Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,773 Excellent

About ChinRey

  • Rank
    Lag fighter

Recent Profile Visitors

5,199 profile views
  1. I'm not sure if I've already posted this one. If I did, sorry.
  2. Yes, and that's why I said there is no "magic bullet", not one single solution to the problem. However, think of this for example: Take a fairly small house - let's say 50 m2 - in a reasonably sunny location. Fill up half the roof with solar panels. Estimated power production: 1,800 kWh/month. That is twice as much as the average US household consumes. Most buildings in the world can be converted from electricity consumers to net electricity producers and it won't take up any space that is useable for anything else. But at the moment there is one problem and one "problem" with it.
  3. It is a major factor, yes. I'm in the danger of becoming overly patriotic here (sorry) but wood used to be one of Norway's main export products and forestry is still an important part of our economy. One of the most important commercial tree species historically is even named norway spruce in English. There is no such thing as deforesting in Norway, the forest area has actually tripled over the last 90 years. It's not even about enviromental preservation, at least it wasn't at first. Deforesting simply doesn't make economical sense in the long run. Chop down all the trees and let the
  4. I may not be the right person to answer here since it's not an issue I as a Norwegian am familiar with first hand. It's all hydroelectric power here and it's always been that way. But ten years ago solar energy was the most expensive energy source costing about USD 396/MWh according to the US Department of Energy. Today it's the cheapest, costing only USD 20-60/MWh according to the International Energy Agency. Building new coal fueled or nuclear power plant isn't cost effective anymore and in many places in the world it's even cheaper to build new solar power plants than to run and mainta
  5. The relationship between human activity and the climate changes that have happened the last century or two is well documented and there is no other even remotely credible explanation for the recent global temperature increase. But with that being said, mother nature is safe; there is nothing us puny humans can throw at her that can cause permanent damage. We trigger a new mass extinction? No problem: back to the drawing board and design some new cool and interesting life forms! As Peter Wessel Zappfe once said, an earth without humans isn't necessarily a disaster. Only... It may
  6. It is. Petrol powered cars are slowly but surely fading out of the market so they're not a problem in the long run. This is true for ships and even planes too although the progress is likely to go a bit slower there. There will always be a few enthusiasts who insist on keeping fossil fuel powered vehicles of course but that's a good thing. Somebody has to preserve our hsitory and there won't be so many of them they'll make a significant difference to the world's pollution level. One thing nearly everybody get wrong about batteries is their efficiency for storing energy. Lithium based
  7. Always question authorities! But I'm confused: What private info is there in that single sentence post???
  8. But that's the opposite of what you said in your original post. 😉 The text is only the description the creator wrote anyway and not actual stats.
  9. I think you need to recheck because that's not possible. The land impact for a lnkset can never ever be less than half the old style prim count. My best guess is that not all parts of the bath are linked and you only checked the LI of some of it.
  10. I'm not sure if I understand you right but you don't "retexture and upload" in SL, you do it the other way round: Upload the texture separately and then add it to the mesh.
  11. Important to remember. If you want to wear a plywood cube, make sure it's a fitmesh plywood cube! That's a dangerous assumption and the big fundamental mistake programmers tend to make when they are working on user interfaces. If you're a programmer, do not assume the users are as smart as you! Most aren't and even those who are still have to grok the underlying logic before they can use the interface effectively.
  12. Umm no. This is exactly the opposite of that. That screenshot is even messier than the regular viewer(s), how is that even possible??? Edit - since I get the impression @Coffee Pancake didn't like my post. "Play mode" or whatever we call it, implies that screen clutter is kept to an absolute minimum. In an ideal virtual world, there would be no clutter at all by default, the entire computer screen filled up by the scene and nothing but the scene. Everything else is hidden until called upon. That's probably not possible but keeping the clutter down to an absolute minimum is crucial bo
  • Create New...