Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

• 
  Sailing Off by joshhunsaker

  fun little song

  Score

  0 / 5.00

  Type

  Song

  Genre

  Miscellaneous

  Popularity

  4 Views

• Loading...

yeah

At 12/29/12 03:43 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Why would you blame this on Obama? Congress determines their own salaries without Presidential involvement.

Not really, Obama issued an executive order instituting the raise actually.

With another raise:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/274781-
congress-federal-workers-to-get-pay-increase

It's more the principle of the thing but you would think Obama would realize this was a pretty f**king awful decision. Why not wait until the country wasn't sinking itself with debt to start giving monetary pats on the back to people working for the government?

Ugh.

At 12/13/12 04:22 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Didn't we cover this while talking about the possibility to harness the Earth's rotational energy?

Yeah, but no-one else joined in and that other guy trolled me pretty hard with all kinds of strawman/red herring arguments and ad hominem attacks. So this is meant to be a little specific.

At 12/13/12 11:15 AM, WadeFulp wrote:

At 12/13/12 11:13 AM, joshhunsaker wrote: For funsies, I want to get a poll going on this:

Could you build and install enough geothermal devices on the earth to dissipate the required heat from the lithosphere to effectively destroy the core?

I doubt it. Maybe we'd delay some volcanic eruptions or something.

I'll just say that this was also my thought... and this:
http://www.savingiceland.org/2010/10/geothermal-energy-runni ng-out/

Which points to the far greater likelihood that you can suffer localized depletion which in no way affects even the mantle.

For funsies, I want to get a poll going on this:

Could you build and install enough geothermal devices on the earth to dissipate the required heat from the lithosphere to effectively destroy the core?

Remember we are talking about something that is actually possible to build/maintain not some wild fantasy "well if God and an army of magic carebears were to build it of course it would"

I guess I'm lucky I don't know you in real life. Count your blessings.

At 12/12/12 04:44 PM, 24901miles wrote: It's baffling to you because you fundamentally misinterpreted "big enough geothermal engine" as something wholly different.

Wow, uh. What exactly are you defining "geothermal engine" to mean? Something other than a power plant that harvests energy from heat generated by the earth and stores it in say batteries or distributes it to a grid?

And no, fission energy is not magical new energy which breaks the laws of thermodynamics. It's the release of nuclear energy stored in the core from the formation of the Earth.

Brilliant, you're absolutely correct that fission is not "magic". I don't think that was ever a debate here. I also am pretty sure that I wasn't arguing against fundamental laws like thermodynamics (correct me if I'm wrong, maybe at some point that doesn't exist I typed "geothermal applications absolve the need to obey physical laws like conservation of momentum and thermodynamic principles"). Obviously, the whole idea here is that if you harvest a shit-ton of heat, convert it to energy while on the earth, store it, and then release it to power electrical grids or whatever else while on the earth it remains part of the closed system and eventually gets turned back into heat again at some point.

Even if you were to shoot massive batteries containing all the harvested heat possible into space never to be used again on earth, it wouldn't make a difference compared to the losses of tidal friction generated by the presence of the moon on the length of each day and subsequently the amount of total energy left in earth's quasi-closed system.

Reading is haaaard. Go back to the Audio Portal.

Are you this obnoxious in real life? Man, time has not been kind to you.

At 12/12/12 03:59 PM, 24901miles wrote: You're welcome to make any argument you would like to make on the subject, but don't pretend I said something which I did not say in order to segway into your love of geothermal energy.

As I look at this again, really this is absolutely the most infuriatingly asinine thing you possibly could have said. It's like if I created a thread about how "Disney as a company eats monkey balls" and then when someone called me out on it I told them to stop pretending I said Disney sucks because they're obviously a nazi.

Honestly now I more am just wondering what the next response could possibly be.

At 12/12/12 03:59 PM, 24901miles wrote: Welcome to hyperbole. I need to get your attention so you can stop pretending I said "the earth is going to freeze to death if we drill holes in the crust". And that's exactly what you're think you're arguing against.

Right, ok let me step you through this. Because that's exactly what you were saying. Maybe you forgot.

