Madelaine McMasters

It's probably unlikely that two laptops could have dust-stalled fans, but that was the issue on my old Macbook. I had SL stutter/crashing problems and noticed the GPU was hitting the thermal limit and being throttled by the OS. I took it apart and found enough lint in the GPU fan to make a small stuffed animal. I believe the reason SL crashes on GPU overload is not that the GPU malfunctions, but that the OS starts scaling back the GPU clock to reduce heating, and that eventually causes the viewer to crash. All other applications on my Mac always continued to work fine during the overload.

Lia Abbot wrote: Anyone know what went wrong? You're asking that about a service provided by LL?! I missed you at Hippiestock. Well, I actually missed your gin. I had to wipe the pot smoke off my glasses with a moistened cannabis leaf.

Hi Simonesun, Your list of landmarks is only available to the viewer when you are in-world. Nobody can spy on you there, unless you allow it. Log in to a place where you are unlikely to meet the person you are avoiding and they will not be able to find you. If they send you IMs, you can block them. It should not be necessary for you to create a new avi to avoid harassment, and you can file abuse reports against whoever does. If you'd like explain more about your situation, so that we can offer suggestions, come back to your question and edit it via "Options" over there on the right. Good luck.

Hi Cindy, It's possible/probable that the local copy of your inventory list has been corrupted. Here's a wiki page dealing with that issue... http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Inventory_loss Follow the instructions in the first of the Common Solutions, "Clearing Second Life's cache". Also, make sure you're running the latest version of the SL Viewer, things have changed since you left. Good luck!

It's freezing here too, I love it, especially when I can get someone else to do my snow shoveling... Hi, Kids!!!

Twenty years ago, I saw Rembrand's mammoth "The Night Watch" in Amsterdam. I think I stood and looked at it for ten minutes. In the same room, to the right, was a small portrait of a man illuminated by candlelight. It may have been Godfried Schalcken's "Man with a Candle... Around this time, artists were really mastering the use of light, and I was astonished by that little painting. I felt as if I could reach into the frame and touch him. My reaction to this quiet scene was visceral. To animate either of those paintings would destroy them for me. The magic was in the artist's ability to pull me into the work, to make me see and feel things that were only intimated, to make me think. I am a huge fan of animation, particularly shorts. It's a wonderful storytelling medium and requires no less care than any other artistic endeavor. I think the creator of that video simply had no story to tell.

I think I'm gonna be in the minority here, Perrie. I've seen a few classic paintings up close. They don't need any help coming to life. That's why they're classics. The hubris of the Elite Daily headline got me a li'l riled. As I watched the video, which I'll characterize as a Ken Burns / Terry Gilliam / Cosmo-photoshop mashup, I wondered if the animator had any familiarity with the originals, or was simply looking at the images and wondering how he could animate them. One of the beauties of still art is that it freezes a moment and allows (forces?) you to examine it. It may also allow considerable room for interpretation. Animation removes a degree of interpretive freedom by bringing an interpretation of its own. Watch Andrea Vaccaro's portrait of Saint Agatha of Sicily at 5:13. You see her baring her left breast. I was not familar with the painting, but the animation seemed incongruous. There's blood on the dress above the right breast. That's not the only incongruity in the video, just one that jumped out at me. So, I did a little research. The original painting has the breast covered and clutched, as Agatha looks to the heavens (do pay attention to her facial expression. I can't quite describe the look, but it is to me highly evocative). Saint Agathe was martyred circa 251, after being tortured by... the removal of her breasts. Would you have guessed this horror from Tagliafierro's animated transformation? I suppose one could argue that the animator intended to show Agatha's intractible fortitude, in a sort of "okay, come and take the other one, you won't break me" way, but I think that's a stretch, she's not looking at her torturers. At 5:28, you'll see a man helping a blindfolded woman up in Paul Delaroche's Execution of Lady Jane Grey. In truth, the painting depicts the man helping the woman down to the chopping block, in preperation for her beheading. The executioner, cropped from the image in the animation, stands by, seemingly impatient to get it over with. There's a hell of a lot more going on in the original than in the animation. I did get a sense of the helping man's compassion, but the complexity of the situation was completely lost at the clumbsy hands of Tagliafierro. Delaroche apparently took considerable artistic license in depicting Lady Jane's demise, so maybe someone could extend that license to Tagliafierro as well. That someone won't be me. Even after taking courses in art history, I think I'm fairly ignorant of the classics. Sadly, I think Tagliafierro is too. But I have the excuse of being an engineer. What's his? The opening line from that Elite Daily article... "Old paintings are often admired, but sometimes the viewer wants more. Sure, you can tell a story through stills and photos that don’t move, but what if you had the ability to make them move even after they’ve been completed hundreds of years ago?" The suggestion that the paintings are lacking because they don't move reflects more on the author than the art. Overall, I think this is a classic example of the old adage... Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. If my exploration of two of the animated paintings extrapolates to the whole of the video, I'd say Tagliafierro brought banality to the classics. Hell, I can do that.

