Medhue Simoni

Pamela Galli wrote: While the render was very impressive, I did not think the actual models used very good. I would not be interested in using any of them unless they upgraded considerably. What would be interesting, is to design something similar for SL. So, the user just gets this rezzer box with a hud, and they can design their own kitchen from scratch.

Amethyst Jetaime wrote: I agree with you. They may improve and expand what they offer in a release though. What the vid shows is more or less a prototype. I wonder if you would be able to create your own models though and add them to this to use with various projects. For instance build cabinet units that you could drag and drop into different configurations for kitchens in different houses. Or various styles of windows to have in 'stock'. If you listen to the videos, that is exactly what is possible. The cabinets are just assets. Much like you would create model assets for particle systems in Blender, I would think you would do the same for these design assets.

You can't delete frames in Dazstudio. What you can do is delete or move keyframes. You can also retime your animation using a script by Mcasual.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: A post about SL:) Medhue Simoni wrote: What I find extremely interesting, is seeing how those same forces, that greatly affect real life markets, affect the SL market. We see the same types of pushes. The whole SL market is completely unregulated. And for a great part it's run by hobbyists who don't expect a return from their investment, since their fees aren't investment at all, but just funds for having some fun, and IP thieves. Not exactly a good platform to compare to the RL economy/society. Well, you can think they, we, are all hobbiests, but when LL last released numbers in 2010, I calculated that I was in the top 5% of businesses that profitted off of SL. Now, I know my own circumstances, and income. So, I wouldn't say that a bunch of hobbiests some how magically supplies LL with millions of dollars of profits every year. Are there hobbiests? Of course! Is every hobbiests dream to do it full time? For most of them, yes. Do they have expenses to pay? Yes. Do they own a sim? Maybe. Do they pay for that with lindens they earned. Probably. OMG, we have professionals, making millions. We have thousands of creators squeaking out a living. We have tens of thousands of hobbiests, which are easily paying rent. OMFG, we have a dang economy. And the crazy parts is, after every1 takes their cut, like magic, thru the most free market that ever existed, LL makes out like a bandit. Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I don't fear any Linden. They could put me out of business tomorrow if they wanted to. All they have to do is cancel my account. LL, our government, set up the SL world in such a way I indeed do not really have to worry about some SL criminal. Worst thing they do is asking for a "replacement" when they really want "an extra copy". It's still possible to ruin someones business if you set your mind to it. I'm not going to offer ideas here other than the idea that it is possible. Just give it two minutes of thought and I think you'll think of ways too. Imagine if LL decided to impose it's will more into the economy. Every time it does touch something that is part of the economy, they pretty much ruin it. The success that SL has gotten, it gets inspite of LL's mistakes, and because of the free market that it has created. We talked about corruption and fraud before. Yes, it goes on in SL, but people get wise to it. Other people talk. The scam gets around. No need for some big major rule, just because of 1 scam. If you do your research, you won't really get scammed or defrauded. When it does happen, it's rare, because people understand that scams can only last so long. When you have government step in to protect every1, you are pay much more for the protection than not having the protection at all. Instead of society actually fixing the problem on it's own, we use government force, which results in more harm than the initial problem.

Quick tutorial on how to retarget bvh, or motion capture files in Blender using the Avastar addon.