At 12/11/12 06:38 PM, 24901miles wrote: Earth will eventually cool down. If you build a big enough Geothermal Engine, it will destroy the core.

The earth certainly IS cooling down, but an infinitesimally inconsequential portion of that is due to heat dissipation. So what did I do? I countered your very specific argument about destruction of the core being potentially heat dependent. I'm not going to quote myself because I'm pretty sure you can check what I said on page 1 of this thread.

What I said was that geothermal energy is limited, much more-so than space-based solar power, but it's more cost effective

No, what you said is very succinctly listed above. Do you remember what you also said? This:

At 12/12/12 12:55 AM, 24901miles wrote: Yes really. The earth has a finite amount of energy, and it's already used to stabilize the ecosystem which gave rise to everything we know. Over-taxing the system is entirely possible

Which is effectively reinforcing your argument that through some magical means geothermal energy could cause the core to be "destroyed". You also tried to bolster your argument on the idea that there is some kind of uber delicate heat-based Goldilocks zone that our earth currently rests in which has the potential to be catastrophically upset by sapping a bunch of extra heat from the lithosphere. Except this isn't true because the earth has been jettisoning heat for billions of years to support the closed system of earth's geosphere, biosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere.

All energy coming from the core is part of the persistent heat left over from the origin of the planet.

Except that this isn't true either. Do you know what fission is? Did you bother to check anything I referenced? Yes, some of the core's inertial energy is due to the momentum gained by accretion when earth was formed. A majority of it in the cores is due to fissile processes and a majority of the geothermal gradient (crustal heat) is due to radioactive decay (that would be 80% unless you'd like to revise wiki with some other figure that you've garnered through your scientific study of the earth).

You're welcome to make any argument you would like to make on the subject, but don't pretend I said something which I did not say in order to segway into your love of geothermal energy.

Where did I say anything about loving geothermal energy? Go ahead and maybe actually read through my posts (novel idea right?). Do you see anything akin to "FUCKING GEOTHERMAL ENERGY BITCH IT'S THE BIZNESS" or even "wow, go geothermal energy you'll save everything" or even "geothermal is cool stuff". NO. That's because I didn't say it.

Your interpretation of what is happening here is so baffling that really I am almost impressed that you've managed to get so much wrong so quickly about what I was arguing.

At 12/12/12 03:04 PM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/12/12 03:03 PM, joshhunsaker wrote: Congrats.

Troll Award? Please learn to read. I will attack you to infinity every time you interpret a list as a causal argument.

Here I was still hoping for some kind of actual response that didn't involve a logical fallacy. That's too bad, I enjoy a good argument. Newgrounds has really devolved it seems.

At 12/12/12 10:34 AM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/12/12 03:16 AM, joshhunsaker wrote: So fission provides little new energy eh?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/07/18/
nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-ear ths-heat/

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11085.full

Maybe if you knew how to fucking read a sentence, understood what a fucking comma meant,

Your ad hominem attacks really do nothing for your position.

and had prior fucking access to this information

I did already know this actually. I felt the need to pull articles to reference it because it seemed that you didn't. But you don't know anything about me as an individual so attacking me based assumptions I guess is only what I would expect from a person who wants to defend an untenable position on the internet. Silly I expected anything else.

rather than googling it until you smile, you'd be able to put forth a solid argument.

You've successfully totally avoided actually responding to any of my points. I'll be sure to send you the "Successful Troll" award as soon as I have your address. Congrats.

Also, if you could respond to the part about tidal-based losses dominating that would be great. You might actually have the basis for an argument if you can some wriggle around the really shaky ground you've erected for your thesis here.

At 12/12/12 01:47 AM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/12/12 01:11 AM, joshhunsaker wrote: You're telling me that you can sap enough heat from geothermal to stop the earth. Right. You do realize difference between the surface area of the earth and the volume of the mantle, outer core and inner core right?

The sun also has a finite amount of energy so your argument is a pretty shit one on that basis.

Of course I know the rock I stand on. I've been through third grade without having that knowledge questioned.

Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this response. Anyway.

