Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/28/12 04:58 PM, Iznvm wrote: You could try and import them in as an image sequence directly on the stage..

i ended up doing this, worked perfectly!:)
thanks for the help both of you guys:)

hey guys!

Im doing this stop motion project with real images and i want to use flash as the stop motion software.
Is there any easy way to import one photo to each frame automatically?
Right now, the only option i seem to have is to import them all to the library and then adding them to each frame one at the time. and thats fairly time consuming?

anyone got any smart way of doing this?

At 1/11/12 08:50 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

Sure, we can go by the "We can not 100% if it's true" branch of thinking, but that is extremely counter-productive to getting shit done.

yeah i totally agree, but thats how philosophy works.
:D
we finally agree!!... right?

At 1/11/12 08:37 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 1/11/12 08:35 PM, spammer4life wrote: a safe assumption isnt enough.

Yes it is. We can constantly test that assertion, and the results are repeatable and very consistent.

consistent and repeatable result doesnt make it true-

At 1/11/12 07:48 PM, Emarius wrote:

However even if you cannot be sure you have reached an absolute, that doesn't mean you cannot reach an absolute.

i think we agree...im not sure thoughO_o

At 1/11/12 08:01 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

Yes we can. If we test 6 billion cows, and barring genetic deformities or outside influences, they all have 4 legs, it would be a safe assumption to make that any cow would have 4 legs.

a safe assumption isnt enough.

You see, that is actually a logical fallacy because it relies on only cows having 4 legs, which is not true.

thats pretty much what i said myself-.-'

At 1/11/12 07:44 PM, Emarius wrote:

I accept the reality that not everything we treat as fact now is beyond a doubt, fact. However, I still contend that through the continued process of refining our theories and interpretations as our tools for doing so become more powerful, we can arrive upon an absolute. If you disagree, it is a fairly fundamental disagreement, and I'm not sure it is one that can be proven for either side. It's entirely possible that we will never have absolute proof for either.

ok:) im gonna give you one last example and if you dont agree with me, i guess we have to disagree-.-'

heres an deductive arguement(its not real, its just an example)

P. all cows have 4 legs
P. johnny is a cow
Q. johnny got 4 legs

The problem is that we cant confirm the first statement. Now you would say that of we just find enough cows we will be able to confirm it. I would say that we would never be able to confirm it.

secound arguement(im freestyling now, im not sure if this is going to be worth anything)

P. johnny got 4 legs
P. all cows got 4 legs
Q. Therefore johnny is a cow.

Now we can see that by changing the placement of the sentences the statement becomes flawed. Because alot of other creatures than cows have 4 legs. Im not sure of thats legal though-.-'

At 1/11/12 07:33 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 1/11/12 07:29 PM, spammer4life wrote: we will never be able to reach facts thats impossible. because science is based on deduction(which we now agrees on what is i see). And deduction cannot give you facts as a result.

Lol wat.

okay im sorry im wrong, its a long time since ive had about this stuff.
deduction is as a method not flawed. its just that you will never be able to complete a deduction process, and therefore its useless

At 1/11/12 07:22 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

Not if you keep using the same stone, unless you're referring to that same stone. Besides, that's not a theory, but a hypothesis. There's a difference.

yeah your right i need to change stones, sorry.
does my hypotese get more true each time then?

sorry for double post

At 1/11/12 07:18 PM, Emarius wrote:

Like I said, it's a process of continuous refining of interpretations, but we can eventually reach a factual conclusion. I never said any interpretation was fact if it garnered a large following. What I said was if our conclusions were demonstrable. Your example just agrees with that which I said earlier. We thought the earth was flat, as we gained further understanding, we refined our model. Now we say the earth is an oblate spheroid. The interpretation of the earth as flat was wrong. Our current interpretation of this, could be wrong, I'm not an expert on determining the geometry of the Earth, our interpretation could very well change. But I contend that one day, it can be correct. There are facts in science.

well thas where we disagree. there are no facts in science.
we will never be able to reach facts thats impossible. because science is based on deduction(which we now agrees on what is i see). And deduction cannot give you facts as a result.

and you say somthing about 2 chemicals reaction with each other. you dont know for sure if these 2 chemicals react because of somthing else. and you never will be sure.

