Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/18/09 04:33 PM, MyztaJay wrote: I'ive only worked on sprites thus far, but i want to branch out, and i wanted to know how is it that people do flashed with characters drawn freehand>? do they make the arms and legs all seperate symbols and manipulate them indvidually? then what about fingers and eyes? seems like an awful lot to control in frame by fram animation? or is there an easier way?

There are a lot of ways to animate, you need to find the one that fits your style and what you want to get out of a flash. I don't see the point in having symbols in an fbf unless it's a looping clip. But basically a few things you need to learn to animate well in fbf are

1. how to use onion skins properly
2. how to preserve the continuity on the stage.

there are a lot of shortcuts and tools in flash that you can use to make your job easier but it's best if you experiment for yourself and learn as you go. Also there are a host of tutorials on newgrounds specifically made for learning fbf.

At 1/18/09 04:56 PM, MyztaJay wrote: on average how long do your flashes take to finish from day1 to the end?

I've been working on mine since 2007 8|

Angst Voice 3
Angst 2
Angst
Western Voice

If that's not the kind of angst you were lookin for sorry.

Flash Gorden - Queen

yes, i have that much stamina.

I blame whoever I like, whenever I like....

Though I don't really blame the jews for anything..... except I've noticed that the quality of eggs they lay decreases the more they bomb gaza.

Now listen up people. I've been sad for a long while and I need a good laugh. In fact, a good laugh won't be enough to save this feeble soul.

What was something that happened to you, you saw, did, or otherwise experienced where you could not control your laughter, far past the time that it should have been funny?

I'm talking Laughing News Reporter Style here, where at some it probably became inappropriate to keep laughing like that.

At 1/18/09 06:55 AM, poxpower wrote:

Here's a hint: atheists don't believe in any specific religions BECAUSE THEY'RE FUCKING STUPID. That's why we reject them.

in the words of David Frost.... I beg your pardon?

At 1/18/09 10:11 AM, GenArmegeddon wrote: I wouldn't mind being drawn. (Gen stands for general btw)

What you can't see can't hurt you.... isn't that right.... general.

Oh yes I forgot

I got GTA4 (though I will never again play that multiplayer online) MGS4, Resistence 2, will soon have LittleBigPlanet and some others.

Ekublai

I'm not onlining much cuz of school, but I'm a pretty good casual gamer.

At 1/17/09 08:15 PM, SatanHam wrote: yah.
but ur forgetting something.

XBX360
PWNS
EVERYTHING

ps3 epic fail

PS3 is the official console of Chi-town.

What would it be? This could degenerate quickly so let's keep it at least semi-clean gentlemen.

Rule: Nothing that is too heavy for you to use realistically.

That should do fine.

Anyway

GO-GO GADGET...... Tin Whistle *doo doo doo*

At 1/17/09 08:17 PM, Al6200 wrote:

Nice work, but just a minor nitpick. You use 270 (the total number of electoral votes needed to win) as the basis of bigvote, but don't use the total number of popular votes as the basis for swing.

I do it this way to emphasize the fact that no one knows how important their vote will be until after the results come in (thus every vote has an uncalculated amount of inherent import). So really everything needs to be done on a need to win principle. The basis of swing needs to be the margin of victory since all votes count as 1 vote and no matter how you arrange the margin of victory in terms of switching people around, the margin will stay the same. However, bigvote needs to use the number that is needed to win because not all states are equal.

In other words, at the beginning of the election in Calfornia, there may as well have been 3,000,000 voters who went 100% for Obama. And at the beginning o fthe electoral process the score is 0-0 so really the bigvote stat is only an initial statement of importance. Once it becomes clear that California is going to obama, the vote importance is reduced and the vote of other individuals in other states increases. We can only attempt to make guesses as to an initial importance for every vote.

At 1/15/09 07:06 PM, Armerad wrote:

Upon looking into some other websites, they all seemed to be rather bad. What are some viable Youtube alternatives?

TL;DR Whats are some good Youtube alternatives?

hulu.com
veoh
truveo is alright
metacafe is okay, but you're not very likely to see any movies in it that aren't porn
daily motion

At 1/17/09 07:53 PM, SkunkyFluffy wrote:

it should be discounted from the discussion, because clearly we cannot prove it.

and so a new counter-argument was born.

