Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/3/11 10:58 PM, adrshepard wrote:

At 4/3/11 10:46 PM, Gario wrote: Wait, isn't that another form of oppression? No wonder the world often hates America...

By the way, calling for the oppression of those that don't believe in your belief (of tolerance) is technically just as destructive. You'd be willing to lead a campaign against those that are intolerant of other's beliefs?

I'd keep my targeted belief systems to those such as "anyone who destroys a certain mass-produced book I like deserves to die" and the like. I'll find some way to manage the crippling moral ambiguity and soul-searching that entails.

Yeah, that's going to have an affect on... one group of religious people I can think of. May as well just come out and say 'Let's kill those damn Muslims that are getting angry at the sacrilege on their holy book & the intolerance against their religion'. Wouldn't that be cleaner and get to the point faster? That would also make you look rather savage - people get upset at public displays of sacrilege, to the point that riots and, yes, death at times occur. For a Christian example, someone from Westboro came to my university once and through his sacrilege (and the sacrilege from those in the crowd, in response) caused all sorts of anger and even nearly started a riot or two (thankfully the police stopped anything from escalating). Bible burnings, public displays of homosexual embrace and kissing (Truly I wouldn't mind except it was solely to piss off Christians, not to represent love), hateful shouting, it had it all. The second time I brought up this story today - man, what a day.

The point is, if the police didn't intervene there could've been some serious injuries from the rioting (due solely to the blatant attacks on everyone's beliefs), which makes this situation analogous (if a little less extreme) than the Muslims across the ocean. Tell me, who would you punish, the 'pastor' & his followers for being intolerant of other people's belief, the people that wanted to take the 'pastor' down due to his intolerance of their belief or both? Pick your words carefully.

At 4/3/11 10:12 PM, adrshepard wrote: No, it's the entire point. Calling for the death or imprisonment of someone solely because his beliefs conflict with yours is inherently destructive. That mode of thinking has been behind nearly every single form of oppression and many horrible atrocities throughout history.

It is not a legitimate "cultural value" and we have a responsibility to stamp it out whenever and wherever we can. A civilized tolerance for other people's opinions is a Western value that deserves to be forced upon others.

Wait, isn't that another form of oppression? No wonder the world often hates America...

By the way, calling for the oppression of those that don't believe in your belief (of tolerance) is technically just as destructive. You'd be willing to lead a campaign against those that are intolerant of other's beliefs? Goodbye anyone who has any religious affiliations at all - virtually anyone religious draws a line as to what they can tolerate (and there are far more of these people than 'tolerant' people in the world... and that's not to mention those non-religious that don't tolerate other's beliefs). That would make all other oppressions pale in comparison.

Sorry, I didn't understand the problem.

If it's sampled, why don't you start the sample at ~2% (or less) into the file, after the click? I know that's possible in NN-XT, not too sure about Korg (again, Reason 3.0, no Korg - sadness). Alternatively, you could fix the click manually via Audacity and re-upload the sound. If it's a problem with the sample itself (which is what you're saying, by the sound of it) you'd be hard pressed to fix it in the compressor, especially if it's in the beginning, like you said. Even if you could, it's much easier just to fix the sample itself.

Once the sampled click is gone you can add the correct amount of click artificially via compressor, limitors, etc. That's how I'd approach it, anyway.

Aren't we just retreading old ground now?

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1188 911

At 4/3/11 05:06 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 4/3/11 03:18 PM, gmercerd wrote: There is a pretty strong correlation between international terror attacks and Islamic faith. You don't see the same kind of thing from Catholics.

Yes there is, it's just that it isn't as easy to critizise catholicism without someone you know getting upset, since you live in a mostly christian state, and a large part of the media does whatever it can to create resentment between muslims and the west (not just portraying muslims as bad to the western world, but also making a big show whenever some retard goes burning a quran, painting muhammed with a bomb in his head or whatever).