Not shit if you use your brain for understanding what the fuck I'm saying instead of just sticking your toes in your ears and thinking with your toilet.

Wow, really. Ok lets proceed then mr science.

The earth's mass is 1/333,300th that of the sun, it does not fuse atoms, there is little new energy entering the core

So fission provides little new energy eh?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/07/18/
nuclear-fission-confirmed-as-source-of-more-than-half-of-ear ths-heat/

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11085.full

"The geomagnetic field is evidence of a powerful energy source at or near the center of the Earth." <emphasis added>

"The composition of the inner core is inextricably connected to ideas as to the energy source that powers the geomagnetic field as described below."

So, there goes your argument.

Also, the impact from the tidal friction does way more to lengthen the time for each day than heat dissipation. Viz. I'm pretty sure an entirely immense amount of heat has been dissipated over the past 4.5 billion - and that heat as far as the white papers and analysis I've seen amounts to jack shit of the difference between the 40 extra days that every year contained at the earth's inception and the length of a year now.

You know what did make a difference? Tidal friction. DUR

At 12/12/12 12:55 AM, 24901miles wrote:

At 12/12/12 12:25 AM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 12/11/12 06:38 PM, 24901miles wrote: a big enough Geothermal Engine

Not really

Yes really. The earth has a finite amount of energy, and it's already used to stabilize the ecosystem which gave rise to everything we know. Over-taxing the system is entirely possible, whereas the sun also has limited resources, yet in a far greater number. The reasoning behind geothermal power is that it can be harvested with common materials, whereas space based systems cost 15 grand per pound and use rare earth minerals.

What?

You're telling me that you can sap enough heat from geothermal to stop the earth. Right. You do realize difference between the surface area of the earth and the volume of the mantle, outer core and inner core right?

The sun also has a finite amount of energy so your argument is a pretty shit one on that basis.

At 12/11/12 06:38 PM, 24901miles wrote:

Earth will eventually cool down. If you build a big enough Geothermal Engine, it will destroy the core.

Not really, most of the heat generation is accomplished by radioactive decay, core nuclear reaction and material friction. Even if you covered the entire lithosphere with geothermal collectors you wouldn't make a dent.

Sounds like a voltage supply in the source your earbuds are connected to is shorting periodically to the audio output. You probably have very low skin resistance.

At 12/7/12 02:04 AM, GACBassPlayer wrote: You will always, always, always get more bang for your buck going the headphone route. If you are dead-set on speakers, and honestly it's foolish, go DIY. Bookshelf speakers are easy to build. Crossovers are very straight-forward for beginners, and the enclosures are usually easy to work with. All you need is the electronics, some decent cones, a pre-cut enclosure kit, glue, and some tools.

Wow, really I wouldn't recommend this actually. Unless you're going by a strict part-express style building guide and you have woodworking equipment, throwing an arbitrary woofer and tweeter into an "enclosure" with a "simple" cross-over is not going to work well unless you happen to get really lucky or really know what you are doing.

Three words: thiele small parameters

Another vote for Dragon Warrior 4. Fucking epic.

Also Final Fantasy XII of course

At 11/29/12 09:21 AM, seel wrote: Could be due to bit depth conversion and lack of dithering. Every time you convert down (32fp to 24bit, 24 to 16, 16 to 8 etc., you don't have to dither when converting up though) you'll introduce some artifacts unless you dither, convert up and down a lot and you'll be left with one hell of a mess.

Dithering really does nothing. Do you know anyone that can detect quantization noise at -90dbfs? While listening at a normal reference volume? Not if the normal reference volume isn't going to destroy your hearing and the hearing of the people in the next room.

@ OP, you should always limit your audio to -0.2dBfs or lower before converting to a lossy format such as mp3 to avoid intersample clipping.

This has nothing to do with intersample clipping. It has to do with the algorithm the psychoacoustic masking process uses. On lower bitrates, the process causes aggressive variation in the output decibel level (up to around 1.5db overs for heavily limited material).

Also, ask someone who thinks they understand intersample clipping to describe the significance of why it causes audible signal degradation and it becomes really really funny to watch them try to answer. True story. Go ahead. Try it.

