Madelaine McMasters

Me three. I have one mesh item, a pencil skirt from Mon Tissu that uses mesh to replace the prim panel on older style skirts. It's knee length, which would have been impossible to do with a prim attached to the pelvis. Clothing layer glitch pants complete the skirt. It's not perfect, but for the first time in my five years in SL I can sit on a chair without looking like I bought a pair of capris to match the chair's dust ruffle. I've tried a few tops and found them to be absolutely terrible. Last weekend, I tried a peplum jacket that flared at the waist like a tutu with a bustline large enough to smuggle two child avis into Zindra. It makes absolutely no sense to me to give up all the slider work I did to get my shape as I like it, only to eat a mesh muffin and look like everybody else in town.

valerie Inshan wrote: Hippie Bowman wrote: Way late today! Good day to all of you! Have a great vacation Val! Peace! Thank you Hippie! Finishing packing tonight and ready to jump in the train tomorrow! Love you this much guys!!! Have fun, Val!

Hippie Bowman wrote: Way late today! Good day to all of you! Have a great vacation Val! Peace! I got tired of waiting for you and took a nap...

Awe Thor wrote: there must be a limitless number of subjects for you to post about in these forums that you don't have a clue about. Precisely!

Awe Thor wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Your absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense Awe . . . for someone who argues so much, why do you keep making these very basic mistakes? ETA: All the references quoted related to North American studies; they aren't generalisable, and have been selectively identified by a biased collator - would you ask Obama which party to vote for and expect a balanced view? ETFA: The article you quote is irrelevant, anyway; it wasn't the concept of positive thinking that you were asking about, but books about positive thinking. ETEFA: As you note, no causative link has been identified; perhaps 90% of the people who believed in positive thinking could not participate in the studies because they were dead, having jumped off a roof believing they could fly. That would also help to explain why I have never met anyone who could. ETAOMT: I've no reason to think they will find evidence of causation - which doesn't include a double negative to dilute significantly the statement's impact. The argument you make about the locale of the study and the bias of the collator will apply to all locales and all locators. Science handles that daily. Yep, I did word my question as if it were all about the books. I'll offer up the same question about the concept. Is it entirely bunk? Feel free to promote your theory that positive thinking research is severely impacted by jumpers. It would be pretty exciting to discover that researchers had unwittingly managed to identify a subset of the general population decimated by a 90% jumper fatality rate. Or were you suggesting that 90% of the general population has jumped to their death? My belief that we'll make progress on the causation (or rather my disbelief that we won't ;-) stems from my belief that science will continue to progress in any direction it probes. There are plenty of people probing in this direction. The "dilution" in my statement was intentional. I'm not certain about any of this stuff.

Awe Thor wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: While those "power of positive thinking" books might be mostly bunk, do we know they're all bunk? Of course they are. Awe . . . hasn't met anyone yet whose positive belief that they can fly, unaided, has proved successful. ETA And all you have to do is look at the number of lardasses scootering around American theme parks to know that they don't work on dietary problems; or perhaps obesity is associated with illiteracy in the USA? Your absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense (for someone who argues so much, why do you keep making these very basic mistakes?) Here's some evidence to the contrary... http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/positive-thinking/SR00009 Note that this is correlation, not causation, as revealed by... "It's unclear why people who engage in positive thinking experience these health benefits. One theory is that having a positive outlook enables you to cope better with stressful situations, which reduces the harmful health effects of stress on your body. It's also thought that positive and optimistic people tend to live healthier lifestyles — they get more physical activity, follow a healthier diet, and don't smoke or drink alcohol in excess." But you just know people are looking for causation. I've no reason to think they won't find evidence of it.

