Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/15/05 01:51 AM, HollywoodSound wrote: LOL!!!! That was hilarious Frogs!! The poor kid is scratching his head and thinking you're a nut case! Try to break it down a bit for the guy LOL!!!

Basically the point is, frogs is better than me, can do the job better and quicker, as he has better equipment and much more experience.

At 4/16/05 12:27 PM, Thelonius wrote:

At 4/16/05 12:01 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: For instance, different packs of wolves don't use radically different hunting styles. A wolf is a wolf is a wolf.

Eitherway, it is an irrelevant argument in drug-use today, and I think you would be hard-pressed to present medical data supporting your second constructive, the only relevant argument in your post. Until you do, all I see is subjective experience found while under the influence of mind-altering toxins that interfere with your reason and judgment processes.

In a broad level, anything you consume is mind altering. Some things more so than others, and somethings more obviously than others. Sugar is natural, yet increases thought processes, yet people can swear by it and say thats what they need to work. Pure refined sugar is a chemical created by man with dirty shit in it. Mushrooms are natural things that grow on dirty shit. I dont see much difference there myself.

By the way, Hitler was habitually prescribed hallucinogenic drugs and many historians link it as a contributing factor to his downfall.

Hitler was a racist madman in the first place. Maybe if he actually did have shrooms/whatever, it made him realise how much of a psychopath he was. And then he got angry and careless. Who cares about what happened to hitler?

Sure, not everyone should do hallucenogenics, but for shrooms and weed, i dont see the harm

BTW Datura/Devils Weed is supposed to REALLY fuck you up, for long term. I'm not brave enough to find out.

Classifying all hallucenogenics as equally dangerous for everyone only encourages stupid twats to try mixing them or going after the bad ones, as they become more curious. How? Someone tries shrooms, has a nice happy, lovely trip. Then starts to doubt common belief, and tries ketamine, and acid <----- These are BAD hallucenogenics, because they are made by man. They are too potent for anyones good in my opinion.

At 4/16/05 11:30 AM, Uberbarista wrote:

At 4/16/05 11:10 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: Meh, tripping isn't for everyone.

This cross application idea is part of what characterizes the human brain as distinctly different from an animal brain. An animal must be trained specifically for each activity it wishes to engage in. A human, however, can cross apply information learned from a single incident over a broad range of other situations.

Ok, you're totally wrong there. That's saying that animals don't have coherent thought processes. Which is totally untrue. Various different species, to be general about it, have shown the ability, to make, and use tools, on their own, and to apply knowledge feeding grounds, to different surroundings. As well as forms of communication.

How do you know they dont have a type of hallucinogenic that affects them? i know for a fact i've seen horses going more mad when theres been shroooms growing in the fields than when their hasnt, for example....

There's actually an evolutionary theory that implies...........

I've read theories about this, and articles as well, and they do provide interesting facts, but I seriously doubt that hallucinogens played as much of a major role in early civilizations. It's known that, nearly all cultures have had uses for hallucinogenic substances for medical, spiritual, and recreational purposes, though.

Where did the idea for religion come from? There are many similarities between the two ideas

1) Perceiving things that are not visible in our world that we see everyday. (Work of god, miracle, gods will) Have been seen by more religious sorts who take shrooms fir sure, possibly by those that arent.

2) Often when tripping people talk to 'God'
3) Prayer and shrooms both increase brain activity over a set period of time, maybe not in the same places, not tried finding out yet.

Theres the possibility buddhists have taken them, in Tibetan literature i tihnk it is, whats believed to be hallucenogenic mushrooms has been referred to as Food of the Gods. Of course, many woulld not say in western society if thats right, as it would be an excuse for the law to outlaw buddhism, which has been repressed by many governments.

Combine this with the fact that no objective outsider can say where religion came from, its just as plausible as any theory.

I believe shrooms have had a definite impact on human evolution. I belief that they helped create ideas about whats nice to look at (art) or hear (music).

