Anaiya Arnold

I'm not sure but I have a guess that might explain it. LOD transition distance depends on the size of the mesh (the bigger the mesh the further the LOD transition distance). I guess in a linkset the LOD transition distance is dictated by the largest mesh in the linkset. Were the stairs the largest mesh in the linkset?

All that is true but it wasn't the point I was driving at. These models might be ineffecient and no doubt some people at LL know that, but can they convince the people who make decisions? If Rod thinks he can revolutionize LL's business model, get rid of the pesky SLers by producing a new revenue stream based on existing uploads, and increase total profits at the same time, is he going to want to hear "you can't do that because no one will want to buy such inefficient mesh for their projects" from those members of LL staff who have the technical eptitude to tell him this? Is it a message he will be receptive to?

You might know a lot about mesh and since you say you do, I am sure you do. LL might know a lot about mesh,and if they say they do, who only knows if they really do? Probably not LL. Someone working at LL might know what you know, but can that be effectively communicated to the people making decisions if they are hot for some idea that requires the opposite be true? Is this insurmountable barrier is an idea that Rodvik can be made to accept if he suddenly thinks he is going to get credit for revolutionizing LL's business model, expanding its revenue stream while improving margins/return, and finally getting rid of all those pesky SL users the Lab has wanted shut of for years now (if only someone else could be made to pay their bills)? Who knows? LL is often seems so directionless and aimless that perhaps even they cannot guess what wild random antics they will pull next or which elusive rabbit they will try to chase down. They were going to be the next facebook or something for avatars the other week (well other year but sometimes all these antics seem to just flow into one singularity of antics happening everywhere at once). Now they are Desura? Remember the story telling software? Me neither. I don't think they even finished that project.

How do they know any DJ does not have a club owning alt? How do they know any DJ is not friends with a club owner they would ruin their own reputation for? At the end of the day if you don't try very hard then you will ruin your own reputation, be a poor advertisement for your own club and what kind of patrons are so desperate to get out of there that a bad performance would steal them away?

Or the email address if you have not used it for another avatar since.

Yes, new item/listing etc.

My guess would be that one or more prims have been moved or resized or otherwise adjusted since the last time the script was reset. Resizer scripts generally need to be reset if the prims have been edited manually. If you have not edited any of the prims yourself, it's possible the creator had done so and forgot to reset all of the scripts before they packaged the hairs up for sale.

Yes, their auto-adult filter is annoying. I had a skirt bumped I think because of the word "blood" (there's no actual blood involved, just a skirt themed on "blood, gold, land"), although I can't be bothered going through the tedious process of checking. Also the demo version wes left rated as general....whatever.

It's supposed to deliver more reliably and merchants no longer need land to sell on marketplace. With your two problems, so long as the items are copy, when you get your folder, rezz a box inworld. Place the contents of the folder with the stuff you just got delivered into the box and name it whatever you want the folder to be named. Now open and unpack that box like you normally would to generate your new folder that you can modify and annotate, and then take the box into your inventory. Now you have your folder that you can change the name on and your box of unaltered stuff in case you need to start over with a prim that gets ruined while worn or something. Go ahead and delete the original folder you were sent. If you screw up a prim you are wearing while editing and you don't already have another copy, leave the item on, go to your inventory, left highlight the item you ruined, right click and copy, then left click and paste (maybe add a "B" to the end of the name of the new copy you just generated). Take the original off and delete it (make sure you delete the original not the new copy!). The item doesn't update fully until you take it off so the new copy will be like the old copy was before you put it on as long as you make it before you take the item you ruined off.

I gave up and used a HUD in the end.

I know what you said but your premise is nonsense centering on a trivial and irrelevant game of semantics. LL don't put up with the costs of offering support to pay devotion to some word. They do it in the expectation of profit, so what matters in respect of the efficient use of resources is not whether or not they are exclusive to people who fit some word, but whether they enhance LL's ability to profit from SL. The meaning of the word customer doesn't really have much of anything to do with anything. LL offer support for profit-motives, not as a tribute to the word customer.

Yes, that's why it jumped out at me to become the first thing in that list, although I admit that I don't know how much of that LL creams off and how much is diverted to Paypal or whoever for handling the transaction.