Carole Franizzi wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: Didn't really understand what you meant in the bolded sentence but here's my two-yens worth anyway. Schadenfreude - neither healthy nor unhealthy. Just natural, normal, and very, very human. I'm in approximate agreement, I think (this isn't something I've thought about much). But as our social evolution is moving faster than our genetic evolution, I wouldn't be surprised if we discover that schadenfreude, as well as being natural, does affect overall health of an individual and the social group, though perhaps in opposite ways. I'll be fascinated by the experiments that attempt to tease this all apart. It's very interesting to see how researchers attempt to isolate the things they're looking for. In reply to the bolded bit. If I'm to be coherent, I have to say I would be surprised. If I'm going to stick to what I said before then schadenfreude is only a symptom and not a cause. Just as a fever is a sign of the body fighting infection, a schadenfreudian (??) reaction is, I suspect, only a symptom of the schadenfreudic (???) person's debilitated ego reacting. Sure, if everyone gloated all the time at everyone else's misfortune, it would be a dreadful sign of the times, however, the problem wouldn't be the schadenfreudianism (??????) per se, but the underlying society-wide cause of the death of all empathy. I forgot to retain the part of Aethelwine's statement that makes what I said make more sense "Schadenfreude is not a healthy pleasure to be boasting about." If that shadenfreude is apparent, might the social dynamics punish the holder? (We could discuss whether Aethelwine was talking about the schadenfreude being private, I don't have an answer about healthiness either way.) But I don't think I'd be surprised to discover that even when only known internally, that shadenfreude has an effect on health. What if it's discovered that people who engage in it frequently live longer than those who don't? I don't expect we'll see that study soon, and it'll be surrounded by critique, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that our natures affect our health. ETA: While those "power of positive thinking" books might be mostly bunk, do we know they're all bunk?

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Tex Monday wrote: I do applaud after a waitress drops a tray of glasses...but then I feel bad that she's got to clean it all up afterwards. The instances in the forums, to which I was refering, usually take place after the tray has been dropped. Some waitresses know what they're doing and can be quite efficient at cleaning the place up... others just scatter things about and make a bigger mess than what was there before. Tell me that you wouldn't snicker at someone as inept as that. ...Dres Dunno what Tex would tell you, but I probably wouldn't snicker. If it was my tray they dropped, I might help them clean it up. If they were throwing the tray at me? Well, that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. Don't ask me why they brought a kettle of fish, I asked for a salad.

Awe Thor wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: We all make mistakes, it's what makes us human. Where does this piece of nonsense come from? Are you seriously suggesting that all the other species on planet earth get everything exactly right all the time? Awe . . . can't wait for the next bit of apple pie and motherhood kitsch cliche with no reasoned basis. "Mistakes" go all the way down to the genetic replication level, but you've gotta be pretty far along the evolutionary path (and on the right one) before you find a creature that consciously perceives mistakes as such, and better yet has a word to desribe them. It is pretty cool that you can back up on the path a bit and find other animals that get close. I like apple pie, motherhood (though not enough to try it), some cliches and stepping outside the confines of your reasoning. What's the reasoned basis for your attempting to refute Aethelwine's statement yesterday with evidence that had no bearing on it? Some mistakes are effortless, and some seem to require baffling amounts of work. ETA: It's even cooler when you back wayyyy along the evolutionary trail to a fork before the thing you found, then take the other path and find it popping up there was well. Will this vexing "natural irrationality" turn out to be a better than average way to go?

Carole Franizzi wrote: Didn't really understand what you meant in the bolded sentence but here's my two-yens worth anyway. Schadenfreude - neither healthy nor unhealthy. Just natural, normal, and very, very human. I'm in approximate agreement, I think (this isn't something I've thought about much). But as our social evolution is moving faster than our genetic evolution, I wouldn't be surprised if we discover that schadenfreude, as well as being natural, does affect overall health of an individual and the social group, though perhaps in opposite ways. I'll be fascinated by the experiments that attempt to tease this all apart. It's very interesting to see how researchers attempt to isolate the things they're looking for.

I'm saddened to hear of your loss, Dres. When I lose someone in RL, I think back to a memorable moment or characteristic and work up a story to tell. I recently lost an aunt and went back through my memories of her to find a good story. It wasn't hard. She gave me a drum set for Christmas when I was six or so (go women's lib!) and had me play it while she and my uncle danced a polka in the living room. My parents never forgave her ;-) I believe a life is a collection of stories, and passing them on is as near an afterlife as I can imagine. However you do it, tell a story of your friend.