Hi Penelope, I think this is an issue you must take up with the venue and/or creator of the "board". We're residents, just like you, and don't know which "board" you are using, how it works, or in this case, how it doesn't work. If you'd like to edit your question (via "Options" over there on the right) to give us more information, someone might have an idea, but nobody here will be as helpful as the creator of the board. Good luck!

I think it'd be nice if every avi had a rational operator, but I'm not really certain about that.

valerie Inshan wrote: Wow!!!! Just discovered that and wanted to share with you! Absolutely amazing!!!! Hope you enjoy! http://www.lefigaro.fr/culture/2014/01/21/03004-20140121ARTFIG00284-rubens-bouguereau-une-video-fait-vivre-des-tableaux-de-maitre.php Italian artist Stefano Rino Tagliaferro led a hundred works from the classical art in a short film about ten minutes, entitled Beauty. A vision of breathtaking beauty. Okay, this ain't beauty and it is hit-or-miss, but you started it...

Hi sunil14, You've given us nothing to work with, post a question in "Answers" with more information and we'll try to help. Tell us exactly what you have tried? What didn't work? Did you get any error messages? If so, what where they?

Hi Melinda, Others have had this problem. Here's a brief thread with a suggestion from KarenMichelle Lane... http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Technical/Partnership-Accept-button-not-working/qaq-p/1895477 Good luck... and congratulations!

Hippie, it's Martin Luther King day and we've got work to do so long as the color of a human causes more concern than the color of a dog... Good morning, Kids!!!

At the bottom of the viewer screen during login, you'll see "Start at:" with a text entry box. Pull down to <Type Region Name> and enter something like "Pooley" (an empty place) or "Fermi" (a public sandbox).

I bet you're right. ;-)

Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Sassy Romano wrote: I dunno but if you SL divorce, I think you should get your money back, I mean, lets face it, if you return the goods... LL charges more to divorce than partner, which has always struck me as hilarious. My RL divorce, done quite amicably, cost far more than my wedding. I think that's true for many, if not most. I suspect LL understood that a high barrier to entry would dissuade partnerships, and that people wouldn't look at the cost of getting out at that time. Once in, getting out becomes the top priority, cost be damned. So a high barrier to exit stops nobody, and makes money. It's a cynical view to be sure, but it's the one I hold. ;-)

Good morning, Hippie and the rest of you Kids!!! Hippiestock was a hoot, Hippie. I even enjoyed the griefer! ;-)

Sassy Romano wrote: I dunno but if you SL divorce, I think you should get your money back, I mean, lets face it, if you return the goods... When I got engaged in RL, my father wrote my fiancee a check to "take her away", with the stipulation that he could only keep the money if he kept me. Upon my divorce, my ex returned me... and the money. Dad was hoping for interest, though I do believe I'd become less of a pain in his neck over the decade I was away. So, repaying the principal should have been more than enough.

