Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

shrimp

So I'm well into my next project and I've discovered an issue regarding its presentation.... IT'S TOO DARK! I've gotten this complaint from almost every person that has seen it so I need to ask you all something. I can't exactly go back and change the brightest of every single fill in every single frame, so does anyone have an idea as to how to make the whole thing brighter without losing it's quality. My idea is at the end of animating, to put it all into a single movieclip and then use the brightness tool. But can anyone think of a better method?

At 1/21/09 11:58 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/21/09 04:56 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

That's not to say there aren't thousands or more atheists who posses a failure in capability to critically think.

Of course.
Bell Curve people, bell curve.

At 1/21/09 04:56 PM, Brick-top wrote:

There is no correlation between Atheism, skepticism, intelligence or almost anything else for that matter.

That's just outright false, sorry.
I have no idea where you're getting your information.

sorry yourself. You seem to be making the case that atheism is somehow related to logic and by extension knowledge itself, which is absolutely unfounded. Even Socrates believed in the God that only he could speak to. And don't give me the "one man" counter because I could come up with an argument just as unfounded. For example, I could say since the minds that we hold to be the most brilliant in mankind's history (names that have stood the test of time) since the majority of those people believed in a higher being, that religious belief is a cycle. You start by being religious, then you conclude that God does not exist, but upon further contemplation, you conclude that there is a god, doing so in the prime of your brilliance. I'm not saying this is the case, but I'm saying that there cannot be a definite way of saying that intelligence absolutely has a cause and effect relationship with atheism since evidence proves otherwise.

At 1/20/09 03:26 AM, SomeCrappyUsername wrote: I was planning on wording the title better, but it would not fit. Barack Obama is going to be an average president. He will not rock the boat, or do anything radical. He might do some modest programs that help the public, and he might do some things that will back fire. He will have an overinflated approval rating due to the fact he is the first minority president, and the poor job that Bush had done as a president. Over time history will view him as an average president that is only notable by the fact that he was black.

He is closing Guantanamo Bay....... BIG!
He will most likely end the Armed forces "Don't ask, don't tell policy." BIG!
He's going to limit the power of the CIA to a point that hasn't been since its founding... BIG!!!

And these are just actions we are almost absolutely sure he is going to accomplish.... immediately. I'm just saying that those three things by themselves would define most presidencies.

I actually didn't see the benediction, but the speech was very good in that it calmed everyone down when it needed to. I don't know if anyone has noticed but ever since the primaries began he has really toned down on the high flown language and I think that really speaks to his character. He knows soaring rhetoric is meant to rile a crowd and motivate people at an instant. But his tone in the speech really lent to an atmosphere of belonging. Sure, he was nervous. Even for a man who has kept his cool after becoming the president elect in front of 200,000 chicagoans, it's impossible not to be absolutely struck by the massive anticipation and expectation that would bring over a million people to listen to your inaugeral address. But the important part was really what his words said about who he plans to be as president. He is not lying when he says he wants to change america, because believe america is going to change in the next 4 years, for better or worse I do not know, hopefully better. He is going to approach each issue he faces as problem with an eye on the future impact. To say his speech was boring in merely a matter of how you look at it. Obama wants to drop an atom bomb on the last 8 years and we will really only be able to judge his speech when the smokes clears.

As for the poem, it was fine. I think she made it a little too simple actually. If there was one plae to have soaring language it was in this poem. I think the content of the poem was pitch perfect, but I feel like in the wake of a speech that was so full of action and plans, she gave us something a little to easy to digest.

Don't worry guys, Robert Downey Jr. is bringing blackface back.

HE'S TAKING IT BACK!

At 1/19/09 09:07 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/19/09 01:02 PM, Brick-top wrote:

Wait, are you saying Atheists who believe in paranormal are not Atheists?

It's like a vegetarian who eats fish, eggs and milk and buys veggie burgers and veggie bacon.
The whole reason to be an atheist is that it's the logical position to take, but believing in voodoo magic isn't.
So how the hell do you come up with "god's crazy but voodoo is totally legit" if you understand what it means to be atheist?

So yeah, bunch of fakes.

At 1/19/09 03:01 PM, EKublai wrote:
The Ancient Romans were incredibly superstitious people who wouldn't step over the threshold of a house with their left.

huh the Romans were extremely religious. They built thousands of altars and temples.

true but superstition is incredibly different since it derives from teh same origins as religion, consequence and tradition, but does not necesarily have to have a commanding force behind it.