Nonsense. Being premium is actually rather cheap. Plenty of people spend much more money than that on SL without ever being anything but a "free-account" member. If you've been to the marketplace you might have noticed you can buy marketplace stuff with money (as opposed to lindens). You might not be aware but plenty of premium accounts rely on people to buy some or all of their stipend to be able to continue as premium. I suggest a lot of lindens are getting sold to "free-account" holders. Then there are all the land owners who wouldn't own land if they couldn't pay for through their SL economic activities, and I suggest a lot of the revenue they rely on comes from "free-account" holders. Now you can tell yourself these people are not direct customers of LL, but it's an irrelevant and quibbling distinction. What matters is whether LL profit from their economic activities and the extent to which LL's bottom-line is dependent on their ongoing participation. How the money trickles through to LL from these users matters less than how much money it is.

I think you are over complicating the matter. If it does not violate any end user license of the carnival ticket, I can onsell it to someone else who wants to use the ride. If there happens to be a regular and entirely legal market trading large volumes of these tickets at relatively stable prices, it's a matter of fact that the tickets have value. It's possible to sue a neighbour for ruining your view, and to receive monetary damages if you prevail. If a view can be construed legally to have a quantifiable value (and it can) it's not really debatable whether something that is routinely traded in large volumes at a stable price point, all in compliance with all end user license have any monetary value. Lindens not only have a value, they have an easily quantified monetary value.

I had a simlar thought, but instead of the option to make transparent, I thought a creator of mesh making a jacket and skirt for instance, could put an interior surface face on the top jacket where it will cover the skirt, and a separate face on the skirt (or pants) where the jacket/top covers to induce an alpha sorting glitch that hides the bottom part of the outfit when it does clip through the top part. When the items are textured, a copy of the skirt/pants is made but the texture that goes on the faces that will be covered by the jacket/top has an alpha channel. The interior (not visible when the item is worn) faces also have a texture saved with an alpha layer. So the exterior of the jacket and all of the skirt that is supposed to show when you have the jacket on is made with textures saved with no alpha channel, and there is a layer inside the jacket and on the parts of the skirt/pants that are not supposed to clip through the jacket that have alpha channels saved into the texture. The sorting glitch will prevent the skirt (or pants) showing when they clip and by keeping the effected textures to those parts of the skirt that will be hidden by the jacket, this should prevent unwanted "side effect" glitches. When the outfit is sold, the idea would be to provide two texture versions of the pant/skirt. One with no alpha channel on any of the faces to wear alone, and one with the alpha channel on textures applied to the specially created faces, only where the matching top is worn. That way the alpha glitches is only happening to faces that are covered and supposed to be glitching, and not when someone is walking past windows or standing in front of a plant. Individual creators of course can take their existing stuff and redo the texture layout to add the faces at any time, but even Commercial full perm sellers could create series where say skirts and pants from series A fit and have faces designed to work with any jacket or top from series A.

300? Wouldn't get me a notebook where I live and customs is very vigilent in identifying and charging import duty on internationally purchased electronics. Not that they will tell you how much that duty will be before the item arrives in the country and they slap the fee on. You just have to take a wild guess as to whether it will be 10s or 100s of dollars.

Blender costs exactly 0 dollars and zero cents. A couple of months ago there was a big give away of software for 3D modelling by Daz Studio. No one needs to use unlicensed or illicitly obtained software for 3D modelling or animations. Gimp is free. No one needs to use unlicensed or illicitly obtained software for 2D texturing. No one needs to do anything dishonest to have what they need to create for SL. Approximately 6 out of 10 times, support is fairly prompt (although not necessarily supportive). This was true for me before I had a shop, after I started a small shop, and in fact throughout my years of accessing SL. 4 out of 10 times, it takes longer than I feel it should. I don't think the size of your shop has anything to do with it. Some people have no shop and they still access support. I'm also confused as to why you want to destroy the businesses of other SL users who have nothing to do with your support problems and who suffer the same hampered experience you do when dealing with SL. For LL, the more free stuff, the more value added to SL for their customers. It's only other users of SL you are hurting while doing LL a big huge favour. So LL will be thanking you, it's only other small shop owners you are hurting. The bigger shop owners tend to have a loyal customer base they have proved their worth to (that's how they got to be big stores) who will continue (and may prefer to) pay for their stuff so even if they experience less sales, they are likely to still have a contingent of customers who want their stuff and will keep coming back for more, even if similar stuff is free. It's the small shops trying to get established and who have not yet proved themselves to prospective customers who are most under-cut by freebies. Not the big stores you feel are getting all the support from LL and certainly not LL themselves.