Innula Zenovka wrote: Point of information about the EU. As part of the Single European Market, we have common standards in areas like product labelling, health and safety legislation and so on, partly to ensure that manufacturers in different countries are operating on a level playing field and partly so that, wherever a manufacturer is based in the EU, he's only got to worry about one set of rules for labelling his goods for sale in the EU, one set of rules for permitted food additives and so on, rather than 27 in lots of different languages. That is, if anything it reduces the number of regulations a German company needs to worry about, since they don't have to worry about different regulatory regimes in England, France, Italy, Poland etc, and also they know anything they import from any of those countries will meet German standards. Like I said, I'm not against all regulations. Labeling is an interesting subject tho, so let's touch on that. I'm actually against mandated labeling. I do not see it as the government's job to dictate to any producers how to sell their products. Note, that I'm not saying that I'm against labeling. Good honest companies would label their products regardless of the laws, unless they were so small that they could not afford it. It should be up to the customer to decide at what level they want or need labeling, and for each market to figure that out on their own. A good example of this is in the GMO, MSG, and artificial sweetener markets. Thousands of people across the US rally to have GMOs labeled. Oh, I feel similarly to them, but I don't think I need government to do it. If they won't label them, I just won't buy from producers unless they say they don't use GMOs. See, when the producer has nothing to hide, labeling is a promotional tool, and they voluntarily label the package. In these cases of products with no GMOs, it says right on the can NO GMOs, or NO MSG, or NO asparatame. See, it's a marketing tool. Campbell soup has MSG in almost every can of their soups. I will never buy from them ever again, no matter what they change. Labeling does not stop Campbell Soup from putting MSG in their soups, only the consumers can do that by not buying their products. Using government, large food corporations can also use the labeling laws to hide their toxic additives, by setting the amount that is allowable. Now, they are trying to buy up every healthy brand on the market, cause they are losing market share fast. Today, we have the ability to test our own food. It's more than cheap enough. People that make healthy foods their life's work can easily raise money to have foods tested. With the internet, those groups can verify and back up other tests from around the world in independent labs. Instead of having 1 central authority dictating what is safe and what is not, which many times they are grossly wrong, you would have thousands of independent labs verifying results from every1 else. No corporation could buy off politicians or labs, or the FDA, to hide their crimes. The amount of money that we all spend on those government systems, could easily pay for hundreds of independent labs around the world.

What I find extremely interesting, is seeing how those same forces, that greatly affect real life markets, affect the SL market. We see the same types of pushes. The whole SL market is completely unregulated. There are almost no restrictions at all. There are constant battles within specialized markets resulting in many options for the consumer, and much lower prices. Imagine if the clothing industry in SL was controlled by a few major designers. Yes, there are big designers, but they are big because they are good, prolific designers. We have seen many calls for regulations of many sorts, and all but a few implimented by LL. You do see big reputations and standards tho. Standard sizing was 1 that cropped up and was completely brought about by a group of creators. As much as I was against it, It really was the only valid way to make mesh clothing. To me, SL is a libertarian's dream world. You can almost do anything or make anything without too many restrictions. It proves that fairly unregulated markets can work. Yes, some people do get screwed. That amount of people, is far less than when government screws every1 with their regulations. Some many people called SL the wild west in the beginning. Every1 that spends any amount of time in SL gets scammed by some1, at some point. Did we all just stop doing business here? Some random scammer I can easily deal with, and he/she can't destroy me. The people that can destroy me, you and any1 else, are those that work in government and write laws. They are the people to fear. Not some random criminal.

I never said No regulation. The point is, like you said, what is sensible. What is sensible to some, is writing tens of thousands of new laws every single year, which is what is going on now. I'm also talking about the federal government, not local cities or states within the US. Each city or local community should decide what regulations they need, and what benefits them. They should never be mandated by the federal government. Of course, the US is a bit different, as it is a collection of states that cover a vast area. We aren't talking about a country like Germany. It would be more like the EU tells Germany what it can or can't do. So, I think when people hear me say something they think is extreme, it's really just their perspective that is skewed because the US is thought to be 1 country. My point about laws being arbitrary goes beyond just something like a speed limit, which is not a law but most are just city ordinances. Part of written law's arbitrary nature has to do with language itself. The language is almost always subjective to the reader. Child labour laws have subjective language. Take, for instance, child neglect cases that have made the news. There was a prosecutor, not long ago, that was prosecuting a mother for allowing their child to play in the backyard unsupervised. I mean, come on now. When I was 7, I would get on my bike and not come home until it was getting dark. Mom didn't know where the heck I was all day, and that was what we all did. OMG, we rode bicycles without helmets! All our parents should be in jail for neglect. We even rode in the back of the open bed pickups too. Take a look at what is going on in Colorada and Washington. Yeah, they are legalizing pot, but the regulations have gone far beyond what any rational person that understands markets would ever allow. The ridiculous part about all of that, is that they are only hurting themselves by over regulating. They hurt themselves by all the money that is wasted on the regulations, the money that will be lost to the underground market, and the money lost in all the new businesses that would be created, if not for the regulations. These regulations will ultimately create monopolies around the pot growing business, just like any other highly regulated market. The regulations keep the smaller businesses from competing against the mega producers, as that is really what they are meant to do. It is always the largest corporations in an industry that goes to the government and asks for regulations to limit their competition. That is why regulations would be better served more locally than federally. In a completely free market, regulation would be far superior. In many industries, standards get created and agreed upon by most of the workers in that industry. The industry eventually creates a seal of approval, or a certification. Sellers within the industry are not required to have the certificate, or whatever, but their is some benefit to doing so as their customers might feel better about the product. Again tho, these people, unions, boards, or what nots, many times will goto the government and have the government create a law that every seller in the industry must be a member of their union or whatever. There are many areas of business where it is against the law to engage in that type of trade without being a member and paying dues to some organization. Do you see what I mean tho, when you have this central authority that will take brides for favors, it will happen, and it will destroy your nation.