Tex Monday wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Tex Monday wrote: I do applaud after a waitress drops a tray of glasses...but then I feel bad that she's got to clean it all up afterwards. The instances in the forums, to which I was refering, usually take place after the tray has been dropped. Some waitresses know what they're doing and can be quite efficient at cleaning the place up... others just scatter things about and make a bigger mess than what was there before. Tell me that you wouldn't snicker at someone as inept as that. ...Dres Of course I would...but the point of that whole discussion was that we need to have a little sympathy for the waitress in having to clean it up rather than just pointing and snickering and laughing at her. It's like seeing a person in a play who is messing up horribly. It's ok to laugh, but you have to understand that they're trying to crawl inside their skin to get away from it. Without a little sympathy for the person, this world would be a truely cruel place indeed. And yes, I did see the Stooges movie...but I thought you were referring to the original shorts that i used to watch almost religiously on Saturday morning television... I'm often the one dropping the tray and I don't mind the applause, but I agree with you, Tex. We all make mistakes, it's what makes us human. When someone is trying to crawl inside their skin, I'll sometimes try to pull it over me as well (couldn't you have found a better analogy, like crawling under the covers? ;-). I've been there, I've done it, I still remember.

Freya Mokusei wrote: Hi Maddy, this is a really good rebuttal to my points. The Haswell series is very promising, and I'm sure there's a few other things I've not seen coming. There are indeed some exceptions to some of the general rules I posted (although I think you will be disappointed if you compare a laptop power supply to a reasonable-efficiency ATX one, and batteries - while consistant - are still an expensive single point of failure). I won't respond to each point in turn however, because as you pointed out the OP is quite set on a laptop, to an extent that I didn't realise when I posted. Thanks! Hi Freya, I hope you didn't feel like I ran over you! I once designed both stationary and portable medical monitors, and so had to deal with many of the same issues faced by desktop and laptop designers. The points you raised have been circulating for years and I've been wanting to address them for about that long. You just happened to be crossing the street when I drove through! At the time I began my design career, field failure data indicated that the portable versions of products my company made were less reliable than the stationary stuff. Field service was fixing everything, but not complaining to engineering. I'm dreadfully curious, so started eating lunch with the field service manager to learn from him what could be improved about our products (who better to know?) Oy, did I get an earfull! Much of the trouble centered around batteries and connectors. The charging systems weren't really designed properly and were stressing the batteries. Connectors were failing due to vibration. By the time I worked my way up to having my own little design team (doing primarily portable products), we had our field failure rate below that of the stationary products. We fixed the battery systems and eliminated connectors by squishing everything onto one circuit board. On a modern laptop, almost every failure is memorable because it's costly. There's often only one circuit board in the thing and everything is on it. Power supply failure? New motherboard! Headphone port get blasted by static? New motherboard! Desktops are heading the same way. After Haswell comes the generation of Intel CPUs that bring everything into the chip, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, USB, Thunderbolt, GPU, SATA, PCI... it'll all be on one chip. No more plug in cards. We'll lament that we can't just replace the part that breaks, but parts will break less often. Thanks for letting me beat on ya! Hugs, Maddy

Czari Zenovka wrote: Bronxcheer wrote: Czari Zenovka wrote: herself into a hole I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. That would make two of you ;-)

Awe Thor wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Awe Thor wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: The statement made by Aethelwine was... "Schadenfreude is not a healthy pleasure to be boasting about." The study you cite reports that shadenfreude happens in children and, in the little I could find describing the report, makes no claims about any health effects deriving from it. The presence of shadenfreude is not in doubt. Dresden demonstrated it. The claim to be challenged here is that schadenfreude is not healthy. If the report offers evidence to the contrary, why didn't you mention it? The study offers no indication whatsoever that schadenfreude is not unhealthy. In fact, the tenor of the paper - albeit one written by Germans - implies that schadenfreude is an entirely natural emotion - and the conclusion of the researchers says: "Our data revealed first evidence that schadenfreude might have an important impact on social (i.e. helping) behaviour even among young children. Thus, it is highly important to further analyse the determinants and consequences of schadenfreude. Right now, we are standing at the beginning of the understanding of this emotion." Awe . . . is still waiting for any evidence of justification that schadenfreude is unhealthy, as Aethelwine unequivocally stated. The evidence that schadenfreude may impact helping behavior is precisely what you should have brought here in first place. I won't blindly trust that you quoted the study accurately, nor will I take the study itself as gospel (I'm simply being as wary as you), but appreciate being made aware of it. Aethelwine's statement was, I think, easy to comprehend. You had the chance to refute in the first volley and missed it. Instead, you fired off evidence (of shadenfreude in the young) that didn't even graze the target (shadenfreude is unhealthy). You don't advance a position by waiting for the other side to retreat while you stand still. This MadBagLady is happy to have got you to take a step forward. Gee, I'm even starting to sound like you! ;-) I am still waiting for a scrap of evidence that does not rely on personal bigotry to suggest that Aethelwine's criticism of Dresden is in any way substantiated. My contention is that schadenfreude is not unhealthy, as Aethelwine mistakenly stated, and that studies support my belief that it is a natural emotion. I don't have to refute anything, as it is up to Aethelwine to explain the basis for his statement. Awe . . . enjoys watching others in the forum scrabbling around trying to justify the unjustifiable But don't you think it was counterproductive to exhibit a lack of comprehension of the statement by refuting something else, while you were waiting for supporting evidence from Aethelwine? Perhaps my analogy was a bit off. You don't advance a position by waiting for the other side to retreat while shooting yourself in the foot. It was only after I brought your aiming error to light that you fired off a shot in a potentially productive direction. I don't have an opinion on this, but at least I now have a few things to read.

