Jump to content

Kwakkelde Kwak

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kwakkelde Kwak

  1. I have a tip, although you won't find it particularly uselful.... Don't upload the model, not even "for personal use". You can only upload models to which you have full rights, so basically, models you made yourself or models that are in the public domain. By uploading the model you grant LL the rights to edit, distribute, sell (etc) the model and you simply do not have these rights.
  2. ChinRey wrote: Oh, you get the hang of it fairly soon. But we're splitting hair here really. The important point is to actually know the switch points. Whether you find them by maths or trial and error isn't that important. The important thing is to get the least amount of geometry on screen without letting your objects turn into a mess. I don't care about switch points at all But I fully agree it's splitting hairs. ChinRey wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote More importantly, there are a lot more settings than the RenderVolumeLODFactor (mesh detail in the settings) in the graphic preferences.
  3. ChinRey wrote: It amounts to the same really. It's just that spending ten seconds typing three numbers into a spreadsheet saves you half an hour or more of trial and error. But of course, you always have to do a virtual reality check before the work is done. I don't see why you need to know the distance. Having the distance doesn't tell you how big the object is on screen or how it looks. What I consider logical is the following: Build the object you want on the highest LoD. Upload it and determine how it looks just before the LoD switches to the next. Determine what you can chang
  4. ChinRey wrote: But if you know how to calculate the switch points and are willing to invest a few minutes manually optimizing your LOD models, you're already miles ahead of the majority of Second Life mesh makers. Calculating switch points is not that hard, but it's something I never do. For a reason. First of all, some people have their graphics settings at minimum, some have it at ultra, some even have it on "ultra+" by changing the debug settings like RenderVolumeLODFactor. You could calculate the switch point for all those settings, but that doesn't really save you time over uploadin
  5. Madelaine McMasters wrote: Whether we have free will or not doesn't make much difference in practical matters. If a mass murderer choses that path, we (whether individually or collectively) are likely to choose a path that removes his threat. If he was destined by biology to take that path, we're destined by the same biology to respond. So, I'm not terribly bothered over free will. If we have it, we have it. If we don't, we'll continue to believe we do because it feels like we do and because it's too depressing to believe we don't. Couldn't agree more. The study you linked doesn't mov
  6. Robin Talon wrote: This afternoon I've focussed primarily on baking high-poly to low-poly. Brain officially bleeding. good fun! Don't forget you can also use this for your highest LoD model! In fact in many cases (depending on object size and type) I would consider the highest LoD to be the most important candidate for this treatment.
  7. Believe me I have glanced over that Confucius tag many times during this discussion. I don't know if he ever questioned that statement, nor do I think he takes the superiority as a given. It's a superiority based on choices made by people. I can understand the urge to "sell", but that shouldn't stop people from doing the "right" thing. I don't like people who are making a quick (selfish) decision without considering the consequences. When I adopted that tag, I was fairly active in the creation fora, trying to educate people on how to build responsibly in SL.
  8. Sassy Romano wrote: Are we supposed top discuss this or something? It's a question but you've forced the answer upon anyone that opens it so in doing so, the answer to the question from everyone will now ultimately be YES But since the chart is from 2010 and the reference it gives is updated to 2013, the answer after reading the OP would be NO @Drake Statistics, statistics. Is the percentage of the whole population, of the working population, do "stay at home moms" and people who have given up on finding a job count etc etc.... http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LFS_SEXAGE_I
  9. irihapeti wrote: ok, we now agree pretty much on this as well I think the "seed" is not a thing (like a vessel, a container) By everything you and I said, I highly doubt so, but I'm more than happy to leave it at that.
  10. irihapeti wrote: about the first under any circumstance all things lead to other things. So I dunno what is your point It's not clear to me what you are responding to with this. But if all things lead to other things, I'd turn it around and say all things have to have an origin. about the "seed" from this is clear that you have determined that there is a "seed" and you are on a hunt for it. A "seed" that is the root of animal instincts what science shows us is that animals dont actual have instincts. No animal does and never has. Not ever what animals have when born are primal ref
  11. But...tomatoes are poisonous! Anyway, well put. I think you captured how I feel quite nicely. The whole Southern slaver superiority looks like it's used as an excuse for a great part. Why else were most slaves forbidden to learn to read or write, let alone read or own a book for example? Not only did the secessionists (if that's a word) have to believe they were superior, they tried to make sure they actually were.
  12. irihapeti wrote: there are any number of reasons, and ways, for how a person becomes the first teacher hate, envy, lust, avarice, to name some And still I strongly believe there is something far more fundamental, an instinct, not affected by reason or experience. Racism can be triggered by all the examples you gave, but in no way do I think it explains the "seed" I was talking about earlier. about superiority after an act of enslavement this form of superiority comes with hierarchy (is not the same thing as a belief of superiority. Is a real thing) Enslaved or employed. Ill-tr
  13. irihapeti wrote: you posit: "if we are taught/raised to be racist then who taught the ancestor". The seeming First Teacher dilemna consider: "I am racist. My father did not teach me this, nor did his father or his father before him" I am the first teacher. I taught myself Exactly. So one can become racist without being taught to be one, there has to be a different basis. Now we're back where we were a couple of pages ago. i didnt mean to imply a love of equality (between two equals). I meant the love that a doyen has which I mentioned. I love my slave. I love my horse. I love m