IRA, Army of God, Lambs of Christ... There's plenty of christian terror groups. And islamic terror in the western world is pretty minor compared to separatist terrorism; in europe 2010, only a single act of terrorism where connected to islamism, while 237 where from separatists (and an additional bunch from left- or rightwing activists or single issue groups).

Christian =/= Catholic, bro. Catholicism gets flak all the time by Christians in this country because it is the relative minority (20% isn't too bad, but it is compared to the 60+% of non-Catholic Christians). 'Pope will burn in hell' signs, Crucifix burnings (at least back with the KKK), general hatred for the Church (generally exercised by non-Catholic Christians, by the way)... it's nowhere near the levels of Islam hatred, but it is fairly prominent.

Backward associations are incorrect. Don't lump em' all together like that.

For the OP, yeah, that guy was a moron. He had the right to do what he did, but... well, rights can be abused. While I don't support taking his right away, I do want to acknowledge that his actions are a perfect example of an abuse of the privilege.

I'd suppose that the inverse would work to your advantage, as well - lower the compression ratio to something like 2:1 - 4:1 and adjust the threshold accordingly. That'll decrease the click.

Hmm... when it comes to compression, if the click isn't happening where I want it to be (or the body isn't as full as I need it to be) I'll first check the sample to see if such a thing is even possible. Some samples just don't have enough to work with in order to get the sound you want. This can be fixed by EQ'ing the portion that's weak or doubling/tripling the bass drum and compressing them all as one unit. In other words, changing the sample can help.

If it's not the sample then take a look at both the compression ratio and the threshold. For more 'click' the ratio needs to be pretty high (8:1 +, for decent 'click') and the threshold will help give the sound more or less body. Set the input gain high enough where the effect is heard clearly and set the output gain loud enough so your drums are loud enough to hear and... well, there ya go. Hopefully that helps you with your sound.

I'm assuming Reason 5.x still runs off the mclass series of compressors primarily. I wouldn't know - I haven't been able to afford Reason since 3.0... I'm so jealous :(

At 4/2/11 09:48 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 4/2/11 07:18 PM, Psil0 wrote:

At 4/1/11 07:31 PM, test-object wrote: Religions never started wars. People twisting the words of a God do.
"Gott" was never with the Deutsch, the white man isn't Satan and God does not bless America more than any other country.

This.

War is never the result of religion, but of human stupidity and arrogance.

The Catholic Church isn't religious now? Doesn't derive it's power from religion and dogma? Really? I was unaware.

I think the point was that the people that are using the religion to back up their wars are to blame, not the philosophies and theologies of the religion, itself (especially when the theologies of the religion supposedly oppose the act of war). Whether or not it's the clergy or the religion to blame for past atrocities of the Catholic Church, I'd put the blame on the clergy of the time, not the religion.

Then again, considering what side of the fence I'm on I suppose there's a little bias in that opinion. Take it with a grain of salt.

As far as the OP goes, no, the Christian religion didn't influence Hitler any more than the Russian Orthodox Church influenced Stalin's actions. Jews were persecuted (along with Gypsies and Homosexuals) because "they had no connection to the genuine spirit of the German people", meaning they could not be assimilated into the German culture, not because they killed Christ. This sentiment was around long before Hitler hit the podium, so he was just riding on what the crowd thought.

I wish this were me, but I have seen it done before.

http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01844/

It's amazing, by the way. It can be done.

You speak the truth, Iron Hamster.

I'd be far better if this topic was presented today rather than a few days ago - at least then I could take it as a joke.

Hmm... while he was indeed a Christian, I thought he derived many of his more twisted points from Wagner's philosophical writings, not Christian teaching.

I think for the most part the government wouldn't get anywhere close to enforcing that premarital sex is illegal, so I don't see what the issue it. It's a dumb proposal, there's really not much to talk about (much in the same way as there'd be nothing to talk about if someone proposed the enforcement of [enter random religious reason here] with stoning. It's simply ridiculous.