At 4/16/05 10:16 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 4/16/05 09:02 AM, CanadianBeer wrote: Third, it gives control of the gouvernment all other properties to the State. Therefore a kind of dictatorship emerges, stealing whatever power the poor would've had in a democratic society. A one-party system since the Communist Part outlaws any opposition to maintain the security of the state.

Proof? China, Soviet Union, North Korea...etc.

Not true communism? Bullshit. Its true communism applied by humans and our nature.

Essentially, no, it isn't true communism. True communism would be how communism is supposed to work in theory (e.g. de juste), rather than how it becomes totally fucked up when human nature is applied to it (e.g. de facto).

Yes. And human nature is this way because we see examples of human greed from birth, and if in a poor place, the necessity of it to surive. These poor places do not need to be poor. It is the way the system has made it to divide people.

Since the government is supposed to be run by the people, in a true communist system, all goods would effectively be owned by all the people.

Yep, thats the point. How could you steal something that belongs to everyone? The only is if you hold it to yourself and prevent others from having it. Theft would be a most unforgivable crime under true communism, It would be a crime against humanity, if only of the smallest degree.

However, human nature does fuck everything up. That's what I've been trying to say to captain genius over here who thinks that everyone will immediately become benevolent angels the minute there is a communist revolution, and he also beleives that there could never possibly be any corruption in the government.

Captain genius? Smarter than you and your fatalistic views, bubble boy. Greed can be removed, and as far as i can see it is the next major evolutionary step. Only it is not a genetic evolution, as we are better than animals, this change can happen in the human mind, and is therefore part of the revolution.

Of course not everyone will become corrupt angels, but what is possible in a world governed by my views, is impossible under yours. Man must strive to get better, and i dont see the capitalist system that kills people through starvation, and warfare to keep the rich in power,as being any better.

At 4/16/05 09:02 AM, CanadianBeer wrote: And how the hell is socialism supposed to solve the "world of suffering"?

Seriously, Capatalism is seriosuly flawed in its distribution of goods, but socialism and communisim have much deeper flaws. For one, it assumes every man and woman is equal in thier output of work and so should recieve equal rewards for their work.

It prevents the richest greediest from existing.

The human mind is wired to recieve rewards for extra or harder work. Its an instinct passed down from our ancestors who realized that there's no way in hell they're going an extra mile to hunt deer if there's equal amounts of deer in the area they're in. Logic.

So, if people work together they can make everything better for everyone, I suppose thats no reward?

Secondly, it has some bullshity notion of the bourgoise or ruling class and the "system". Oh, we all hate the rich people becasue they actually worked! Just looking at communist regimes makes me laugh, accusing everything of happenening because of liberal or bourgoise influence while sipping French champangne in thier mansions. Communists are always denouncing the "ruling class" not aware that the gouvernment they passed power to is the "ruling class".

I passed power to no one. I had no power to give. I wasnt born or there.

Third, it gives control of the gouvernment all other properties to the State. Therefore a kind of dictatorship emerges, stealing whatever power the poor would've had in a democratic society. A one-party system since the Communist Part outlaws any opposition to maintain the security of the state.

Since everyone would be dedicated to the state, there would be no need for a parliament.

Proof? China, Soviet Union, North Korea...etc.

Not true communism? Bullshit. Its true communism applied by humans and our nature.

Nope. The idea of human nature is imprinted into peoples brains through socialisation. These places are even more proof that capitalism has manipulated communism so that it can be discredited.

And unlike you home-grown commies, I actually lived in China. And, its not the utopia you'd think it was. Nothing is equal there. The State controls all. Thanks to communists like you who just want the benefits of "equality" without working your ass, other people are in a "worl of suffering".

I agree, that is the way so called communism has turned out. True communism has never existed in industrial society on a large scale, ie across whole countries.

The real point of Communism as in all revolutions, is that a group of people wishes to seize power from those who have it. They decieve the working class into joining them by telling them that they are opressed and will be a part of the revolution and will gain freedom etc..

No. That is not the real point of it. I'm sorry you have been disappointed by your experience of so called communism. True communism is to bring humanity together.
yes the working class have been fooled by someone who's greedy wanting power. That is what people of CAPITALIST values have done.