At 1/17/09 05:14 PM, GenArmegeddon wrote:

But as it started it said i need to put all the data... which was 29 GB's of memory!!! Besides my PC and PS3 there is nothing in my ouse that holds that much memory.

So im stuck in a position to lose ALL my data. Which i REALLY, REALLY, DO NOT want to do...

You absolutely need a usb flash drive since you can't transfer ps3 data to your pc (different formats)

http://www.brighthub.com/video-games/con sole/articles/5957.aspx

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-back -up-and-import-ps3-game-saves/

the first explains what you need to save and what you might want to let go and the second is a more explicit procedure.

(incredibly scotish voices): SHOOT THE RODS!!! - Resistence

At 1/16/09 01:08 PM, Basspro55 wrote: Pretty good only problem is we need a portable variant of newgrounds so we dont have to spend all of our time in the house

I've been saying that since the beginning.

Also, the only turn-off to this has been that Waterlollies lags like a mo-fo. meh to be expected I guess. I wonder if that could be fixed with a firmware upgrade or if it would need an internal replacement.

Israel products... sorry I would totally boycott too... I haven't seen many "made in Israeli" labels around here.

At 1/17/09 07:01 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 1/17/09 05:09 PM, Psycho-Medic wrote:

I don't think that's exactly how it works. People looting and shooting at national guardsmen because martial law was declared doesn't really fall under the "right to take out the government" part of the constution,

Well then please enlighten me, because I'd certainly like to know.

wait..... isn't the national guard under the command of the state governor when martial law is declared?

so are you saying that in the absence of a stable state government people have the right to shoot at authorities even when at a national level the government is stable? That sounds the same as a state seceding from the union. See there are two slightly contradictory parts of the constitution that must considered for this, and of course there is one very apparent flaw.

Art. 1 sec 9 states that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." the president cannot "technically" do this at any time because its a legislative power that's supposed to used to defend against the executive branch, but the practice has been recently that "states of emergency" have been declared when the executive wants to play the game by his rules.

But the flaw here seems to be that one article of the constitution seems to say that "the government must stop rebellion" and the 2nd amendment says "we must be prepared to the rebel" . In the case of hurricane katrina the power to suspend habeas corpus was well within the power of congress under the "public safety" clause but it was bush who ordered it to happen because it would have taken an impractically long time to pass legislation for the government to act. regardless, it's a weak argument to shoot someone who was trying to stabilize New Orleans with "He was sent by the executive, not the legislative branch"

At 1/16/09 03:46 PM, XwaynecoltX wrote: it has done lots of good by giving help to areas of need, it may not get to everyone or stuff but it does help in a big way

~X~

I definitely agree with, that's why I think eliminating the UN would be very bad idea. It think their needs to be a restructuring of it though. I would much more like to see it be used as a forum so that countries can state their stance on certain issues without having to worry about the international repercussions. Especially in terms of issues like violence and corruption, the U.N is powerless to help, but I think it should be necessary to use it as a vehicle for sustaining a conversation between nations. In many ways, I see the current United Nations as a SOURCE of all the international chaos that is ensuing currently. It alienates countries when the U.N suggests that sanctions should be placed against a certain nation and thus it hinders direct diplomacy. Plus, many nations view it as an organization that aims to let the West rule the world.

At 1/17/09 04:55 PM, Psycho-Medic wrote:
I see it whenever some senator or representative decides that they feel like adding gun control legislation. It might not be high on Obama's priority list, but the senate and the house pass bills all the time that aren't that important, and people are worried he'd sign it into law.
Like I said though, it's not really necessary to go out and grab as many as you can right now, you should have plenty of time if that's what you're trying to do.

The craziness is that no one can predict sort of legislation that will be, what it will say, or what it will argue. Congress has become the weakest branch of government by far, and any legislation they pass is watered down and compromised. Obama has already stated that his views on guns have to do with the region that you're talking about and where you live. So I doubt the senate is going to be much of a force on this issue. And if not, the supreme court just ruled in favor of gun ownership, so the resulting bill will be even weaker.

At 1/16/09 08:09 PM, Alphabit wrote: I lolled when I read that; it's just ridiculous. The inflation rate keeps growing too... It should reach the billions % soon.

lol @ decline of human civilization?