There's a politician out there that's an idiot? Huh, imagine that...

I'd say they're blowing steam out their ass. What's the consensus, and what's the sample? Where did they take their numbers from? Without any sort of source they can say whatever the hell they want. Mind you, that doesn't mean that it's wrong, per se, but you can't make any sort of conclusion based on that information alone.

If you'd like to use some of my music send me a PM and I'll give you permission to use it. Direct permission from the artist is enough as long as their the sole owner of the tracks (which is the case for the tracks on here).

At 3/25/11 02:01 PM, HardPenStrokes wrote:

At 3/25/11 04:27 AM, sorohanro wrote:

At 3/25/11 02:33 AM, HardPenStrokes wrote: So was this resolved? What was the outcome?

Profile & music deleted from Soundcloud, Facebook DJ something something...
Record label officials coming here and apologize and most important getting interested in original authors music.

I am concerned about uploading music and getting it stolen like so many here did.

Well, you can take it as a compliment. It gets stolen only if it's good.

Just so you all know, she is speaking through someone called @DJPlur on Twitter saying that it was HER music that was stolen and her attorney is suing Newgrounds and the musicians here that stole her music! WTH? I saw that and read this thread, I guess I am confused.

I made an account to ask him to give us links to the stolen tracks. Let's see if s/he is dumb enough to follow through - it could be another avenue of advertising for all of you, lol.

While we're suggesting stickies, this thread would be very useful to keep at the top.

Audio Portal Cleanup

It will not be needed all the time, but when it is it'd be great if it were readily available.

At 3/19/11 08:12 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 3/19/11 07:11 PM, Ericho wrote: I mean, I am not going to be praying for or against him and will instead simply do nothing.

Ok, but how is that neutral? Why are you neither praying for nor against him again? Or is your decision to neither pray for nor against him completely unrelated to your feelings about him?

Not praying for someone is the status quo, since it's an active effort. Of course, if someone feels the need to say they're not praying for someone then it's not neutral anymore, so you already messed that one up, Ericho. Atheists probably don't care whether or not anybody is praying for the guy ('for' or 'against'), so there's no need to bring up what religious people are doing in response to the situation.

He's using FL studio, like he said in the first post :P

Make it fade out after a single loop and you have a song. Cut out the intro and you have a loop. VG music written on trackers tend to have this combination of intro and loop, but it's not really possible to upload on most sites in a listenable format.

I'd go the FO route, if you want people to get the effect.

I've seen the uncensored version of the video, too. I'd say the kid was crying, myself, but it's easy to mix the two up, considering they look nearly the same (and considering the original footage is terrible quality, there's no way to claim that either one of us is right).

I think I mixed up other sources saying that his ankle was broken and that particular link, since it's not on that page, so sorry for that mix-up. No edit button = no fix.

At 3/17/11 02:09 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Uh, no. You can't quantify utility.

You don't need to, nor did I ever specifically quantify it. All you need to show is that virtually 100% of the population will treat high amounts of money the same, which has already been done.

While you're right diminishing marginal utility, all this tells us is the utility in relation to other units of money relative to himself. Although a man will value his millionth dollar less than his first, you have no way of measuring whehter or not he values his millionth dollar less than any given person values any certain dollar of theirs.

Not specifically, but it's easy to show that 99+% of the population will treat high amounts of money similarly to low amounts across a given society.

Let's do a basic game theory experiment. You are offered 2,000,000 dollars on the spot or a coin flip chance to win 10,000 dollars, which would you (or for that matter any rational person) chose? Almost 100% of the time the person will chose the sure 2,000,000 dollar choice, even though all things being equal if the utility of the dollar was the same throughout the person should've chosen the 10,000,000 dollar award (50/50 of 10,000,00 is an expected value of 5,000,000 - far more than the immediate 2,000,000 dollar award). Take that test with anybody - it proves that the utility of the dollar decreases significantly (easily more than 50%, according to the experiment) after it hits an indiscriminate amount (that, by the way, is far less than the amounts that we deal with when we talk about "the rich"). So after we hit 10,000,000 dollars (in this experiment - we could go lower if you want) the value of the dollar decreases by over 50%. Do this experiment with anybody - you're bound to get the same result nearly every single time, which will further prove my point that the value of the dollar reduces by a ridiculous amount after a point.