Mariela Merchiston wrote: Hi i need some program for make walks animation some one can help me? There are many programs you could use, but for walks specifically, you might want to try Poser. It has a build in walk creator. You could probably pick up an old version of Poser for about $25-$50.

There is a tutorial on how to animate in Blender using the Avastar addon.

My point about not being about to go with my dad today is that the tools were dangerous. We used air compressors and air tools. I wasn't just handing him tools. I worked all day with him out on the road. Imagine how tired a 9 year old can get moving around tires that are larger than him. There would be many things for some do gooder to object with. That is the point again. The law is arbitrary and made up of opinions. What if a father wanted to have his son to goto school half the time and work with him the other half? Why is that bad? Because some people have different opinions? Should we really allow people to write laws for our own good? Is it even possible for them to know what is in our interest? Maybe, instead of wasting 12 years of a kid's life trapped in a building full of socialists, we could allow that kid to do some that is actually productive. Heck, now, the government pays, or actually we pay, to waste even more of our kids lives in colleges that give them almost nothing back of any value to any1.

I'm not the 1 believing in magic spells, which are basically laws and regulations. The free market inheritly has regulations, and they are much better than almost any you can come up with. That is the point. The difference is that an educated person can make their own choices. As soon as you artificially distort the market, your choices drop. The major difference between you and I, is that you think using force is valid, and I do not, unless I've/you've been agressed against. Most laws and regulations are completely abitrary. They are just opinions. So, you are forcing other people to adhere to your opinions on what is better, or for their own good. This ideology is extremely dangerous, as it can lead to any kind of evil possibilities, not to mention all the corruption it invites. If you don't allow for arbitrary and excessive rules and regulations, then the politicians have nothing to barter with. The drug laws are a prime example of the corruption that goes on, and how devistating it is to allow for such social controls. Yet, the laws still apply, and people have been put into cages for many decades now, destroying an untold amount of lives. Despite all the evidence about how bad these laws are, we sit here and have to debate with people about how these laws are for our own good. See, you seem to think that ONLY good laws and regulations will be enacted, but the true reality is that the only good laws are those that people adhere to voluntarily, and every1 agrees to.