Wow that's some pathetic stretching to try and pass off knocking on wood or wearing a lucky hat as "divine presence".

I merely alluding to the fact that some people, when something I would consider lucky happens, they see it as "God smiling down on them"

Atheists are not smarter.

Yeah they are smarter. Atheists are located mainly in first-world countries and are mostly people with the highest degree of education. The more educated a person is, the more likely it is that they'll be atheist.

both of those traits are just different effects of the same action, just a correlation, not a confirmation that both must be present at the same time. The United States has been a first-world nation as long as anyone and yet only 5%-10% are legitimate non-god believing atheists. Besides I wouldn't say that your assumption is correct either. Atheists are more present when and where the ruling culture allows them to be present. Communist states and former communist states naturally have a lot of atheists. You'll find that atheists almost never make up the majority of a country, including the ones that are considered the top science nations in the world. Also, I don't necessarily think its right to say that education would lead to atheism since that's really dependent on the kind of education you get. Alot of the top scientists in the world do not find conflict between their religious views and their views about the natural world.

At 1/19/09 03:56 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 1/19/09 03:17 PM, EKublai wrote:

Pride and respect are forms of valuation; the first steps in the path of greed. First you determine value, then you comes the selfish desire to acquire.

So I have a painting on the wall of my room painted by my grandfather, that was placed there when my parents were setting the room up before i was born. Now today I might not have pride or respect for the content in that painting. It wouldn't matter to me. The reason I have not replaced my grandfather's painting with the work of some master painter is motivated by nothing more than the fact that I respect, have pride for, and yes loved the man who painted that picture. I did not acquire it, so I could never have desired it.
For some reason, you've come to the conclusion that self-satisfaction can only be achieved through the acquisition of something or at least it has to be motivated as such, is an idea that is beyond naive.

Let's try an example that you could probably relate better too. You know when you take a really sweet dump? Like a REALLY good dump. It's all effortless and nice and lose and you feel totally cleansed. I definitely sense self-satisfaction. But then again, why did you do it man? I mean for all you know, you could've been there for hours on end squeezing the life out of your hemorrhoids in order to lay a lead block. Agony. So why did you do it? Were you really motivated by the sense of relief that might follow. No. You had to take a dump, it didn't matter whether you wanted to or not. Hell you probably weren't even thinking of teh consequences! You did it because it was the right thing to do.

Altruism is an illusion; all altruism is in hopes of reciprocation,

Isn't an illusion something that tricks the mind into thinking it is the real thing. How can something be an impostor of something else if what it is disguising itself as isn't real?

Just.. wow... the dumb, flowing from your response... so ... much... dumb.....

Unfortunately, your reply is not much better since the only conclusion to make is that while you argue on its behalf, you still don't not fully comprehend what greed actually is. Greed has quantity because when you acquire something as a result of your greed, there is less of that thing for everyone else. But when you acquire something like self-satisfaction, you are not inherently taking the self-satisfaction away from someone else. If before you was set a huge buffet with infinite stores of food, would it be be greedy to keep on eating?

At 1/19/09 12:32 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

So my question is this, How much worse was life in an industrial tenement to Rural life, and if the former was worse than the latter why did so many people set out to destroy their lives by living in them?

I don't really think you can generalize and say that every rural setting entailed the same living conditions but generally people stayed in tenements because the benefit of living close to the industry outweighed any quality of life factor.

Living condition are actually tied into what society was focused on at the time. Nowadays we call countries that can't feed their people 2,000 calorie diets and provide clean drinking water unsanitary living conditions. But back then you'd be crazy to ask for that. They didn't even start inspecting meat through the government until the beginning of the 20th century. You could probably guess as to a quality of life scale before such descriptions were available by looking at age expectations and things like that. But strangely enough, your own life used to be a more personal thing back then. No one was going to imporve your living conditions for you in most cases, so really it was to the motivation of the each individual to improve his conditions in any way he could.

At 1/19/09 03:01 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: Well, here it is folks. The big one. The time of the year to finally put the guy the majority of America voted for into office, and promptly kicking the old one out.

(Fun fact: At Bush's inauguration, about 30,000 people attended. At Obama's speech in Baltimore, about 40,000 showed up.)

