Kwakkelde Kwak

Thanks, somehow I completely overlooked that... However, since LL takes (if I'm not mistaken) 5% from the purchase price, I don't consider a 5% raise compared to inworld prices "inflating". I consider that 5% added tax.

Amethyst Jetaime wrote: The only rule about pricing on MP is that you can not charge more for something on MP than you do when you sell it in world. Could you point out where that is stated in the ToS or guidelines? I can't find it anywhere.

First thing that comes to mind, if you indeed match the overall size, is your model is a linkset rather than a single object. You'll have to match the physical objects to the visible objects, in amount, size and upload order.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: If there's an argument to be had here (for me), I think it's that the animator's misinterpretation of the original art leaves room for mis-criticism. It's important to separate the misinterpretation from the original art. As I see it, the animator is both ignorant of the art, and perhaps a bit immature. Those are exactly my thoughts. I have never heard about or thought of nude children in paintings as some sort of disturbance, not until this thread appeared.

Pamela Galli wrote: The same harm experienced by all those babies whose pictures were taken in the bathtub with their rubber duckies. Apart from the rubber duck, I fall into that category as I said before. No harm experienced yet.

Studio09 wrote: Any harm that may have occurred happened hundreds of years ago. And what possible harm could that have been?

It looked like you suggested it, I'm glad we agree on it being nonsense. That wasn't what I meant though. I meant was: how could it be possibly be harmful in the scenario I gave?

Studio09 wrote: One reason is the same one for the statutory rape law. Many children are easily influenced to do things that are not in their best interests or is against what they want or how they feel. Some children may have a drive to be in the spotlight but some are pushed by their parents to have their beauty and/or talent exploited. Didn't you read my comment about the images being "public"? I can't even begin to imagine how a painting of a naked child, displayed hundreds of years after the child's death (again if the child is a real person in the first place) can be harmful for this child in the same way as when it would be raped. It looks like you missed the most important thing I said so I'll rephrase it: the child is not portrayed, innocence is, in the form of a child. You could replace the child with a lamb, like in Perrie's picture, but that immediately gives the picture a religious undertone. (edited a bit in this last sentence) Come up with a better agrument please, this is complete nonsense. I am potrayed naked numerous times and have the photo albums from my early childhood to prove it. They are fun to watch occasionally if you ask me. They simply show me taking a bath or playing on the beach, no suggestive or compromising poses, just a happy child playing. So am I a self rapist? Should I burn those pictures? Should I prepare a lawsuit against my parents? Should I prepare a defence for a lawsuit against me? I wouldn't want those pictures being displayed all over the internet, just like I wouldn't want all my other pictures, whether from childhood or not and whether with me being dressed or not being displayed. It's just a matter of privacy. Now if someone finds those pictures after I am gone and has some valid reason to display them, that would be fine.

If you are unable to see the metaphorical pure innocence and vulnerability in the picture of a naked child, you should simply stay away from any forum thread about art. Or visual art altogether. Now if someone had their own naked child photographed or painted and put the image on the internet or in a museum or any public place for that matter while the child was still alive, I would be creeped out myself. But a 17th century fictional child (even if a real child might have modeled for it)?

Of course that makes everything darker, since no light will reflect from one surface to another. Getting the lighting and its settings just right is often a trial and error experience for me. A workaround would be to render the diffuse, shadow and ambient and possibly lighting maps separately then combining them in Photoshop or Gimp. That way you have absolutely no reflecting colours and you have full control over the amount/darkness of your shadows and ambient occlusion.

Coby Foden wrote: I must say that like the sentence: "The staff are very efficient." it's compact, neat and even looks cool. :matte-motes-smile: Whereas the sentence: "Most members of the staff are very efficient." is long and cumbersome. Let's milk this example until it hurts... "Most members of the staff are very efficient" is often the same as "the staff is very efficient", but this is not a given. Imagine an assembly line where the first 999 people are working their butts off being very efficient, but the last person in line is taking a nap. The staff are very efficient then (I assume we can overlook one person in a thousand) but the staff is not, since nothing ever gets finished.