@LouLouBreeze - If someone else has left a review, you can comment on that review. It's not as good as writing your own, but customers that look at the reviews will see your comments. You are right tho, the person receiving the gift should be able to leave a review.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I'm on my way to bed so will answer tomorrow. In the meantime you should read up on child labor law which still allows you to hand screws and other bits to your dad while he works. Regulation on child labour does not mean children can't do any work, it just means it is regulated. Differ ages have different restrictions. I'd also argue that, if you want to reduce "child labor abuses", than the biggest contributing factor is poverty. So, if you stop impoverishing people with regulations that only hurt them, you will do quite a bit to eliminate child labor abuses.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: You were clear enough, maybe I wasn't. By medieval I meant the small communities and lack of knowledge, not charging knights and screaming maidens. For some reason you seem to think you can oversee all potential hazards around you, I know I don't. For example, if it wasn't for regulation, your tap water could possibly kill you. You could search all over the internet on how the water came from the sea to your sink, but you will never know what happened behind the water company's fence. With regulations we still can't look over that fence, but at least we know someone does. It's extra protection and protection with a good oversight. Of course with regulations, you can still do your own research. Could you define a group? Is that 328 people? Is that all people in a 20 mile radius? Is it all people on your side of the track? Is it all people you can have a fun night with? What if 51% of the group was not agreeing with you? Would you form a splinter group? I think you are confused. See, I'm not the 1 saying I can foresee anything, other than, that the government solution is inheritly inefficient, and can not possibly know all the negative consequences, hence leading to a worse outcome than any other solution. It's government that constantly thinks it can know things that are impossible to know. What I, and Hayek, are saying, is that you can not know what the right solutions can be, and it is only the market that can figure that out in the most efficient way, using the least amount of resources.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: It's an interesting report to say the least. I giggled a little. It basically admits that there can be significant negative impacts to ALL regulations, which is dang close to what I said. No it's not. Admitting that there can be negative impacts, even to all regulations, is not nearly the same as your claim that regulations are counter productive. It even leaves room for the exact opposite. Where I differ, is the amount of negative impacts. The government seems to think it can calculate it accurately. I do not agree. The numbers speak for themselves, they are from 2002 to 2012. It's 2014 now, so there is no question about how high the inflation was. The government doesn't "seem to think it can calculate it accurately" at all. The article clearly states some things can't be directly translated into monetary values. Also, the numbers for both benefits and costs have a huge error margin. Who would have better insight? The office with all the available data, or you with, from what I have read so far, just your opinion (that a free market is the holy grail)? Where's your explanation of how regulation on child labour is counterproductive? You seem to be making my points for me. The free market is not the holy grail, and this would imply it has some kind of magical power. The free market is akin to the scientific method. Yeah, you could use other methods and possibly come to similar conclusions, but this is the best way. Gosh, you can throw the ball a bit harder than child labor. This should be obvious. When I was a kid, my dad used to take my on calls to repair tires on big semi trucks. The tires were larger than me, but I could still help him with little things and hand him tools. He paid me almost nothing, but I got to spend time with my dad, and I learned alot. Today, he could not bring me along because of child labor laws. The abuse of child labor was not a very large problem in the states. They were isolated incidents. When you restrict children from doing any work at all, you deprive them of the learning experience, and the pay they would receive. When I was young, many kids in the poorer families had to work to help out. By restricting their employment, you are further hurting the poorest families. If you go back and look at what group supported those child labor laws, it was the trade unions. Again, along with minimum wages, the trade unions used the government to further secured their place in the labor market, and restricted any and all forms of competition. As a parent, I think I'm going to care about my child's interests quite a bit more than some government agency and I don't need, nor want, government to get in the way of my child's progress or opportunities.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: To me, in the new world we are living in, we need to take responsibility for our own protection That doesn't sound very "new" to me, it sounds medieval at best. It's certainly not the world I am living in and I am glad about that. Have you ever considered the fact that there are people who are not able to protect themselves? Did you consider you could be one of them tomorrow? Obviously, I was far too vague for any1 to clearly understand my statement. Sometimes, I write like people can easily follow me, but to them, the stairs are missing steps. When I say "protection", I mean all of the things we should know and understand about everything we do. Most of us walk around eating whatever, and doing whatever without fully understanding the impact this has on our lives. We trust in our government to protect us from pollution, or disseases, or dangerous products, or natural disasters, and so on. We don't realize that by relying on governments to do these things gives us very bad results because the incentives are not properly assigned, as they would be in a completely voluntary system. That said, we also have the internet now, where we can get together and discuss things in detail, and spread good sustainable solutions voluntarily. That is what I meant by "we need to take responsibility for our own protection". I also meant we as families and groups, not as a whole nation, as that is tyranny.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive. I wasn't talking about productive, being part of a society is about so much more than that. As I said I can come up with countless examples (which will probably be pointless), but I think child labour is a good one. EDIT I dislike dumping large, boring documents on people as much as I dislike reading them, but you might want to give this a quick look, scroll down to page 11 for an overview. It's an interesting report to say the least. I giggled a little. It basically admits that there can be significant negative impacts to ALL regulations, which is dang close to what I said. Where I differ, is the amount of negative impacts. The government seems to think it can calculate it accurately. I do not agree. They have a major incentive to miscalculates the stats. Just go take a look at their accessment of inflation. They even totally changed the inflation markers again, in the last year. It has been changed numerous times, depending on how much the government wants to hide inflation. When any honest person that is actually seeking the truth, compares prices on things people actually need, the inflation is much more than the government reports. Peter goes over some of these government numbers from a year ago and shows how the government understates inflation. It's kind of funny that I would put a Peter Schiff video in a thread about Bitcoins, as Peter is probably 1 of the biggest bashers of cryptocurrencies. Personally, I agree with Peter here about inflation, and I pretty much agree with his view on Bitcoins. That said, I do not agree that crypocurrencies have no value, and I realize the importance of the movement upon the public and the systems that control us. Whether Bitcoins is a bubble, or overvalued is kind of irrelevant. It's the ride that matters. If we are talking about a bubble in housing, this is much different than a bubble in a completely voluntary currency. If nothing else, it's better odds than playing the lotto, and less risky as putting your money in the stock market, with the stock market's potential being far less. I would never put retirement money into bitcoins, as that is what gold is for.

