CAD Development : Search Results: Stickers in LDraw


CAD / Development / Search Results: Stickers in LDraw

Results 4841 – 4860 of 7032.

Search took 0.01 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
(...) I got the point, but I'm not completely convinced. Anyhow, I really only suggested the LDRotM contest because I'm afraid the model sellers might be influential enough to eliminate even the option of publishing the LDR files in the MotM (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.inst, lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.811)

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
(...) Ok, but at what point does a conflict of interect exist? Do we really need to exclude every worker simply because membership from a small subset poses a conflict of interest? -Orion (21 years ago, 2-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.811)

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
(...) Well, I've mulled over in my head the possibility of another body to determine eligibility to the StC - but, it goes against my gut as adding too much bureaucracy to the org. Perhaps the bylaws should allow for a public discussion on a (...) (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.811)

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
(...) If we write in a mechanism for determining the eligibility of candidates I agree (see my response to Ross). -Tim (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.811)

		LDraw.org Bylaws - new proposed clauses
Thanks to everyone who has been participating in the bylaws discussion. These are important issues, and in my view the opinions put forth have been by and large well thought out and productive. I think we've covered the lion's share of the possible (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)

ldraw
(score: 0.811)

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
(...) Yes. (...) I wouldn't call it radical (I thought about it too). I think it is the most practical solution. Play well, Jacob (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.811)

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
(...) This is the best I can come up with: Any person who works in a retail outlet (including kiosks, mall stores, and theme park centers) from the store manager position down or any worker in manufacturing, shipping, or goundskeeping/housekeeping (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.811)

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
(...) I agree with this. It's a tough issue, but people working for Lego (in any capacity) will tend do things, say things, or NOT say things to keep that paycheck coming. If more bad decisions like the color change force Lego into bankrupcy, or (...) (21 years ago, 3-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.811)

		Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
(...) Models can be copyrighted for different reasons, like: 1. They are commissioned commercially 2. They are sold by the creator 3. They belong to a larger copyrighted work (i.e. a book) While I respect copyrights (it comes with the age, it (...) (21 years ago, 4-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.811)

		Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
(...) I agree with this in spirit. Yes, bring the attention back to the models. However I do have some alternative ideas, or at least variations on the ideas presented. Initially I thought the best way would be to make the dat files available so one (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.811)

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
(...) I can go with this solution also. Headed off to work for now, but I'll be back with this thread sometime this weekend to re-post the drafts. Ratification will take place once technical concerns have been addressed. -Tim (21 years ago, 30-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.810)

		Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
(...) That's unjustified (as in, you haven't justified that view, merely stated it) and dismissive and not really a good attitude to take, in my view. (...) um, 6 out of 17 (see (URL) ) isn't really "mostly". It might be a plurality but it's way (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.810)

		Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
(...) The one thing that I would like to see, is that if the author agrees, have the DAT available during voting. I think that would allow better access to the models, and also motivate more people to actually try installing LDraw, which in turn can (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.810)

		Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
(...) To which post? Your post? (...) All the rest of the thread before your post is irrelevant? I'm not sure that's what you meant to say, you may want to consider a rewording to clarify. (...) I disagree. While they may not have been the decision (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.810)

		Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
(...) It seems as though my first point was missed entirely. The presentation is as crucial to the model as the model itself. The first example I would like to use comes from my profession- design competitions. Rules for submissions in almost all (...) (21 years ago, 5-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.810)

		Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
(...) But not allowing it discriminates against larger or more detailed entries. Take a look at the December models. There's no way to see all the details of two of the models without the LDR file. You're just leveling the field in your favor (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.810)

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
(...) I agree. (...) I suggested nothing. I was merely asking a question. Can you just answer it without reading motives into it that don't exist? Is it really necessary to be a member of the steering committee in order for suggestions on the (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)

ldraw
(score: 0.810)

		Change to existing policy on embedding POV-Ray code in Official Files
The LDraw.org Standards Committee (LSC) has recently discussed the issue of embedded POV-Ray code in Official Parts Library files. After careful consideration and with inputs from leading non-LSC members, most notably Lars Hassing and Chris Dee, we (...) (21 years ago, 19-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.cad)

ldraw
(score: 0.810)

		Re: LDraw.org Bylaws Drafts: Call for Public Discussion and Consensus
(...) I see. I wasn't clear on what role the LSC has. I've gone back over the posts dealing with that subject and understand it better now. Nevertheless, I still think it was a valid question. (...) Not really. It's less to do with the way I worded (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, FTX)

ldraw
(score: 0.810)

		Re: Proposed changes to MOTM Submission guidelines
With 64 messages in 4 days, the discussion regarding by proposed changes is good. I'm posting this message to refocus the discussion and tie all the fragments together. Here's a point by point breakdown of my proposal and some thoughts about the (...) (21 years ago, 6-Jan-04, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)

ldraw
(score: 0.810)

More: Next Page >>