With this being the first step in a new era, what do you expect of our new president? Will he rise up to the challenge and his promises? Will he fail in the face of the public? What do you think?

you know what? he's gonna be okay.... yeah. *rests hand on brian's shoulder, nods reassuringly. Both exit walking towards the sun rising over the horizon. Pilgrim's Chorus Plays*

At 1/18/09 07:56 PM, BrianEtrius wrote:

At 1/18/09 07:54 PM, Malachy wrote: they have a new one? I know the cans have some stupid graffiti crap on them, but I didn't know they changed their logo

Yeah. Here's the new logo. It sucks. A lot. The loder one was a lot more kewler.

for some reason I feel like this one is more secular...... i might be reading too much into it.

At 1/19/09 03:40 PM, Alpharius120 wrote:

At 1/19/09 03:01 PM, Magical-Zorse wrote: How about: "This is just another twilight parody"

"This is just another GENERIC twilight parody"

don't you love how people would rather bring you down than answr the frickin' question.

I like dead ed myself

..... um.... not to be an a-hole or anything but.... WHERE'S THE SOLDIER!!!???

At 1/19/09 03:08 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

I wholeheartedly disagree here, sir. Hate is MUCH villified, especially in western society. The prospect of love is NEVER fulfilled... EVER, because love doesn't exist. At all. In any way, shape, or form. All that exists that resembles love is actually greed with a better public relations agent. Hate just isn't accepted as righteous in our society... although perhaps it should be.

greed with a veil isn't love. Love is pride, respect, altruism, desire, memory, and prophecy mixed together.

At 1/18/09 10:52 PM, TheReno wrote:

Thank you Miller Test.

Yes thank you miller test.... It's so sad how in short time you will be dead.

however, miller isn't the be all end all test since within that definition, it has made room for restrictions in many areas of free speech.

At 1/19/09 06:04 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/18/09 09:30 PM, EKublai wrote:

not true. atheism is not a rejection of belief, its a rejection of divine presence.

Which is 99.9999999% exclusive to religion.

really? For some cultures, superstition has nothing to do with religion. The Ancient Romans were incredibly superstitious people who wouldn't step over the threshold of a house with their left. Things like "knock on wood" have no spiritual value. depending on the person, Luck might not have anything to do with religion. Are atheists exempt from wasting their savings on multistate lotteries? of course not. Their is no true rational reason for believing that something is absolutely true. You yourself have defined ghosts as paranormal. Few believers of god would call God a "paranormal phenomenon" or a "supernatural" being because paranormal means something outside the norm, which God is allegely not, he is the essence of nature and so is the most natural thing in the universe.
generally speaking there's an infinite number of things that one can believe in. Atheists obviously do not have uniform ideologies or motivation for the same reason that not all people are fundamentalists, because they didn't all reach the same conclusion is the same manner. Atheists are not smarter nor less intelligent than their counterpart in other religions. As always, people are at their most self-aware when they fall flat on their face, and only become intelligent when they allow themselves to be uncomfortable.

At 1/19/09 02:14 PM, SovietKitten wrote: This is too stupid, learn to animate yourself

Why do so many people do this on the flash boards? Do they think artists are incapable of coming up with their own stuff?

Their is actually a benefit to doing work under other people since it helps the animator concentrate better. This is how it is don in the non-freelance world. Having things like deadlines and external expectations trains an animator to be disciplined and efficient.

At 1/18/09 08:24 PM, gunground wrote: Hello, I'm the author of goofoff squad (my new hit series on campnorth.tv). Seeing as I know animation is not too easy, I'm willing to sacrifice 30% of my credit to the animator. My aim is gunground and my msn is gunground@hotmail.com . I highly suggest you add me so we can discuss how this flash will be done. I anxiously await your responses ^_^

30% of the credit or profit? doesn't matter. I need a project for second semester so I might be interested. I just need to know how expansiv the project is (a series?) w/e I'm pm you and help any way I can.

At 1/11/09 02:16 PM, poxpower wrote: Me:

- It's funny

you're scary :D

- I learns things

like how you lay the verbal smackdown better than anyone?

- I believe good ideas propagate like ebola.

Killing %50-%90 of the people they come in contact with :D ..... oh wait..... XP !!!!!!

Maybe I won't convince anyone. But maybe 2 people will read what I wrote and think "hey that's clever"

What a cute idea!

and then later they'll say it to 2 other people and so on and eventually maybe my words will reach 100 people who will have become less stupid.

since they will have researched your claim and come to the definite conclusion that you were wrong

wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

At 1/16/09 04:53 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

I'm not really sure how well rounded this is, but I find reading papers that are hardline one side of a story & then the opposing view hard the other way, makes it easier to get a middle of the road idea to what's going on.