Notice how the tiger finds me in the maze.

Innula Zenovka wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive. To save some time, give me all the example you will need to convince you. I'm not saying that all regulation is always bad, but most of the time, people can't see or even anticipate the negative consequences of regulations. Because I bank with a bank that holds a UK banking licence, my deposits, up to a certain level, are guaranteed if the bank becomes insolvent. That is an advantage I enjoy that people whose bitcoin deposits were entrusted to Mt Gox don't have (and is almost certainly one reason why my bank survived the UK banking crisis of 2008-2009, since people like me had no reason to pull out our cash when first the bank ran into difficulties). That seems a considerable advantage to me, and also to the UK economy as a whole, since the consequences of a major high-street bank going under would have been horrific. Again, thinking in the old way. Those people at MT Gox were morons. If you use bitcoins, you don't need a bank. Your pc is the bank. Heck, a flash drive could be your bank, and you can back that account up as many times as you like. Plus, MT Gox had a bad reputation for a very long time. It was only talked about because it was the first exchange. Other exchanges, which again you don't have to use, have better security features and don't even have access to your keys, so the bitcoins can't be stolen by them, if you chose to save them there, or use the exchange. Just like the free market promises, there are many, many options, and many more coming. To me, in the new world we are living in, we need to take responsibility for our own protection, as the people in charge have proven to not be trustworthy. I find it very amusing that people trust their banks. Did any1 notice what happened in Greece? The government, pushed by the IMF, stole the money in the citizen's bank accounts. There is actually a term for this now. When we pay for a private business or banks debts, we call that a Bail Out. When the government just takes the money in your bank account to pay for government employees and programs, it's called a Bail In. Where did those smart people in Greece immediately transfer their money? OMG, into bitcoins, and some of them made a crapload at the same time. Expect to see Bail Ins being used much much more. Also, banks are now talking about negative interest rates. How fricken nutty is that? It's really going to get interesting.

Storm Clarence wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive. To save some time, give me all the example you will need to convince you. I'm not saying that all regulation is always bad, but most of the time, people can't see or even anticipate the negative consequences of regulations. I agree with both your statements highlighted. However, bitcoin is a different animal (so to speak.) Why? Because I don't want another Bernie Madoff managing my investments. How profitable would a Nigerian Exchange be at pricing bitcoin at $5000USD and comes with all the promises of Mt. Gox? Sure financial rewards can be had .... show me one? Buyer beware! I'll point out that Bernie did this in a highly regulated market, while dozens of people were complaining to the authorities. They did nothing until it had already collapsed and he couldn't pay any1 anymore. Now, imagine something similar happening with bitcoins. Fraud is fraud and can be prosecuted. No extra regulation needed. Even if you could not sue, you complain on the internet, where every1 else can see it. You make a Youtube video saying this bum scammed me, and create a hash tag. That will do more than government did about Bernie.