Hi Bree, It sounds like you are having a "bake fail" problem. Here's some information that may help... http://wiki.phoenixviewer.com/phoenix:bake_fail Note that the "Rebake" command (Ctrl-Alt-R) no longer exists, so skip any reference to it. If this doesn't help, come back and edit your question via "Options" over there on the right. Good luck!

Hi Trashbrat, Did you use Robin Wood's templates, placing your tattoos on the top/bottom arm maps at the bottom of the template? Come back to your question and edit it with your response via "Options" over there on the right. Can you post an image of the erroneous placement? ETA: The placement of your tattoo would be consistent with rotating the template 90° CW. A tattoo on the outside of the arm (top arm template) would rotate to cover the front of the torso, just right of center. You can see this in the overlapped composite image below... I don't know how this would have happened, but it's the most likely (only?) cause I can think of. ETA2: Of course you're not an idiot. You're just goof like me! ;-)

I forgot the SLURL!... http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Lagrange%20Point/102/172/37/

I hadn't considered that the ethernet driver would offer a speed restriction setting like that. My Macs just go as fast as they can, period. I'm glad you figured it out!

It's underway right now, Kids!!! Stop by and enjoy the music and the company... If you try the pyramid, watch your derriere. Everybody else will. Here's the SLURL... http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Lagrange%20Point/102/172/37/ ;-)

Studio09 wrote: What exactly is hippiestock? Nobody knows, but this is the fourth time Hippie's done it.

JoyofRLC Acker wrote: Yeah, this is all new stuff to me. sorry for being a bit helpless. Not sure how I can tell if the "connection" is 10/100 or 1000 as you put it. The laptop seems to have two network cards, but I have no idea how to tell which is being used when and when I googly for specs I just get more confused! The netwrok cards are: Broadcom NetXtreme 57xx Gigabit Controller Intel® Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN and as I said the router is DLink 655 "Gigabit Xtreme" but the way I read the online infor for both cards and router I should be getting more than 10 Mb/s. Standing back from the weeds though ... - am I correct that the purpose of the cable is to eliminate RF intereference? while Im pretty sure Im hardly getting any on my WLAN once cant be sure. - does the difference between 7 Mb/s (wired) and 35 Mb/s (wifi) matter for SL? I still think my issue is Vid RAM (older laptop w NV 8700M GPU) but do want to be sure connection is set up best way possible. (At least when it matters, trailing a 100' cable round the house is not onvenient!) Hi Joy, The throughput numbers you quoted are curious. Are those from some sort of internet bandwidth test? Presuming so, it seems that in the wiring between your laptop and your ISP modem you're encountering something that's limiting throughput to 10baseT (10Mbps). Your wi-fi router appears not to have that bottleneck. For this reason, your laptop gets better throughput via wi-fi than wired. I'll guess that there's an old 10mbps switch/hub between your laptop and modem, or the laptop cable is some old CAT3 or older stuff, or that the wired connection goes through a few connectors before reaching the modem. The last two situations could cause enough signal distortion to force the network adapters to back off to 10mbps. That distortion could also cause an error rate that actually makes the wired connection less reliable than the wi-fi. An intervening 10mbs switch or hub would not increase the error rate, it would simply lower the throughput. So, check your wired network layout to see if there's a switch or hub between your laptop and the modem. If there isn't, there's cause for concern about the low bitrate. While Sassy is generally correct about wired connections being more reliable than wireless, it is possible to have a wired connection that's poor enough to bring the error rate above that of a wireless connection in the same environment. The difference is that the wired error rate will probably not change much over time, as the signal degradation comes from the wires, splices and connectors. Signal degradation in a wireless environment comes from other sources of interference, like microwave ovens, other wi-fi networks and wireless devices, moving objects (people) etc.