it isn't broke then don't fix it
3736
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:08:00 PM »
The thing I don't like about Common Core.. is we should be striving for the most efficient and simple way on solving a mathematical problem. I've seen that number line crap (or however the teacher is trying to present it) in action and thinking to myself, "That takes twice as long to get the same answer as just stating 30+5 is 35"
So much this. We need to be preparing children for the real life, that means teaching applied skills. In an everyday work scenario, a person will either pull out a calculator or quickly jot down a problem like 2+2x4(5-3) and solve it that way. It's simple, time saving, and the best way to do math.
You are so goddamn wrong. How the fuck can a person apply a skill that he doesn't even have?
. . . . . .
School=Education
Education=Teaching
Teaching=Learning math
Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
And how, exactly, do you expect little kids to apply arithmetic when they don't understand it?
School=Education Education=Teaching Teaching=Learning math Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
3737
« on: October 30, 2014, 04:03:27 PM »
The thing I don't like about Common Core.. is we should be striving for the most efficient and simple way on solving a mathematical problem. I've seen that number line crap (or however the teacher is trying to present it) in action and thinking to myself, "That takes twice as long to get the same answer as just stating 30+5 is 35"
So much this. We need to be preparing children for the real life, that means teaching applied skills. In an everyday work scenario, a person will either pull out a calculator or quickly jot down a problem like 2+2x4(5-3) and solve it that way. It's simple, time saving, and the best way to do math.
You are so goddamn wrong. How the fuck can a person apply a skill that he doesn't even have?
. . . . . . School=Education Education=Teaching Teaching=Learning math Learning math=Being able to add, subtract, divide, multiple
3738
« on: October 30, 2014, 03:53:37 PM »
3739
« on: October 30, 2014, 03:36:55 PM »
Time rift in the Animus...it would be visually impressive to see Paris flickering through multiple time periods as you're being chased/chasing a target.
The animus isn't a time machine you know.
That's a grey area It's a simulation that accesses a person's DNA/memories and transports them to those memories back in time. So it's kinda like a time machine, just not how we'd expect it to operate. The simulation-time rift seems it can happen if the user has other ancestral memories from a different era, like how you see it in Revelations with the split between Altair, Ezio, and Desmond
3740
« on: October 30, 2014, 03:33:15 PM »
Time rift in the Animus...it would be visually impressive to see Paris flickering through multiple time periods as you're being chased/chasing a target.
Judging by the content in the Season Pass, it just may be in WWII. But it's kinda similar to that with Revelations with the flash backs. If anything, I can see time rifts happening in the next game if the reception for the DLC is good enough
3741
« on: October 30, 2014, 03:27:55 PM »
3742
« on: October 30, 2014, 03:17:25 PM »
Booty
3743
« on: October 30, 2014, 03:15:55 PM »
Ubisoft promised this wouldn't happen...
They wouldn't make a full game set in WWII Either way, it preserves the concept of Assassins Creed staying pre-modern area but still gives people the option to play in the modern era. Win-win for everybody
3744
« on: October 30, 2014, 03:10:52 PM »
http://kotaku.com/assassins-creed-unitywill-be-going-to-world-war-ii-1652836136?utm_campaign=Socialflow_Kotaku_Facebook&utm_source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=SocialflowIt looked like the new-gen-only Assassin's Creed game would be sticking only to the time period of the French Revolution. Nope. Somehow, lead character Arno will wind up smack dab in the middle of World War II, with machine guns and everything.
A new trailer for Assassin's Creed Unity shows some kind of spacetime disturbance taking Arno from the time of guillotines to era of Nazi occupation. A late-2013 Ubisoft survey about the future of Assassin's Creed had floated the idea of an AC game letting players explore a city through different era. That's one of the few things that hadn't appeared as a feature for this year's AC games yet, but today's trailer suggests that may indeed be an element of Unity after all. Take my fucking money now Ubisoft
3745
« on: October 30, 2014, 02:52:50 PM »
Then edit Gat's posts.
stop crying about it first.
I'm defending myself from asshats. Fucking stfu and learn the situation before commenting
You people fucking sound like DeeJ. It's perfectly fine for Gaytsby to make responses that target me but when I defend myself I'm the fucking bad guy.
You're pulling a ktan with your bitchiness.
No, I'm fucking defending myself You all think it's fine to harass but when a person sticks up for themselves you all get bitchy. Fucking retarded down-syndrome faggots
3746
« on: October 30, 2014, 02:50:22 PM »
Then edit Gat's posts.
stop crying about it first.
I'm defending myself from asshats. Fucking stfu and learn the situation before commenting You people fucking sound like DeeJ. It's perfectly fine for Gaytsby to make responses that target me but when I defend myself I'm the fucking bad guy.
3747
« on: October 30, 2014, 02:38:24 PM »
WAAAAAH HARASSMENT
Shut the fuck up and go to Tumblr.
Go fucking hang yourself.
3748
« on: October 30, 2014, 02:38:07 PM »
Guys we don't need to have this discussion again. Psy addressed this properly and that's the end of it.
Your right, let's be mature about this.
You won Gatsby bby, 'twas an amazing thread that everyone put one enjoyed
I'll get around to recreating the deleted posts. One of these days >.>
Lol, good luck with that. You'll be reported and banned for it. But on the bright side I removed my pictures from the picture thread so it doesn't even manner. Stay a pathetic little faggot
3749
« on: October 30, 2014, 02:37:01 PM »
- Respect your fellow members, or at least tolerate them publicly. Harassment of any kind will not be tolerated, even if they probably deserve it. Personal attacks come down to whichever Ninja is handling the situation and the context in which it was said.
- Calling out users in a demeaning and harmful manner will not be tolerated - period. Threads doing so will be locked, and the creator will be subject to moderation.
- Personal attacks, including in public forums and private messages, will not be taken lightly and are subject to punishment. Joking with sayings like "fgt" are acceptable, as long as it does not become excessive.
You were the only one who had an issue with it.
Just because everybody else is stealing, doesn't make it legal. You can stay mad but threads like that is the very reason people leave this place and the reason people call it a circle jerk. Only thing that happened were posts that related to me were edited out. The people that kept it up and turned it into even more shit flinging are the ones who ended up gettig it locked. I was simply defending myself from the asshats who think harassment is okay
3750
« on: October 30, 2014, 02:33:01 PM »
- Respect your fellow members, or at least tolerate them publicly. Harassment of any kind will not be tolerated, even if they probably deserve it. Personal attacks come down to whichever Ninja is handling the situation and the context in which it was said.
- Calling out users in a demeaning and harmful manner will not be tolerated - period. Threads doing so will be locked, and the creator will be subject to moderation.
- Personal attacks, including in public forums and private messages, will not be taken lightly and are subject to punishment. Joking with sayings like "fgt" are acceptable, as long as it does not become excessive.
Pages: 1 ... 123124125 126127 ... 243
|
Show Posts