Awe Thor wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: The statement made by Aethelwine was... "Schadenfreude is not a healthy pleasure to be boasting about." The study you cite reports that shadenfreude happens in children and, in the little I could find describing the report, makes no claims about any health effects deriving from it. The presence of shadenfreude is not in doubt. Dresden demonstrated it. The claim to be challenged here is that schadenfreude is not healthy. If the report offers evidence to the contrary, why didn't you mention it? The study offers no indication whatsoever that schadenfreude is not unhealthy. In fact, the tenor of the paper - albeit one written by Germans - implies that schadenfreude is an entirely natural emotion - and the conclusion of the researchers says: "Our data revealed first evidence that schadenfreude might have an important impact on social (i.e. helping) behaviour even among young children. Thus, it is highly important to further analyse the determinants and consequences of schadenfreude. Right now, we are standing at the beginning of the understanding of this emotion." Awe . . . is still waiting for any evidence of justification that schadenfreude is unhealthy, as Aethelwine unequivocally stated. The evidence that schadenfreude may impact helping behavior is precisely what you should have brought here in first place. I won't blindly trust that you quoted the study accurately, nor will I take the study itself as gospel (I'm simply being as wary as you), but appreciate being made aware of it. Aethelwine's statement was, I think, easy to comprehend. You had the chance to refute in the first volley and missed it. Instead, you fired off evidence (of shadenfreude in the young) that didn't even graze the target (shadenfreude is unhealthy). You don't advance a position by waiting for the other side to retreat while you stand still. This MadBagLady is happy to have got you to take a step forward. Gee, I'm even starting to sound like you! ;-)