Too bad those who go with it get screwed in the ass. Once the group of people seize power (The Communist Party) its too late. The State now controls all aspects of your life.

Communism is not allowed to exist and work according to its true ideals by capitalism. Wherever it can work at all, it is denounced and sanctioned against, so that people have to resort to the black market trade for medicines, technology (Cuba as the example i can think of). They then believe that it is communisms fault, and not capitalist greed.

Gulag anyone?

Band - The frequencies are divided in to "x" amount of bands, or sliders if you like... the amount of bands depends on the one you're using (you can use the vocoder in reason as a 512 band EQ.

Wow, not seen it but thats incredibly detailed. I'm starting to see how a vocoder works now though, thank you. I could hear the effect when i heard cher and blackstreet for example, just not connect it.

Ok, so each band for each slider is a set range of frequencies? Is it a uniform amount ie, each one is 300 frequencies, or is it different for different sliding equalisers?

Parametric - This is different to band eqs because you can (usually) set and adjust the frequencies to be altered. a parametric EQ is usually more pliable as you can also adjust the knee (how much of the surrounding frequencies you want altered), the different frequency bands you select will effect each other (if close enough) and gives a more gradual effect than band.

So these are for more detailed work then i take it?

So do these only exist in a digital format then i take it? Ie you can get it on hardware but it'll have a software interface?

I would tend to only use a band EQ to do subtractive EQing (cutting freqs.) and parametric for additional EQing and tweeking.

Heh, I get it mostly now, thank you for your help.

Best advertisement for my skills that i used to have are http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/view.php?id=383486&sub=18437, yes its by earfetish, but that track Inhale Mary - DJ BJ was recorded at my house, live, and i played the drums. It was also jammed out, never practised. Who says Mary is bad for everyone?

I just dont get how its owning compared to proper DnB artists, its more like acid rock than anything else, but i'm not complaining :)

At 4/15/05 09:06 AM, The_General_Public wrote:

At 4/12/05 02:59 PM, SpamWarrior wrote: No arguments about why people would work without the incentive of material goods?

Or are you just enjoying your expensive goods, locked in a bubble away from a real world of pain and misery?

sounds good to me

So you dont realise your hypocrisy "thou shalt not kill"? Your apathy is causing death, and the fact that you do not care makes it murder in my eyes.

How many types of equaliser are there, and what is the difference between "band" equaliser, and a parametric?

For unusual drum and bass try Roni Size, diverse artist.

Not heard go plastic, but squarepusher rules. Even when hes taking the piss.

At 4/14/05 06:27 PM, Erkie wrote: Haha, I like how he sounds like a dick in his songs.

He's not too bad, his version of rape me was hysterical.

Not heard it, but fight for your right to party and star wars cantina are classics.

At 4/14/05 06:11 PM, Erkie wrote: Oh, and for the transitioning-into-different-styles techniques, I highly recommend it to any downtempo artist; it's taking a song and making it transition into a different style, but still in context with the original song idea.

DJ Shadow, RJ2D, The Dust Brothers and The Chemical Brothers defined this method.

Heh can someone PLEASE make a jazz version of a black metal song, in the style of Richard Cheese, perhaps? I would, but i cant sing :(

At 4/14/05 05:06 PM, Pandora_Tranquil wrote: samples are ok, but loops are stupid.

if you just take a bunch of loops other people made and make something out of it its only 20% yours, and anyone can do that.

Not straightaway. The loops are mostly to help people learn to use the programme as far as i can tell. And also to try crossovers of different styles, to see if they like it.
What is your objection to pre made loops? Do you wish they'd never existed?

At 4/14/05 02:06 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: So if I came and seized your assets right now, you wouldnt have a problem with me redistributing them among the poor?

I would have a problem, as it would stop me getting my message to the masses through the internet. YOU taking my meagre "assets" would only hinder the cause.

Take from the richest. Take the factories, take the mines.

No point taking from the middle classes, unless you take from ALL and redistribute it.