Niels Bohrs periodic table has ben altered a countless amount of times.

At 1/11/12 07:06 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 1/11/12 06:58 PM, spammer4life wrote:

That is not true at all. Since the Ancient Greeks everybody knew the Earth was round, the formulas and shit behind it just got more concrete and exact as time went by.

your missing the point

but here comes another example:
if i have a stone in my hand and i say "according to my new theori stones will allways seek the ground"
and then i start dropping the stone and picking it up again. Does that mean my theori gets more and more true everytime the stone hits the ground?

At 1/11/12 06:52 PM, Emarius wrote:

At 1/11/12 06:46 PM, spammer4life wrote:

actually the rest of your text is pretty much explaining the deductive method

That would be an indication that I meant deductive. But you are missing the point as well.

To try and be concise here, there are undoubtedly natural principles which are factual. These principles govern the occurrences and possibilities of the natural world. We initially had no understanding of these principles. Through a process of continuous interpretation, experiment, and trial, which you and OP think of as science, we can eventually arrive at a model, for which all of our conclusions hold. Is it not reasonable, that if all of our conclusions are demonstrable, that they are indeed correct, and hence facts? Interpretation and fact are not mutually exclusive. One can make a correct interpretation, hence making it fact, as science as done in many instances.

your still wrong. The deductive method cant make facts as the deductive method is flawed.

and to make an example:

in medieval times everyone thought that the earth was flat. they had it all figured out trough science they thought. But they where wrong, the earth is apparently not flat some wise-guy figured out. Did he contradict a fact then? No thats impossible.

a example of why math is diffrent:
a triangles three corners will allways have a combined degree(spelling) of 180 degrees.
thats a fact. Because if you ever find a shape thats diffrent than 180 degrees its not a triangle

At 1/11/12 06:33 PM, Emarius wrote:

Correct, but that isn't even the whole of it. You're blatantly neglecting to address my point that some things are not interpretation, they are facts. If they weren't correct, things couldn't work based off of those principles. To repeat an example you are ignoring, if scientists have not properly interpreted properties of elements, principles of circuits, etc, a computer could not physically work. The fact that we are able to make it work using what you would call "our interpretations" obviously means that our interpretations have validity in the natural state of things, because if they didn't the innate laws of the universe would prevent a computer from working. Hence, since our interpretations are factual and agree with the natural principles of the world. It's simple inductive reasoning. We believe we have properly interpreted the laws of the natural world that relate to our creation of computers. We attempted to build computers based on this understanding. These computers work. Hence our principles work. Hence they are factual by nature. I don't see where there is any discrepancy here. The fact that the word computer is just an arbitrary term given to a conglomerate of manufactured and processed materials and components does not change the above.

not to side with OP but your wrong.
im not sure if your trolling?
science is not based on the inductive method its based on the deductive method, or interpretation simply put
thats the diffrence: math is based on logic while science is based on interpretation.

actually the rest of your text is pretty much explaining the deductive method

are you going to carry it around with you?
im asking because i think it seems really cool. But i just dont beleive i would ever remeber it or have big enough pockets to carry it with me.

sorry for double posting but ive made a huge mistake in my earlier post:

And your theori couldnt work without it -----
should be:
And your theori COULD work without it.

At 1/11/12 04:39 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

Because logic is bias, and never existed as a factual component?

Racist, your 'logic' is no more logical than my logic.

well thats pretty much what i said earlier, if you dont beleive in logic thats fine.
but you should still answer my baby question.

And your theori couldnt work without it. But if you only got interpretation, then you need something else to complete your theori. And thats okay.

But if you beleive that interpretation is the only thing to get you knowlegde. your theori ends in solipsism.

and this is how:
we both know that we can modify our interpretations. That could be with drugs or medicine.
in that way we never know if our interpretations are a true image of anything.
If you dont know if anything is true, the only thing you got left is Decartes "I think, therefore I am"
and thats basicly solipsism.

At 1/11/12 04:25 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

What if my answer were to be that this is a hypothetical question that is against both logic and my interpretion of logic?

how is it against logic?

At 1/11/12 04:09 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

Let's try this again.

Ask me the same question in detail.

ok, i guess i should have made it clearer.