Point is, even though you can't theoretically prove my point, my point can be been proven experimentally. Argue if you want, but that supports my opinion better than it does yours.

Virtually anybody values their millionth dollar more than anybody values their first with well over 99% accuracy. I can shift this argument to encompass different values, if you'd like, but since we're only talking about the rich shifting it under a million isn't relevant to the conversation anymore.

Perhaps more importantly, the idea that coercively extracting money from people because "they can afford it" is disgusting, especially considering how much moralising people who advocate this position do.

I agree. I don't know how that has anything to do with the topic at hand - a flat rate is a motion that treats the rich and the poor equally (unless, as mentioned earlier, you accept that according to utility theory the poor are indeed hit harder by a flat rate, in which case the rich are ahead of the game). There's really no way that a flat rate hurts the rich unless you want them to experience no taxes at all, which isn't very good for the government, overall (considering they constitute about 50-90% of the country's income, pending on who counts as 'rich'), or you want to tax the rich 50% or something. Even then it hurts the poor just as much (if not more) than the rich so it really doesn't 'benefit' the poor in the end, anyway.

Further, the idea that "helping the poor" is a matter of the government being able to obtain enough money from its citizens is just plain stupid... blah blah government shouldn't help the poor blah...

You have no clue what you're talking about in this thread. Flat rate taxes do not benefit the poor in any way, shape or form. In fact, flat rate taxes help the rich, if anything. In fact, you should support the motion flat taxes, if you want to support the rich. Insert your diatribe of the poor getting all the benefits somewhere else - it doesn't fit this context.

People have discussed it before, and figured out why it wouldn't be such a great thing, in the end.

Yeah, these are the same people who think the government can fix everything, even though they're leading america into a fucking depression.

There are many things leading the Americans into a depression, and blaming the people that want the government to help the poor is an easy position that oversimplifies a complicated problem that both supporters of the rich and poor contribute to... but that's not the point of this thread. Why are you even bringing this up? If you want to talk about how the poor are ruining the county then start a thread about it.

Pick a side. Do you support flat taxes or not, and if not, why? So far you're just rambling about the poor and the rich, which has little to do with the thread until you chose your position. Take a deep breath and try again. It's a simple question.

Listen to 'epic' music. Take note of what you like and how they achieve the effect. No one here could actually tell you how to make something 'epic' simply because that's quite subjective.

Perhaps you could be more specific and show us what type of 'epic' you're going for?

If anyone wants details on what the fight was, where it was and why, this link provides some explanation.

In short, though.
What: Short kid + group of friends pick a fight. While it looks silly with the 'short kid' fighting 'Zangeif', there's actually a group of bullies involved (three or more, if you watch the video), so it's actually a gang situation (which sucks for the bigger kid).

The short kid is probably not laughing at the end, considering he broke his ankle.

Where: Australia - not the US :P

Why: The bullies wanted to post the fight on the internet and tease/taunt the bigger kid with it. Half their plan went well, I guess.

The situation is quite fucked up. I can't say much since I was home schooled for the better part of my education, but I do understand enough that if you go crying for help it makes the rest of your school year a living nightmare. Parents that give the advice to 'ignore the bully' know nothing about the situation - bullies thrive on that and use it to justify attacking the victim. Teachers can help curb the situation if their observant, but many of them do not have the knowledge to do so (e.g. many elementary/high school teachers are not smart enough to figure these things out - no offense). Parents have the ultimate power to sway the bullies and victims, but parents are fucking retarded about their children most of the time and either ignore the situation completely or nurture the behavior (either intentionally or unintentionally).