So sure, when the revolution comes, if my pc and stereo will help people live, by all means take it.

Your comment was one of the finest example of barely disguised stupidity i have ever seen.

At 4/14/05 11:01 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

At 4/14/05 09:11 AM, SpamWarrior wrote: Exaggerated metaphor. Gangsters that are caught are but small fish to those in charge of entire armies.

So when the operate in a marxist society then they arent an issue, but they are the reason we shoudl abolish capitalism. In a truely capitalist society there is no black

Are you being stupid to spite me, or are you actually retarded?

Gangsters are the most obvious example of those rich with cunning hiding their power and wealth.

They shouldnt exist in any society, as gangsters and the government both cheat the poorest out of having any quality of life.

market, for two reasons. The first is the market sets the price, so there is no need to charge more or produce more because you are paying/getting the equilibrium price and quantity. Second reason is that in a capitalist society, a true capitalist society no goods are outlawed, therefore there is nothign to sell on the black market because it is all legal.

What kind of market it is is irrelevant. Its about the rich controlling the poor, not the system of economics.

However in a mrxist society with central planning companies are told how much they must produce. If they do not meet that mark they are not paid. So if they fail to reach the target they will sell these goods on the black market, or they may produce too much and therefore sell them on the black market.

Thats because they have capitalist values if they seek to gain for themselves from what is left over. They are no communists. If people want to be capitalist in a communist society, where its apparently law of the fittest, the greedy fuckers can go live in the darkest parts of the jungle. Then they'll realise how good it would be if people helped their fellow man out of a bad situation.

At 4/14/05 10:04 AM, Denvish wrote: And finally the Marlin Sidewinder. Nice bass. Had this one for a looooong time, too.

wow nice collection denvish. How long have you been playing guitar for?

At 4/13/05 05:29 PM, ghost_dance wrote: Exactly, it's not a fluke that Cuba has a ratio of one doctor for every 165 people, and that in the states it's 1 doctor for every 1150 person.

Indeed, as personal example for myself my own father works for the national health service. He could have been quite rich if he went private but he enjoyed making more people feel better, it was naturally in his nature.

I bet the capitalist goombas are thinking "what a moron" well fuck you, if you need the promise of money to help others.

At 4/13/05 11:06 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

At 4/12/05 03:12 PM, SpamWarrior wrote: Too clarify, capitalism is about the values of "fuckgeddabout everyone else, lets just think of me and mine"

What is best for the individual is best for society. It premotes using their comparitive advantage.

So whats best for the richest is best for society? You trust the rich to not murder people then blind you to the truth, when they have the most power?

People say these values are fine, yet they despise criminal organisations that have exactly the same values, but use different methods to the average man.

They may have the same economic values, but their moral values differ greatly, and that is why people dont like them.

No difference when it comes to the richest. They will willingly have people killed, held against their will in a variety of ways. They will kill anyone that is powerful enough to oppose them.

The methods are not so different to the mob however.

Besides the whole violence and intimidation, bombs and thugs, drugs and whores.

^ Violence = military and police. Intimidation = same. Bombs = military.
Thugs = military. Drugs = alcohol and tobacco. Whores? = pornstars and advertising if a sexual naure. I see no real difference. They are both equally evil.

In the past violence was used to earn obvious power. Now people go behind the scenes and pull strings. In the past the mob owned newspapers, shops, whatever.

So? Even in a Mrxist society you will have power inequalities. It is unaviodable. Whether it be between a manager and a worker, parent and child, everywhere. So what if the mob did/does own shops? How does that effect capitalism. Their are private indivivduals and have eevry much a right to operate as anyone else, provided they stay within the law.

The mobs owning legal shops shows that evil people can hid behind a front of legitimate fairness on a small scale.

The ruling class owns it all, the entire system. Is it that hard to believe that someone can rule it all, when even uneducated gangsters could rule sicily, and have influence in the USA?

Way to generalize. Some gangsters are very well educated. And again with the

So?

gangster thing? How does the actions of a few people effect what capitalism is?

Because the richest are a small elite class who own the world.