I am sure about apostrophe. Using a name makes it more clear: "I spent the evening at John's".You wouldn't say "Johns" unless you visited several of them. To make matters confusing again (not really but I thought it was funny), there's this obscure company called "Wendy's", not "Wendies". So would you have stayed at "Wendy's's"? Also, I wouldn't advice to have "breakfast at Tiffanies", that would be very bad for your relationship(s). Interesting that you as Brit would say 'Walmart's were open all night'. I'm not quite sure whether that's a correct sentence, it surely sounds odd, but I guess it indicates two things. First is by being British (native) you overlook the obvious. (I certainly do that with Dutch myself) Second is you refer to a singular company in a plural way yourself. I guess we disagree on the government, that's fine

Phil Deakins wrote: No. The fact that I added the 's' in my Walmart example does not mean that multiple stores were meant. The example could have meant multiple stores and it could also have meant a single store. It would depend on the rest of the discussion. E.g:- "Where were you at 2 a.m. this morning?" "I was at Walmarts. They were open all night" That uses 'Walmarts' (with the pluralising 's' added, and with "They" (plural) to back it up) but only a single store is meant. Remember we're talking about here in Britain. I've lived here all my life and I am reasonably familiar with english as it is used here I missed the last part of your initial post about "Walmarts". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would write that as "Walmart's", as in "Walmart's store". That is most definitely not plural. I might agree that a collective noun used singularly can have a different meaning than that very same noun used plurally. I haven'y actually suggested anything different. But I'd be interested to see an example though. I can't think of one off hand. I already gave an example. Half of it was buried in a link , so here it is: If you treat 'government' as singular, it means you're considering the actions of the government as a whole. So 'the government is killing the people' means that the government is, for example, ordering the army to kill people, or withholding food so that people starve to death. If you treat 'government' as plural, it means you're considering the individual members of the government. So 'the government are killing the people' means that the members of parliament are going out at night with knives and guns and murdering people one by one. This probably isn't what you mean. Both "the staff is" and "the staff are" are correct. It's not an example of the uses of plural and singular giving different meanings. The first implies the staff members because it's a collective noun, and the use of "are" in the second one states that it's the members of staff who are meant. So, if Coby used the singular, she would be correct, and everyone would understand what she meant. Collective nouns are singular and using them as such can't go wrong. From the link I posted: If the collective noun (staff) is acting as a single unit, use the singular verb: “The staff is very efficient.” You could also write: "The staff are very efficient." I would say the former means the staff as a team is very efficient, the latter means every single member of the staff is very efficient. If the latter is the case, so is the former, so you could always use the singular form. However, you do leave out some vital information about the individuals that way. For example, if someone said "We won't fire anyone, the staff is very efficient", one could reply: "We can fire some people who aren't doing anything". If the plural was used: "The staff are very efficient", that wouldn't be a valid answer.

The Wallmart example is not relevant. The way you used the plural WallmartS, means you were talking about several stores, not the single company as a whole. My whole point was and still is, a collective noun used singularly can have a different meaning than that very same noun used plurally. I think the goverment example I gave illustrated that well. Here's another one, just because It has John Lennon in it again.

Just to be annoying: The Gregg Reference Manual by William Sabin says that when using orga­ni­za­tional names, treat them as either sin­gu­lar or plural (but not both). Ordinarily, it sug­gests you treat the name as sin­gu­lar unless you wish to empha­size the indi­vid­u­als who make up the orga­ni­za­tion. In that case, use the plural. (Yes I did also read the rests of that page and yes I also noticed the American "organization" ) But let's forget about companies and let me ask something else then. According to you, can you treat committee, jury, staff, team, family or firm as plural? If you say no, lots of British people will disagree.

Replace "airport" with any company name and review. Of course Liverpool Airport does not make announcements. That would mean the building would be speaking to the public. That's exactly the reason why I used that quote, because it's so obvious. Imagine you heard the announcement and you wanted to complain to them not making announcements. You wouldn't complain to it. I've been at Liverpool Airport several times and can picture someone standing in front of the building, complaining to the front facade like a lunatic. Liverpool Airport is located in Liverpool of course. I'm really sorry, but to me it all makes perfect sense.