Freya Mokusei wrote: I'd'd never, ever buy a laptop for SL. Hi Freya, the OP stated that a laptop was a requirement, and I think we can try to help Aaria make the best of that. There isn't enough space inside to dissipate the heat from extended use (>30minutes of use may damage components). Modern computers monitor their own temperatures and will throttle as necessary to avoid harmful temperatures. If this claim were true, how would warranties work? I can't speak for WinTel computers, but Apple's computers have temperature monitors (in addition to those inside the big chips) under control of a tiny computer which does not run the OS (it's called the System Management Controller or SMC in AppleSpeak). The SMC reports information to the main CPU, which can advise the user of system status (battery level, temperatures, etc) and regulate CPU/GPU speeds to maintain safe temperatures. In the event of a malfunction or malware in the main CPU or OS, the SMC will do what is necessary to maintain safe operating conditions, including turning off the laptop. I expect WinTel computers contain similar functionality. Absent this sort of protection against software malfunction, computer manufacturers warranty costs would be at the mercy of malware. They don't have room for a decent GPU. It's not a matter of physical room, the GPU is the size of a fingernail. It's a matter of power dissipation. Laptops are necessarily limited in this regard by their size, but one can (and I have) get reasonable SL performance from the confines of a laptop. There are gaming laptops with very capable nVIDIA GPUs, like the GTX680M, on board. They are expensive to be sure and probably have terrible battery life, but would run SL very nicely. Intel's integrated graphic hardware improves with every generation (as it must to avoid even more ridicule). From what I've read, Haswell integrated graphics, while still no match for the best nVIDIA GPU chips, give a good compromise between battery life and performance. For those who'll operate a laptop primarily from the wall outlet, the decreased battery runtime resulting from use of an external GPU would not be an issue. Then it becomes a matter of cooling. Furthermore, a desktop computer using a certain GPU will probably deliver better graphics performance than a laptop using exactly the same GPU because the laptop will run the chip at a lower frequency to increase battery life and reduce heat. Fan space is limited in a laptop. So, beware of reviews for a graphics ship in a desktop machine if you'll be getting it in a laptop. RAM can't always be replaced. True, laptops are generally more closed environments, so make sure you've got enough RAM and hard drive space in the initial configuration. Heavy draws on the battery caused by SL will shorten battery life, lack of internal regulation of voltage will shorten component lifespan. While it's true that rechargeable batteries have a finite cycle life, and energy intensive programs like SL will drain a battery quickly requiring more frequent charge cycles, that only happens when the computer is not plugged in. For most road warriors, the advantage of a laptop is not so much the battery operation as the transportability. If one generally operates their laptop within reach of a power outlet, battery life will be largely unaffected by usage. That said, the weakest link in a laptop is the battery. It wears out eventually, even if you don't use it. With regard to voltage regulation, the internal components of a laptop need the same care and feeding as those of a desktop, and they get it. The voltage regulators that supply the CPU, GPU, display backlight and other components are of the same design as those in a desktop, and maintain the same degree of regulation. Desktop computers are designed to run from AC mains voltages ranging from 100-240V. A laptop will accept the same range of AC voltage to operate the computer and charge the batteries. The ratio of battery cell voltage from full (4.2V) to empty (2.5V) is less than that for the acceptable range of AC line voltages. By having the moderating influence of the battery (which also protects you from blackouts), a laptop is a more benign electrical environment for components than a desktop. Unfortunately, this is more than offset by the physical abuse that arises from portability and the additional complexity of the battery system itself. They rarely have good ethernet/wired LAN controllers, and Wifi is not suitable for the amount of traffic required. I hear this issue raised often. I've been using SL via Wi-Fi since arriving here in 2008. I've never had an issue. Laptop wired ethernet connections, if present, are now usually 1GBit. It would be hard to imagine how even a lackluster controller design would affect SL performance when the Internet connection itself is likely to be 100x or more slower. Certainly Wi-Fi is subject to interference and the vagaries of unknown router quality on the road, but that's a limitation of the environment, not the computer. As Aaria will be on the road, dealing with those varied environments can't be avoided. Most laptops have both Wi-Fi and wired Ethernet, there's not much more one can ask for. The components are never designed for long life, or heavy use. (You will want both) The components used in laptops are of the same quality as those used in desktops. The reason laptops are more prone to failure is that they take more physical abuse. I still surf the web on a 10 year old Apple PowerBook and do astrophotography on a seven year old MacBook Pro, which sports a few dents supplied free of charge by a friend who no longer asks to borrow my computers. Laptops are built with more attention to durability than desktops, and necessarily so. That does not mean they'll last longer. You can't improve the specifications if Second Life changes the minimum hardware requirements tomorrow. Correct, which is why it's important to make your initial laptop choice carefully. Aaria, I have gathered from others here that nVIDIA GPUs work better with SL than ATI. The laptop you've mentioned has a mid-level nNIDIA GPU, so that's good. Intel's latest generation of CPUs (called Haswell) have improved integrated graphics controllers. This article suggests that Haswell processors with HD4000 level integrated graphics will offer performance comparable to that nVIDIA chip. Read it only if your eyes are slow to bleed ;-) The advantage of Haswell is that overall power consumption will be lower, resulting in either longer battery life or a lighter machine. Laptops containing those chips are just now becoming available. I wish I had more concrete advice to give. Good luck!