Would you like to know something that will be found in every society, including a communist or a marxist one? The black market. It will always exisist. Whether it be

There are no truly communist societies, as the people do not have communist values.

illegal goods, or just workign outside the law it will always exsist. Oh and who does alot of the black market dealings, organized crime. So dont give us this oh gangsters only exsist in capitalism therefore we shouldnt allow capitalism. Its like saying someone killed a person with a hammer so we should outlaw hammers.

Exaggerated metaphor. Gangsters that are caught are but small fish to those in charge of entire armies.

At 4/12/05 10:03 PM, Skizor wrote:

Yes, anything in which people are greedy is capitalism, right?

Yes.

Capitalism is a synonym for greed, right?

Might as well be.

That's what it means, right? *Bzzzt* Wrong! You seem to think that any system in which people want to provide for themselves it capitalist.

Nope. Only systems in which people want to provide for themselves and make the rich more wealthy for doing nothing. Sure theres creative rich people. There's also people that hog the Hamptons, i tihnk they're called. Sit and live in paradise after other people have provided the wealth.

This is no doubt the most ignorant approach I have ever seen. Why can't you actually research a topic until you go spouting your mouth about it? I don't know, you tell me,

Why dont you look the fuck outside your own little bubble and look at the real world. Nah, its too painful, go enjoy your material goods.

because I really don't understand it. I mean, you don't even need a course in economics to understand capitalism, just a goddamn encyclopedia. So here we go, for those who think that all of the United State's problems are based on a economic system which they don't understand.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH you think i give a shit about the united state's problems? How truly arrogant you are.

Thar y'go. The world book encyclopedia entry on it,

http://www.worldbookonline.com...?id=ar093460&st=Capitalism

Cos i'm going to read what capitalist lackeys tell me to.....

and if you can't read it because of user issues, I've hosted the page myself on freewebs

http://www.freewebs.com/delphi3/other/PrintArticle.htm

There, read. And if not because you think you're too good to spend your time learning, Well then you definitely don't belong on a politics board. Maybe after you actually learn what capitalism is and how it works, I might actually care about your opinion on it.

Sure, i'll go learn things from books instead of observing the real world.

Oh and by the way, listen to IceWraith15, he knows what he's talking about.

Sure. I'll get right on that.

At 4/12/05 09:36 PM, IceWraith15 wrote: It's this simple =

In order for society to function, people must work. In capitalism, people are rewarded for their labor, and if they work hard enough, can gain better positions. Capitalism must be regulated however, or the workers are exploited while the managers get everything. Modern Capitalism has problems, as any human institution or idea does. At least capitalism allows for creativity, rewarded labor, and opportunity. Communism

Do you really need money to think? How sad if so.... Creativity for the benefit of everyone is its own reward, as it would encourage other people to be creative for the benefit of others. Rewarded labour? Sweatshop labour is rewarded? If these people did the same job in a middle class country they would have enough to feed themselves and their families.

and Marx's ideas of Socialism, although a good ideal and a good vision of society, simply contradict human nature.

No. What you think human nature is what the system has educated you to see. You are told from birth that humanity is bad, and needs leading. Why would there be war and crime otherwise? Because it suits the richest for it to be this way. Notice a lack of constant warfare on the richest's soil? No ground assaults going on in the "first world".

People are greedy, and this is not always a negative thing. Greed, as long as it is controlled, can motivate people to work harder. Human society is not perfect, but we do our best. We simply have to stop searching for a perfect system...there is none. In the end, a society depends upon it's people. We should focus on that, not looking for a silver bullet.

There is. The people working in harmony towards common goals, and not making the greediest even richer for doing fuck all but maintaining the status quo.

At 4/14/05 07:39 AM, TenchuX wrote:

Thats hard to do if the 0 voters use a proxy to mask their IP address :-/...the only thing that would solve it would be an exp system, via BLAM and PROTECT like on the Flash Portal. You would get so many voters on songs, the 0 voters really wouldn't have that big of an effect. Could it be that hard to transfer the code over to the Audio Portal and make it basically a flash portal voting system with music not flash? :p

The problem being that 0 voters would get rewarded with more voting power. Maybe it would balance out, but it takes some planning to work out..... Maybe stop people voting with a masked ip address? After all, its only newgrounds who's gonna know your ip address....