While I feel the fat kid could have reacted in a less extreme manner earlier in his career as a victim (show the bully some pain before the bully gets confident and thus possibly prevent the situation that occurred), given the situation I'd say that was pretty much his only option, there. I must also add that the girl that interjected before the situation got worse was really quite remarkable - not too many people do that, really.

For score writing, the Sibelius and Finale series are your best bet. They're the top of the field, and I've seen people that swear by both of them. I'm a Sibelius guy myself, but they're both top tier programs. They're not cheap, though (cough *500$+* cough). If you use Linux the Lilypond scorewriter is pretty powerful (and free)... but then again, that's for Linux, if you want a graphic input. Other OS systems can only use the text input, which is a pain. It's free, though :)

For recording, Audacity is an excellent place to start. It's flexible, it's powerful, and it's free. It comes with most of the tools needed to touch up any soundclip with cross fading, compression, fade in/out, etc.. There are other tools that are more powerful (such as Pro Tools), but for the price Audacity can't be beat (and you won't need a program like Pro Tools until you really get deep into the music production field).

Reaper, FL Studio, Cubase and Reason are all excellent DAWs (Digital Audio Workstation) to look into if you'd like to sequence the music yourself & produce high quality soundtracks. They each have their perks, so you'd need to try all of them and figure out what works best for you. Reaper, while I find it a little less user friendly, is free (at least the demo of it is full-functioning and never expires - the license is not expensive, though). FL Studio is very accessible in comparison but the demo is limited (so you'd need to buy a copy if you get serious). Reason has the most accessible features out of the box and comes with some high quality synths, but it does not support the VST/VSTi plugin (which is the standard for most programs). Cubase... well, I'm not familiar with that DAW, but from what I hear it's very good, too.

I hope that helps a little, there - Acid-Paradox made a link to some tutorials, so go check them out :)

That's not a flat rate tax, bro - it's a proportional tax that takes the same ratio from everyone else like, say, a 9% for all. The argument is similar, though, due to utility - a 9% cut from someone with 1,000,000 dollars won't hurt the utility of their wealth as much as taking 9% of someone with 100 dollars. It's a fact that as the amount of money increases the utility value of it goes down dramatically.

People have discussed it before, and figured out why it wouldn't be such a great thing, in the end.

This is one hell of an epic necro, bro.

Voting before the age of 18? Hell, if I had a say in it I'd say no one below 21 and there'd need to be a proficiency examination on politics, but meh. My opinion is a minority on this issue.

Looks to me like the biggest F.U. to saving for your future ever. Good job, Illinois - way to send a good message about saving money to everybody.

First time here too, I take it? It goes there.

The one in the beginning sounds like a high-filtered saw with side-chaining. The sweeps after that sound like a PWM with a low/mid filter (and side-chained, of course). The two together thus don't take any space from each other and sound good together.

Actually I might try that sometime - it's a good idea :P

At 3/14/11 04:46 PM, Envy wrote:

A 4.5 is a 90%. If out of all the songs in the world, your song is considered to be a 90/100 then you are fucking jesus christ. I don't think there have been any songs worthy of a 90% score for a long time.

I don't know, I find that at least one tenth of the songs that I hear deserve that score or better.

Your stuff is certainly good, though. Just keep it up and eventually things will balance out. As for the time of day to post, I'd say people who take the audio portal seriously should post at 8:30 p.m. The time is somewhat arbitrary (except for the fact that people who like your track could vote more than once if they see it zero-bombed hardcore, theoretically), but if everyone (or close to everyone) who took the audio portal seriously posted at the same time + voted for other people's tracks it would balance out the daily zero-bombers much better.

That takes a consensus, though. Ah well, if you post at about that time there's a decent chance that I'll be around to vote fairly, at least.