Perrie Juran wrote: I've never to the best of my knowledge seen a SIM where path finding is in use since its implementation. Well, I can't say I'm some pathfinding expert, but I do have quite a bit experience with various pathfinding like implementations of the years. What is called pathfinding today, is far superior, especially in resources. To accomplish the same kind of freedom and mobility with just code, is nearly impossible, and extremely resource heavy. I had created MODs before I ever found SL, and those games used "Waypoints", but if you missed something you could have crazy results, besides being resource intense. I haven't gone that deep into pathfinding yet, but from what I saw while playing during implementation, it is very robust, and works quite well. I can only imagine what VKC programed into to them and how much better they must be, all with simple call functions like evade, wander, chase, etc.

Qie Niangao wrote: Presumably because it makes bitcoin advocates feel good about themselves. Which, in fact, isn't a bad reason to do it. The customer is always right, etc. It's just a question of whether there are enough bitcoin afficionados feeling gratified enough to justify the overhead of accepting bitcoin. (And media attention notwithstanding, trade in bitcoin for goods and services is about as popular as bartering pork bellies.) What overhead? When I signed up to accept bitcoins, I clicked 1 button from the business that does all my transactions. Then, I had to create a bitcoin wallet on my pc. Gosh, that was so much harder and more work than ........ sleeping. Oh, no, I hope I can make up the cost of ZERO. Seriously people, I fail to see why so many are so against bitcoins, and yet know NOTHING about it.

Innula Zenovka wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Although, I think you are thinking about the transaction wrong. The value of bitcoin is based on other currencies. So, if you are billing some1 30 days later, you are billing them in the amount of dollars, or whatever currency you are using, compared to bitcoins. So, if the value of a bitcoin changes, you are still billing them for the dollar, or whatever currency. It is just the total amount of bitcoins that changes. This is why most merchants cash out their bitcoins as soon as they recieve them, to make sure they get the full amount back in their normal currency. Clearly I am misunderstanding, then. If I bill someone in £s and exhange any bitcoins I receive for pounds as soon as I receive them, what's the advantage to anyone of my accepting bitcoins in the first place? I can see it probably saves my overseas customers something on transaction costs as compared with their buying pounds, but are there any other advantages I've missed? The advantages depend on what you are using bitcoins for. Yes, you can avoid a bunch of fees that banks would normally charge, but also taxes, as no1 can really know the transaction took place, if you don't use a payment processing system. It's also about reach. Why would you except American Express? For that same reason, you would except Bitcoins. To have a credit card, the user must have a bank account, the same goes for Paypal. So, bitcoins is an option for all those people that can't get a bank account. My old coder lives in Costa Rica, and had to jump thru tons of hoops to get an american bank account. Heck, in the states, if you owe 1 bank money, and it goes into default, you can't get a bank account at any bank. How screwed up is that? This is how industries control the market and collude together. Bitcoin is a way around all that. Imagine all the people out there that have money to spend, but have a dispute with a bank. I don't ever want to deal with banks, as it is never in my own interest to do so.

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I could reply from a sceptic point of view and say those loans were given with the reason to make a quick buck. Sell loans you can't earn back, make them look pretty or hide them in a package then quickly sell them on, losing the risk and keeping the commission. In that case the government insurance makes no difference since the initial bank never used it, nor did the second or the third. Good government regulation could have prevented this. I don't have any in depth knowledge of the US housing market, but plenty of economists see deregulation as "contributing to the crisis". That's not the point though. The point is you give one example to back up a claim that "In most cases, the regulations distort the market and push investments into areas that are unsustainable, hence causing a crash." I'm sure you can come up with plenty more, but I can come up with countless examples where free market simply does not work. It's not that black and white. Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive. To save some time, give me all the example you will need to convince you. I'm not saying that all regulation is always bad, but most of the time, people can't see or even anticipate the negative consequences of regulations.