Phil Deakins wrote: We British do not consider a company name as a collective noun. While you might be British and I am not, I have to disagree. It really depends on the situation. Here a nice and very clear example I found on the internet: Matthew, I spent a good part of the day yesterday in Liverpool John Lennon airport, unfortunately. But it wasn’t a total loss. I learned two important things. An airport is plural and it’s important to announce there are no announcments. As in: “Liverpool John Lennon airport would like to confirm they do not make flight announcements.” This announcement is repeated about every five minutes. How strange (and incorrect) would it be if the message was “Liverpool John Lennon airport would like to confirm it does not make flight announcements” ?

Perrie Juran wrote: The image of a naked child is no more porn than the image of a sheep. In fact I find that picture of the sheep very offending. I bet the poor thing will end up on mr beard's dinner plate. Or is it lust in his eyes and can we expect a truely stomach wrenching outcome? btw I do NOT want either visualised in an animation.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: It's quite simple really. No it's not:) From AUE If you treat 'government' as plural, it means you're considering the individual members of the government. So 'the government are killing the people' means that the members of parliament are going out at night with knives and guns and murdering people one by one. This probably isn't what you mean. You can avoid the issue by writing it as "members of parliament" as you suggested, but that doesn't mean that's the only correct way. To me it sounds very English, but I've always thought English sounded more pleasing than American.

Anakin Crystal wrote: this happpenens when i use " complete map... i even baked a diffuse and a ambient, still had a refelective color... I don't understand. In the first picture you posted, the diffuse render, I don't see it. Anyway, you don't want to play with the precision of the Final Gather. You want to eliminate the indirect illumination. So under Rendering, choose Indirect Illumination then uncheck the box Enable Final Gather. I think that will fix your issue.

Ah yes, I knew it had to be in there somewhere. However, there's a big difference between breaking the LL ToS and breaking the law. My best guess is LL included this in their ToS so they can't be held responsible for any IP right violations concerning account names.

So if I understand correctly, you don't want the colours to influence the white part? I would say it's simply a matter of removing all reflectivity from your coloured materials.

Phil Deakins wrote: LL may have done that due to their own preferences rather than any legal requirement. Also, it sounds like you mean a full name - first name and surname. If that's what it was, then there will have been plenty of other avs with the same surname that weren't changed. Of course LL did that voluntarily. The likely alternative would be sitting in a courtroom losing an expensive case:) You can register a trademark afterall and I would be very surprised if that wasn't done. The name was indeed a combination of first and last, as I said, it was a single account that got terminated. There are plenty of avatars in SL using either the first name or surname (and a handful of "sound-a-likes").

Phil Deakins wrote: Suppose someone with an LL issued, not-RL word or name, surname, such as Foulsbane, gets a trademark on it. Could s/he then legally prevent the word/name being used in SL? My thinking is no. I know of one case. A couple of years ago I was in a team building a group of sims for a RL celebrity. Her name was not her birthname, so it's very possible there were IP rights on it, although I'm not sure. What I am sure about is the fact that the name was already in use in Second Life when we started. LL terminated that account and handed it over to the celebrity. The account no longer exists btw.

KaBoom Schertzinger wrote: Were can i buy a meter that shows how many itemss in peoples inventories? You can't, there is no function for that. I already have one for showing avatar scripts amd memory. Those meters are pretty useless. A mono script can use as little as 3k (if I'm not mistaken) of memory but will usually return the full 64k to those meters. So let's say someone has 20 scripts using 3k and someone else has one script using 64k. While the second person uses more memory, the first person will return 20 scripts and 20 * 64k = 1280k of memory use to your meter, the second person will return one script and 64k of memory use. KaBoom Schertzinger wrote: I only have 5 items in mine so i dont see why you would need more and ruin it for everyonelse. You are a nudist then? Anyway, a big inventory can only cause issues for the person having this big inventory. It doesn't have any affect on the region server (sim) or on other people. Wearing a lot of things can slow SL down, so you might want to use the Avatar Draw Weight under Advanced -> Performance Tools.