At 1/15/09 09:26 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote:

I'm not suggesting profit sharing or Marxism or socialism or any such nonsense. All I want to know is how do we justify paying people the same for varied work. Doesn't that compel people to do the least possible? Beyond that, is the notion of taking pride in work dead (in America)?

We justify this by asking "which person is doing better work?" "Why is this other person not working as hard as him?"
Now usually the mindset is "we need to hire more people like this first one because he's better"
but in today's market it's more like "we need to see if it would benefit us to have person A or person B, if we can only have one of them since we need to cut jobs, we will take person A"

Someone who works harder nowadays doesn't get more reward, he just gets to keep his job.

I think we can say confidently that William Henry Harrison was the worst president of all time seeing as he only lived 30 days into his first term. Either that or Rutherford B. Hayes because his election effectively ended the Reconstruction and set civil rights back 100 years.

I think Bush will be seen as a president that dissillusioned the Republican Party and got the country into an unpopular war and left as an unpopular president. History will portray him as a person who could've been president in a more reagan-esque time but ultimately had to deal with alot.

For some reason, some people on here think Obama first priority in office will be to hold a Constitutional Conference trying to strike the 2nd amendment. Obama might have his views on weapons, but com'on Obama has a lot more on his mind than people who want to buy guns for their home. In all liklihood Obama is pleased as hell to see that at least one industry (even if it's one he opposes ultimately) is making it through the recession.

But gun control is certainly not gonna be on Obama's to do list for at least the first couple of years. Perhaps everyone has forgot the silly other 'issues' he might be interested in before that.

1. Integration of gays into the military (executive order)
2. Closing of Guantanomo Bay and Federal Hearings for enemy combatants
3. Getting the troops out of Iraq in the next 2 or 3 years.
4. The Economy
5. Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
6. Other foreign threats
7. Other Foreign Relations
8. Alternative Fuel Sources
9. Education Reform
...
...
..

yeah I see gun control around #29 or #34. how about you?

Well I'm glad they did it then either way. It would hurt if they did it now, foreskin looks icky, and the mushroom is funner to play with.

well actually there were about 122,394,724 people who voted in the '08 election

The unit of measurement we shall use for the importance of a vote in a state election is SWING, where one SWING is equal to the amount of vote needs to break up a tie in a state (in other words, 1). SO you can consider an individual vote importance within his own state.

break yourself up into 50 states. Sure you could say "Wow I'm someone from california, my state is always democrat why even vote. Then you see that despite 13 million votes being cast in california 8 million went to obama and 5 million to mccain. in a dead heat you're vote is actually makes 1/3,000,000 SWING. So you need to chop off two 0s off you're denominator for california in your estimate of "importance" Don't forget that state had the BIGGEST MARGIN of VICTORY. Which state had the smallest? Missouri. The margin of victory? 3,900; a win for john mccain. So a single vote was worth 1/3,900 SWING. You don't have to be a gambling addict to take those odds.

Now to measure the overall importance of the vote, we need to take into account that these state elections are all part of the bigger overall election. So the unit of measurement to determine the importance of each state is BigVote % where 1 BigVote is equal to the 538 Electoral Votes in the college.

So California has 55 Electoral Votes at Stake, so it has 10.223% of all electoral votes or 20.446% of the total electoral votes in the country needed to win the election (269 are needed to win) that's a mighty big number. Perhaps that's why 79% of Californian voters turned out. So their BigVote measure is .20446 or .204 for simplicity's sake. Now a person's vote is less effective in the general population vote. But let's see from simple math how much less important. Multiplying the BigVote with the numerator of the the state's measure of SWING gets you the BigVote-Swing measure. In California, a single vote made .20446/3,262,692 BigVote-Swing in the general election. What this measures in the real world is that if all the states operated in the general election like California did it would be as if every person's vote was going to make a 1/15,957,605 difference in the vote, which is about the odds you get in a state lottery (remember this is a country wide election).

Anyway in missouri's case you have a 1/3,900 SWING but you have a smaller percent of the vote 4/538 of 4/269 for the votes needed to win. so the BigVote is .01487. However, the electoral process was originally designed to level the playing field so smaller states would get a voice. Let's see how true that is. ( .01487 BigVote * 1 SWING) / 3903 so a person from missouri actually has a 1/262,474 BigVote*SWING. Holy moly! That's a significantly more important vote. That's as if there were only 262,474 people living in the U.S That's how much a missouri voters vote counted for this past election.