If a baby was born COMPLETLY without senses, as in abilities to hear, see, smell, feel with fingers (and rest of the body) and taste.

would the baby be able to see that 1+1=2

if your answer to this is yes, i beleive the baby would figure this out. You beleive in logic
If your answer is no, i dont think the baby would figure it out. you dont beleive in logics.
If you dont beleive in logic your theori becomes acceptable but it still ends up in solipsism as far as i see.

At 1/11/12 03:51 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

What logic? The world was already here. Putting tags on everything does not make it logical nor factual.

the baby would not know the world was there because it did not have any senses.

You are realising you keep destroying your own theori right?
your theori ends up being solipsism because if everything else is interpretation how can you know it exists?
and when a theori ends up being solipsism its normally regarded faulty.

your theori is no better than the "everything is relative" thing

At 1/11/12 03:45 PM, Insanctuary wrote:
No.

The question is.. If the baby grew older and ended up creating 1+1=2 [numbers..] Would that make it any more of a fact? Considering.. it's not of this world, but of our imaginative realm?

if the baby grew up and was able to create math without interpretations, yes that would make it a fact. because then it would be based on logic

At 1/11/12 03:36 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

Yes, but the numbers themselves are imaginary. Numbers never existed. We've created them just like names and values. It's just us painting on an already painted world.

well heres the question you need to ask yourself.

If a baby was born without any senses and therefore could not get any interpretations. would the baby still know 1+1=2?

At 1/11/12 03:16 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/11/12 02:49 PM, spammer4life wrote:

At 1/11/12 02:45 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

Yes, but you refuse to understand that means everyone is interpreting this world.

Which means their logic is no greater than mine.

you mean there is no logic

I forgot to put it as 'logic'. Sorry.

Yes, I do mean that. There is no real logic. It's all blanket interpretations.

you know i pretty much agree with this.
but the normal and quite reasonable answer would be that math and language isnt defined by interpretations

because 1+1 wil allways be 2 nomatter what your interpretations is.

At 1/11/12 02:45 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

Yes, but you refuse to understand that means everyone is interpreting this world.

Which means their logic is no greater than mine.

you mean there is no logic

if you see your whole world as a interpretation, your theori is also a interpretation. Therefore you cannot make arguements for your theori.

ive made a logo for you now.
ive changed the design, and ive removed an F from the name because i was to lazy to draw it.
But you better be thankfull!

in the first two episodes of the walking dead theres a tank overun by zombies. If zombies can overrun a tank, which is basiclly a modern plate armor, your theori is broken.

At 1/10/12 07:18 PM, StupidHumorKing wrote:

Erm, I was actually thinking of getting the 24HD Cintiq...

Well then you should totally get it:D

At 1/10/12 01:40 PM, AnalPenguinFarming wrote: You do know that the idea of Spiderman shooting webs from his hands is totally fake, too, right?

Oh, and the Ghostbusters using proton packs to neutralize ghosts and catch them to store in an abandoned fire house in Manhattan is also fake, right?

Ironman's suit doesn't exist either. Something that can fly around the world or suit you up from the size of a briefcase also isn't real, right?

What do these all have in common? Oh yea, they're movies. Made to entertain.

thats not really a valid arguement. spiderman is explained by getting bitten by some DNA-modified spider.
I dont know how ghostbusters explain itself. I havnt seen it in many years.
Iron man is explained by Tony Starks abilities as engineer and his wealth.

But The core never makes an effort to explain itself.

At 1/10/12 01:14 PM, Haggard wrote:

But the mistakes are SO stupid that you really can't feel clever. I mean, connecting wires from the outer hull to the ship's power supply? REALLY?!

i felt clever until now:(

i used to hate the core too, then i saw the movie sunshine.

thats an even worse stupid science-fiction doomsday movie:P

They put in the mistakes on purpose to make the audience feel clever.

At 1/10/12 12:10 PM, Danief wrote:

what version of flash was that introduced?

i dont know, im using cs5.5...
but as blackmist says, the settings first becomes availeble when you got a tablet installed.

Im using an intous 4 and i love the eraser!! its really a great thing to have:) and yeh you could just use the eraser tool. but i got the feeling that the build-in eraser saves me some time...
And i dont find it very fragile, I love my intous 4!