I feel like you're someone I would really hate if I met him in person for being so pompous, but dammit man I respect you.

Remember in loco parentis people! While in their care, the school takes on the same rights and responsibilities that parents have.

You need to ask yourself. Would they allow mothers and fathers to strip search their children?

perhaps...... but eventually, the child would obviously phone the cops and claim she was being abused.

THIS IS SEXUAL ABUSE!!! HOORAH! CASE CLOSED!

At 1/18/09 07:56 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 1/18/09 07:28 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 1/18/09 07:01 PM, poxpower wrote:

You can't have a discussion on atheism without a discussion on religions. Atheism is nothing BUT the rejection of belief.

not true. atheism is not a rejection of belief, its a rejection of divine presence. big difference. It is a belief in itself. For instance, an atheist can still believe in ghosts if it does not conflict with his view that there is not divine presence. An atheist can reason that because things that seemed so far in the realm of science fiction and fantasy (invisibility for example) are in modern very reachable technologies that within science as we know it today there could be some physics explanation as to why groups of energy would be programed to be harmonious and act as an out of body being after someone dies.

At 1/15/09 02:35 AM, physco-pickle wrote: My dad used to hide his stash in the bathroom. It was all really raunchy stuff.
And most of the pages were stuck togethe

he mighta had jam on his fingers from the delicious pb&j he was consuming

Does anyone need reminding that the First Amendment initially provided that ALL SPEECH IS FREE, and subsequent rulings have only restricted it, not the other way around. Since then we have determined that we must restrict some types of speech in certain settings because their is a state interest involved. For instance, you arrest someone for calling a black man a N***** as they pass eachother on the street. This is mostly protected under as a form of public speech. In the case of verbal sexual harassment, if a man harasses a woman, and a complaint is filed, the man's speech can effectively be prohibited. However, this isn't just for sexual harassment but all speeches. If someone is very vocal about their political opinions (they won't shut up about it) and yet is a very efficient worker, they can be fired for being a disturbance in the workforce.

Speech is protected, just not in all cases because in those cases there is a state interest attached to it.

At 1/18/09 07:28 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 1/18/09 07:01 PM, poxpower wrote: No, you see, according to the topic starter, it's not on topic to explain why religions are stupid.

No, cause that's what already 20+ or so topics are for.

This is to highlight one aspect and not go into a general discussion.

Ding Ding!

Character Modification Game

Explanation: A character modification game is based or a completely moldable character. Meaning there are no upgrades for the character, and all the tools that the character can use is already with him from beginning to end. The difference between this kind of character and someone like Mario 64 is that before each level you can change certain attributes to accomodate the strategy you want to imploy for a level. Here's a character I came up with.

Notice how on Level 1 I chose him to have longer legs and a smaller mouth. My long legs means I can run faster, have a longer reach to hit enemies, and grab onto ledges.
On Level 2 I chose him to have a bigger mouth so when he jumps he can grab onto that tree branch overhanging the small gorge. And while it may not be much use in attacking, the extra piece of head he right there makes a good defense item to pary other attack (the enemies aim for the black block) The thing about this game is that players need to be able to switch attributes mid level.

This is intense AI i'm talking here so you probably aren't interested. just wanted to throw it out there.

I don't think trace bitmap would work well in this case. But to clarify, are these jpegs or bmps since you can trace bitmap a jpeg too. Pics will tend to spike the file size regardless.

If you have photoshop export the images at different numbers. Or you can open it in MS Paint and hit save. The result will be slightly degraded but the size will plummet.

At 1/18/09 12:38 PM, cinematicpress wrote:

At 1/17/09 06:13 PM, mikkim wrote: Get a better microphone, newb.

haha for real man? I'm pluged directly into my PC

the mic is the most important part besides how loud the background is. My podcaster makes audacity sing like an angel

At 1/18/09 03:33 PM, OnyxCross wrote: Dack (Minor characters): <OPEN>
Voice: Angst, 20-year old
Mike (Minor characters): <OPEN>
Voice: Angst, 20-year old
Ray (Minor characters): <OPEN>
Voice: Angst, 20-year old
Voice: Western, 40-year old

Thank you for visiting!
-Onyxcross

check your flash forum thread

I make my own sounds. All you need is a mic a good sense of what makes up the sound that you want (I created the sound of something hitting a chainlink fence by shaking a handful of quarter in my hand and combining it with the sound of a necklace inside a coffee mug) and a free audio program like audacity