You're quite right that as the population of the U.S increase the importance of an individuals vote decreases from mathematical perspective. But there are several key factors that you need to look in this demonstration.

California, although every individual's vote might have the least amount of sway in the state and general election, comes out in floods to the voting booths because the state has 55 electoral votes to give out. A huge incentive. So really when it comes down to it, in the eyes of the rest of the nation, a particular vote from California could represent a single vote in a country of a much smaller size. Californians have always had power in teh electoral college because of that 55 number and that's why they consider their vote to be important.

For missouri, a record number of voters turned out because while they don't have as many electoral votes as some of the other states (though 11 is nothing to scoff at) they were a Swing State and in a dead heat which is something that cannot be declared until the votes have been counted. The incentive in Missouri to vote comes way before election day, when campaigns start pouring ludicrous amounts of money into advvertising there. the people of missouri see that they're in teh national spotlight, and they say "my vote counts" and it did.

Also, I kept referencing the lottery because people gamble their money on something where the odds are so out of their reach and the factors so uniform, that to gamble away your vote by not voting in something as uncertain as an election.... just doesn't make sense.

/mathematical rant

/this was not scientifically done.

I learned two bits of interesting information today. AND NOW I'M TOTALLY JACKED OVER IT!!! The second piece of news is kinda old but the 1st one i think just came out today.

1) Youtube on PS3 browser.

Okay yea so maybe you've tried to get on youtube on your ps3 before. I haven't because I assumed since the Flash Player on the PS3 browser was a modified version of 7 that it meant .flv wasn't supported. But I just found out to today that Youtube has released console friendly version of its video site for the Wii and PS3. This is awesome cuz that means if I want to start sharing my flashes on youtube I can animate in HD and Fullscreen It and watch my flash in 1080i. How's that for a slice of fried gold? Not to mention watching "Jizz in my Pants" in HD on my big tv.

2) Adobe Flash on PS3 updated

Tis true. I think within the first week of having my PS3 I checked to see if it could play Newgrounds flashes (test toon: Waterlollies) I was partially disapointed. While it did technically play the toon (and it certainly looked better than it did on my comp screen), I realized that AS3 didn't work and it was using Flash player 7 which meant alot of the content of interactive elements of flashes were lost.

However, just recently they upgraded the browser to Flash player 9. I seriously don't know what took em that long, but now that I know it's there I'm gonna test it out to see if it works with waterlollies..... And then..... oh and then *giggling* I'll see how far I can get in a flash game.

Youtube on PS3
Flash 9 (and by extension Newgrounds) onn PS3

At 1/12/09 10:42 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

So if your going to protest this terrible event, protest for Hamass to lay down their guns for the good of their people. But be prepared for nothing to happen, except this gang of killers to keep on putting Palestinian men,women & of course the children in harms way.

So basically you're trying to say that we're supposed to be protesting against a terrorist group? Isn't that sort of like protesting against al qaida? Terrorist groups are made up of sociopaths who care nothing for people's lives but understand that other people do care and they exploit that weakness. They are fueled by power hungry individuals who want to achieve their ideological or financial demands. Protesting against hamas is completely useless. Knowing this, you are telling us to waste our time. You offer no solutions but to allow the continued bombings of civilians.

You want to protest & put pressure on stopping this conflict that is in my opinion the way to doit.

Again, by telling us to do this you're offering a non solution because Israel has always been in control of the situation. They are the one with the firepower, the resources. Evidentally, however they do not have the sense to realize that retaliating, they are supporting the ones that terrorize them by going through human shields without guilt. What if instead of civilians the shields were other Israeli soldiers? Well by your proposal they should just mow whoever is standing between them and hamas leaders. And then they will justify this by saying it was an honorable death for the soldiers. what have the soldiers turned into in the meantime? Terrorists.

Any other way just shows you are on Hamass's side, so your helping a terrorist organization whether you mean to or not, that's what your doing.

I support the way to peace. And the way that you believe in is one that would, if continued, lead to not only the destruction of all palestinians, but also the destruction of Israel.