At 4/14/05 06:50 AM, Pandora_Tranquil wrote: who cares about all this bullshit about copyrighted songs and samples.

if you cant find a sample or a synth thats not copyrighted somewhere on the net then you are fucking dumb.

there shouldnt be a problem with all the songs, people are just being fags.

Chill the fuck out. What if people are new to the entire thing? Its only natural to want to remix things you like, as much as it is natural to sit down and right something from scratch.

Sure, takes skill to make you're own, takes just as much natural talent to spot tunes that mix together in interesting ways.

At 4/14/05 06:25 AM, Pandora_Tranquil wrote: i dont think anyone in here is actually going to listen to anyone ELSES music, but whatever lol heres mine.

Heh i do, you gotta compare yourself to people to see what stage you're at. I'm currently -1 whilst everyone elses lowest is 0 :)

i do all kinds of work, but thanks to artists like paragon, its hard for ANYONE to get noticed.

Heh we need to get rid of the skilled artists, either through assassination or just get a petition going to get them signed :).

At 4/13/05 08:35 PM, Denvish wrote: Yeah, I really like the new look, it's a lot less cramped than before. Big thumbs up to James & Will for the makeover, I'm very impressed.

BTW guys, for a moment, stop complaining about what isn't there, and celebrate what is. This has been a long time coming, I'm really looking forward to seeing the overhaul completed.

Heh, its a nice new look, we're just trying to come up with suggestions so you can make it EVEN BETTER *lick lick*

HURRAH!

HUZZAH!!!!!!!!

At 4/13/05 11:05 PM, Tombulgius wrote:
Anyone have tips for taking martial arts while wearing braces?

If an art requires you to get hit in the mouth whilst in PRACTICE, dont do it. I've never heard of any eclectic art that means you have to get hit in the face. So avoid boxing and kickboxing, as if people are learning they can misjudge their aim and proper whack you.

Alternatively, ignore what i say and make sure you pay attention at all times if you do do kickboxing etc.

Your choice, either's good

At 4/13/05 07:15 PM, Denvish wrote: Pretty much all songs in existence are based off of songs that preceded them. It's just a matter of where the line is between 'inspired by' and 'copying'. From what you're saying, I personally think you'd be OK.

Heh sweet. I'd say only experimental music thats truly experimental and therefore shit in most peoples ears is the only truly new music. But i cant say i like all of the crazy shit :)

At 4/13/05 06:46 PM, Erkie wrote: You're thinking of a remake, not a remix. Remixes are revamps for memorial type things, and remakes are for special purposes. I'd consider the use of a main melody in a different song a remake, if you're staying true to the artist in that capacity.

Erm. I mean writing a song, based on a remix i create in my brain. Ie if i like a melody line from my own remix, but re create it myself using my own equipment, is that a new song? Rip off off two artists perhaps, or a new song?

Can you see what i'm gettin at?

Something else, if i emulate sound effects well enough that they sound like the original, is that copyright infringement? Because it will be something slightly different, created by myself.

At 4/13/05 06:35 PM, -api- wrote: It looks ok... I hope the voting system fucking changed. People voting zero is bullshit :D

Ban zeros.

Heh, i think zero's can be deserved, it just grates when people havent got the decency to not review something, because they dont like that person. So instead they get sadly stalk them and zero them, very sad and pathetic. It wouldnt be so bad if it only happened to one song \:S

Say if i remade something with the same melody lines as a remix, yet created on entirely different instruments, can it be argued that i've written a new song, inspired by someone else? The way i see is that i'll have used a computer as substitute for my bad memory :), whereas those making tunes straight from scratch will automatically make it, if you see what i mean :)

At what point would this become a song? I knew i should've done psycho-acoustics or whatever the posh name is :)

New buttons!

:)

Is there a new voting system in place, or is it still the same?