EvaAlmighty wrote: Invissible Pony and fish mouth are better than having an unpleasant personality.... As to why some avatars like mine appear unhappy? I guess its your...I would say fishy personality. :matte-motes-sarcasm: It is always more pleasant to have a pleasant personality, but as true as this point is, I cannot stay to discuss it all day. My pony needs exercising and since I am the only one who can see it, no one but me can take it out for its gallop. It would take an obese pony to need to squeeze and hold its guts in to be able to walk between my avatar's legs. I had a great time writing the post you quoted Eva and wish you had gotten as much fun out of it as I did. [From PeachJubilee] PS: I visited your blog and the pics are too big for the average screen. Can you swap how it works so that the pics display smaller in page and expand to the large size when clicked on rather than the other way around? If you can this I think it would make your blog a lot more accessible to a lot more people.

Well there's not a lot of privacy in SL even inside buildings because unless land is set up to prevent camming from outside the land parcel, anyone can still cam inside a building. You can change in some adult sandboxes although you might have an audience. My land is on adult mainland and I just change on my front lawn because I'm not much bothered if someone sees my avatar's "bitty bits" (it's just someone else's artwork after all). I have my land in my profile picks under "my place" so feel free to TP over and change on my lawn if you cannot find a sandbox you feel like changing in.

The merchant might appreciate you IMing them in-world to let them know. They might be unaware their store is unavailable.

The issue is not whether trademarks, trade dress and other IP can generally be used without authorization, but rather whether the OP has that authorization in this particular case. I believe they do.

Yes, and there are also other mesh avatars and other mesh avatar clothes, shoes, and accessories. A category for such avatars and all their accessories makes more sense and is fairer than singling out one brand.

I don't see how you can blame people who work hard for trying to get ahead of where their labour can get them. A person can slog it out working multiple jobs at minimum wage, barely with enough time to scratch together a roof over their head, transport to their jobs and food for their bellies, with no way out through what their labour can earn. At the same time the message people are told is that if they are savy and smart with their money they will invest and reap the rewards. At the same time the world increasingly sends the message not only that there is a danger of spending lives on scrabbling to survive with no relief in sight, but that it is morally worthless to not make the dosh. There is tremendous pressure out that there to not "miss opportunities" and goodness knows some people have little of those that they are capable of capitalizing on in this day and age with the devaluation of so called "unskilled" labour. A lot of people just want to have a good life and lead the dream they were brought up to believe was realistic, which is to do better than their parents and to set their children up to do the same. After all, for generations this was the prevailing trend in the OECD and came to be seen as the norm. People are not sent the message that playing the markets is making money on someone else's work, but rather that it is praise worthy economic activity that is meritous because it generates capital that generates wealth and jobs, and that it's the kind of activity the smart, savy, modern economic participant, the worthy person more or less, does as part of their ordinary "financial strategies". Meanwhile being broke or barely making it is more or less deemed proof of not only economic worthlessness, but is more and more often characterized as being the result and proof of moral shortcomings too (laziness, lack of initiative, sense of entitlment, being underskilled, uneducated, not bothering to make something of themselves....etc). A lot of those folk who lost out were probably just confused, overwhelmed, stressed out people who work really hard for the little they can save and were desperate to not be the worthless shmuck who missed the golden egg and so went on to live a hard life, never getting ahead only to have a retirement spent in poverty, watching their children struggle while not being able to help them, all the while regretting that time they could have got in on the golden egg but didn't.

In an ideal world, every capital investment would be profitable. No investment would lose or be sour, and all investments would return maximally. That would be a zero waste game where due to what was being invested in, the economic growth, the real material wealth of humanity, increased to its maximum potential. A world where because every investment is a good one, humans are not wasting their effots and resources on projects that fail to add or even retain the value of the input. Conversely all instances where investments lose are a net lose for the human race as a whole.

Petites? Not really approrpriate for the same reason as Meeroos, although mesh avatars definately should have their own category.