Honestly, I regret deeply purchasing anything from EastWest. The Play engine is a dog... where the hell is the disk-streaming? If it implements any kind of disk-streaming at all whatever it is doing totally blows.

At 11/17/12 04:19 PM, ChimeraNoise wrote: A great amp on a small budget would be the Orange Micro Terror

Seconded. The Orange stuff for the money in terms of amps is unbeatable honestly.

At 11/17/12 03:00 PM, TheTruth34 wrote:

speak english

youre a god damned dummy

no need to get angry I couldn't understand a thing that you typed in the caption

Yeah, honestly Boss your spelling/syntax is in serious need of help. I understand maybe 10% of what's going on in your posts lol.

You could try a stock audio site. I do a fair bit of raw sound design and have my fx part of my portfolio here:

http://audiojungle.net/collections/165476-sound-fx-packs-fol ey?ref=joshhunsaker

At 11/15/12 02:45 AM, bassfiddlejones wrote:

I bounced it at 48 kHz, instead of the 44.1 khz that Newgrounds says is necessary. Could that be my issue? (because all of my songs are at 48 kHz and this is the only one that has the issue)

Yeah, don't bounce at 48khz. There really is almost never any reason to export any file at 48khz. Then you just have to resample later on.

Low bitrate mp3s can actually cause +1db overs or even slightly more upon encoding. The lower the bitrate, the more likely you are to have distortion on the mp3 export if you've limited heavily at digital zero on the track in your DAW.

I've seen +1.5 - 1.7db peaks over what the original uncompressed file contained when going to 128kbps mp3.

Fantastic movie. I was actually kinda surprised how well the idea was executed on the screen. They definitely played off a ton of really funny video game jokes which was awesome. Very clever stuff.

At 11/10/12 11:18 AM, MetalRenard wrote: No, that's my point, a producer does not create the music. The composer creates the music, the performer performs the music, the audio engineer records the music and produces it. Audio Engineer and producer are almost interchangeable when it comes to recording music (but "audio engineer" covers a much wider range of jobs).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_engineering#Practitioners

lol, um Timbaland? Dr. Luke? Jay Z? Maybe you haven't heard of these guys before. They are "producers".

This isn't really a noob topic lol. Most people even with extensive history in playing/writing music don't end up looking too hard at the very technical side that you're talking about here.

Even then, I'm not really sure what your question is. Are you asking where the subdominant tends to want to go? And then are you referring to the note or movement into the subdominant chord from a key of c?

A lot of this stuff has really to do more with the mathematical relationship between notes. For instance, the reason why 'octaves' are the same note is that going an octave above a specific note only doubles its frequency:

"For example, if one note has a frequency of 440 Hz, the note an octave above it is at 880 Hz, and the note an octave below is at 220 Hz."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave

In the same sense, you have a sort of "shared importance" between the subdominant and dominant because the "[subdominant] is the same distance "below" the tonic as the dominant is above the tonic". Which means between the two they form the closest thing to the middle of that scale as you can get. Our brains tend to like things with mathematical relations which is why harmonics sound so nice. Musical components with no detectable relationship (say introducing microtuning halfway through a normal song) typically would sound horrible because there is proportionate relationship between the notes.

The concept of building tension and instability is a lot about how our ears relate a certain pitch to the tonic pitch.

Having a pitch that is 'unstable' doesn't mean you can't use it as a kind of anchor for a specific arpeggio. And here's where things in terms of composition become more interesting. Take an arp on a keyboard of C - E - G - B. Playing this over and over again against say a "C" in the left hand to solidify the tonic you would think would be grating but in fact it really quite beautiful. Then lower the tonic to "A" in the left hand while playing the same arp and the effect is similar even though now your "B" that your playing in the right hand is the supertonic which is also supposed to be very unstable. Let's say in either case you resolve the "B" in the arpeggio to a "C". The contrast is that now the arpeggio sounds boring. Strange right?

The trick to most very effective composition is learning to rely on inherently unstable notes and chord transitions to craft movement that keeps the listener expectant.