  14. irihapeti wrote: your question: "How else can it be explained that people embrace others they have thought less of when they actually get to meet, know and understand them?" the answer you have given yourself, it lies in the predicate: "When raised with racist beliefs" This would imply racism is (purely) based on "education", which in turn would mean that it is something one learns from their ancestors. Then the following question remains: who taught the ancestor? I think racism is far more fundamental. turn your question into a statement: "I dont know you or your kind, and bc I dont
  15. irihapeti wrote: on the first. nitpicking. and your view that racism and supremacy are different things you are nitpicking with the contributors to the Oxford dictionary I use the term "racism" in its most theoretical form. "the fact that there are racial differences". (and making choices based on that). Since (I think) I explained that earlier, it's hard to believe you can't see why I don't classify the term equal to supremacy. "Racism" as defined by most dictionaries is the same as (racial) "supremacy", clearly. I'll stop using the term in that way, but still feel there is a differen
  16. irihapeti wrote: this part you wrote: "Making a distinction based on race is by definition racism" no it isnt. If you say to me: "you are Maori", then you have made a distinction. You are not being racist. You are making a factual statement. Is true. I am But yes it certainly is. Racism is the act of acknowledging there's a difference, based on race. It might be nitpicking over a term, that's why I added the motivations for crossing the street in your example. I can add another example. You walk down the street and see 10 people waiting for the bus. Or you walk down the street and see t
  17. Theresa Tennyson wrote: No, the 32% number was in November 1932 - in March 1933 after the Reichstag fire the Nazis polled 43% - according to the article you quoted, no less. I suspect that public opinion in Germany under Hitler was similar to Russia under Vladimir Putin. He was pretty popular with the general population. Must be the weekend, I got those numbers mixed up indeed. Nevertheless, after wiping out the competition, 43% isn't exactly convincing. (Please don't start another comparison with the Hitler regime, this one is even farther fetched ..not going to comment on that at all)
  18. Theresa Tennyson wrote: The Nazis didn't "force the entire nation to march along," at least before the start of World War II. They were elected and formed a government using legal means, and then due to a [possibly staged] incident the German parliament gave Hitler dictatorial powers. One reason is that the Nazis didn't publically identify themself as being against groups, but by being pro-German. Obviously Hitler was extremely anti-Jew, as were some of the rest of the Nazi power structure, but a lot of the rest of Germany just went along. The more strident anti-Jewish literature like Der S
  19. irihapeti wrote: on the first and so to are the slavers intentions, rationales and motivations, from the victims pov. The victim of the slaver is fully aware of the slavers intentions, motivations and rationales. The victims dont accept these as being valid but it is crystal clear to them what these are You kind of lost me on this one earlier., but you have completely lost me now. your other assertion you made earlier. That racism is borne from fear. That bc we are fearful of those we dont know then from this we can conclude that we are all seeded with racism is trivial provable tha
  20. irihapeti wrote: given a victimizer first approach, then we can easy enough dissemble the motivations and rationales of the victimzer. Not so easy when we take the victim first approach I think nazi intentions, motivations and rationales are crystal clear. so we agree that racism isnt a product of an unknown property I don't see how you read that in my comment, I did say it is rather irrelevant in this discussion, since one way or the other, it means there's a seed for racism in every human being. The mere fact that we are both talking about the other tribe, means we make a distinct
  21. Not sure if it's still an option, but in the past you could download your own creations from SL (in Firestorm and Singularity?) and open them in a 3d editor. If that's (still) the case, you could build over the existing prims with new prims and export that to have a perfect base for your mesh object(s). It's a bit shady concerning copyright laws, so you might want to ask the original creator of the objects if you are allowed to do so.
  22. irihapeti wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: [...] It is a big leap from "we are not equal" to " you are a pest to society and you need to be exterminated" Certainly not the same ideology. i just jump back in here bc you mention me i think that where we at cross purposes is that you are addressing the outcomes of the two situations and I am more addressing the philosophical basis that lead to these outcomes Both slavery and the holocaust have terrible outcomes with a world of grief for the victims, their descendants and society as a whole. I have no way of measuring that grief, nor doe
  23. Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: In the slaver's mind it is their right to prosper on the loss of others. In the mind of a nazi, it's fine to commit genocide without any valid reason. That is exactly the point people are trying to make. In many minds the people waving the confederate flag would like nothing more than to see blacks wiped off the face of the earth, or removed from the US at the least. Which makes them just as bad if not worse than the Nazis as they are spouting about racial purity when they aren't pure themselves. You aren't making the discussion any clearer
  24. congrats! EDIT..ah now I see the other thread, well maybe "the land of the free" will have some actual freedom in the future then, a good step into that direction...
  25. Theresa Tennyson wrote: The slaveowners of the Confederate States of America felt what they were doing was right, but they knew significant numbers of people in the United States thought it was wrong. It had been like this for the entire history of the United States as a nation. In the leadup to the American Civil War Northern politicians took steps, not to end slavery in the South, but to prevent its becoming established in the new territories of the West. This was one of the major bones of contention that led to thoughts of secession in the South. This is very relevant in my discussio
  • Create New...