Awe Thor wrote: Aethelwine wrote: Awe Thor wrote: Aethelwine wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Gadget Portal wrote: Wow, did this whole thing escalate out of control. It sure did, but it's been great. I just love threads where people talk about some interaction they had with a crazy person, only to have that crazy person come along and try to prove how crazy they're not... making themselves look that much more crazy. ...Dres Schadenfreude is not a healthy pleasure to be boasting about. What sort of nonsense is that? I can't see that you mean physically healthy, so you must be disparaging Dresden's mental health, in which case perhaps you would like to reference the relevant element of the DSM (either 4 or 5 would do) that supports your contention, since one narrow-minded person's opinion is all that it is. I entirely agree with Dresden; the Forums are a wonderful place to see morons demonstrate their idiocy, to see masochists complain about how badly they have been beaten up, to see naive serial romantics whinge about the ephemeral nature of their partners' affections, and especially to see those, like you, who would like to believe in the the underlying humanity of humanity, but are confronted here by the greater mass of humanity who enjoy nothing more than to hear the plaintive adult versions of the immature "It's not fair!". I note that - entirely appropriately it appears - you even have "whine" as part of your name. Awe . . . suggests you start a thread called "Healthy Pleasures" and see what responses that get s you. Are you intending to inject some humour in to the debate by making me laugh at your apparent lack of basic comprehension skills and bizarre logic? Well no laughs from me I am afraid i feel sorry for you and your delicate sensibilities... Awe Diddums... Maybe you should ask your mummy for help with understanding what has been said before sharing. A lack of comprehension? I was basing my comments on a professional study recently published in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology, which found that children as young as four had a righteous sense of schadenfreude, which had developed considerably by the time they were eight years old. Unless you have reasons for suggesting that this is only a pre-adolescent phenomenon - and I have considerable practical evidence to confirm it is not - then I would suggest that it is you who is suffering from a lack of comprehension and logic. Awe . . . I am afraid that the laugh is on you; I am enjoying your publicly humiliating verbal pratfall. ETA Particularly since you have demonstrated a considerable degree of moral insensitivity regarding maternal support. The statement made by Aethelwine was... "Schadenfreude is not a healthy pleasure to be boasting about." The study you cite reports that shadenfreude happens in children and, in the little I could find describing the report, makes no claims about any health effects deriving from it. The presence of shadenfreude is not in doubt. Dresden demonstrated it. The claim to be challenged here is that schadenfreude is not healthy. If the report offers evidence to the contrary, why didn't you mention it?

Hippie Bowman wrote: LOL! You people bring big smiles to my face! HAHAH! Peace!

valerie Inshan wrote: Ouh la la!!!

valerie Inshan wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: It would be easier to get my brain into the mood if you two would stop jabbering so early in the morning... Morning? It's 3:40 PM here. Wake up Maddy! By the time your yapping rides the winds from France to Wisconsin, it's unbearably early in the morning, 8:42AM to be painfully precise. Don't you tell me to wake up, you little French monkey!

Hippie Bowman wrote: valerie Inshan wrote: Good morning Hippie and all! Thinking of you (while mentally getting in the mood for vacation!) Hugs you tight! HEHEH! Morning Val! Hugs! Peace! It would be easier to get my brain into the mood if you two would stop jabbering so early in the morning...

Czari Zenovka wrote: Alicia Sautereau wrote: Czari Zenovka wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: speaking of that..has anyone seen or heard from Chris?i don't think i have seen him pop up in the group in a long long time..that or any forums.. i hope he is doing well..and wish the same for all.. I haven't seen him in ages, and share your wishes. Same here...how about Trout? Went swimming, late 2010 Remember some names, but to many new ones i`ve never heard of since the group was founded Don't you have another post to answer? Hmmmm... :matte-motes-wink: I arrived at the FC Hangout in May of 2010, and had probably drifted on within a year and a half. I don't recall either of you there. Pity, I'd have enjoyed poisoning you both with my bar snacks.

Drongle McMahon wrote: Maybe this will help... Here are four 16x16m squares with the same gravel texture applied, and starting at top left, across then down, 1x1, 2x2, 3x3, 4x4 repeats. Note the obvious repeating pattern artefact due to low frequency variation in tone across the texture. That is the main problem with repeats. It is possible, but hard, to remove those variations. (There are also tricks with mesh UV maps to mitigate this). On the right is a closeup of the center of the same squares. I've spent long afternoons trying to even out textures for tiling. The fastest solution I've found is to lower my standards ;-)

Nio Skytower wrote: Maddy, Thanks. I think I grasp it now! The answer was really there the whole time. I tried another sample and was able to scale it down smaller this way. I just have to work on teaking the seamless part of the texture, because as it got smaller there were lines visable. Well, you wouldn't be the first person staring the answer in the face, Nio. There are seamless sand textures at that place I recommended elsewhere in this thread, but it's nice to know how to make them yourself as well. I learned how to do this in Photoshop years ago by experimenting on my own. Now there are many tutorials online. Here's one... I haven't watched the whole thing, and it is Photoshop specific, but the general idea of offsetting the starting texture by 1/2 in both horizontal and vertical, then fixing up the seams, applies to any photo editing tool. Google "create tileable textures" to get more tutorials. Have fun, Nio... and show us something when you're done!