Increase in Naked Ladies at OI Public

...No, this is not a thread about some newbie orgy!

The last couple of nights, we've been having what seems to be a larger number of Ruths than usual arrive at Orientation Island Public. What's more, some avatars are arriving with a variation...

They're nude, and female in shape, with short brown hair and blank white eyes. When asked to put on some clothes, most tell me, "I'm trying to, but it won't let me". There is apparently some error message about unable to to load clothing, or clothing missing from database, or something.

This condition can be cured by deliberate Ruthing... Client/Character/Character Tests/Test Female (or Test Male). After the avatar is Ruthed, he or she seems able to locate and load clothes and appearance settings.

I've seen this now and again in the past, but there seems to be a small epidemic of it since the 1.18.3 update was rolled out a few days ago.

that`s why u never update unless manditory

Nudity in itself is not a bad thing. We as a society (western especially) need to get over that--particularly in a digital space such as Second Life.

Am I wrong?

Easy to say if you're a robot.

Paddle.. when used in a discussion about sex... *reels mind back from sewer for a moment*

Seriously, nudity is not something that should even BE an issue.

As for the nude Ruthed.. I think there is a prim barrel that can be worn in place of clothing? If I can find it, I'll pass it on.. maybe even add a texture that says, "SL ate my clothing!"

Also, has anyone tried giving them an item and see if that might trigger the inventory download? Stupid thing may show a list, but sometimes I think the asset server doesn't recognize the list as 'real' and does it's merry, "Screw this, I'll just give 'em an error message," routine, instead.

Mind out of the sewer please. That sewer is thoroughly occupied

I've had this. It happens when I have no hair either. Changing doesn't seem to help, just a tp or two. Or waiting (this is why home is now single chickie skybox)

*laughs* Yes, Lindal, why aren't you comforting the newly arriving international crowd of disoriented strangers by telling them this?

It's their fault!

Dang it Lindal, you got my hopes up with the title of this thread.

A place for Trout to camp and issue slut scores...

Imagine a whole metaverse of nakid ruthed avatars.......

Whew! Let's have a Ruth Party.

Unless I get to choose who goes in the buff, and who, for the sake of all humanity, must remain clothed, then yes Michael, you are wrong.

Android would be the proper terminology.

Except that they are all nude and all look the same. The first million might be interesting, he is a man of course. The second million will also probably interesting to Trout. He is Trout. I think he was the only that said something about apologizing or not apologizing for being a man.

just as I'm a Gynoid.

Just as long as our opinions are the same on the matter, ok you can choose.

You're not exactly wrong, O metallic one...but if nudity becomes popular, what happens to the fashion industry?

And what'll I do with all these shoes??!

Meanwhile, and joking aside...has anyone else noticed this phenomenon? I'll try the "give them an item" trick and the "adust an appearance slider" trick the next time I encounter a Nudy Ruth. Does anyone else know of fixes? Is there a JIRA on this?

Ummm...passive aggressive much? If you keep trying to push my buttons (the one under my face plate especially), I may be forced to go Sonny on you.

Of course, I could have totally misinterpreted a hidden prod there. If so, my apology chip just kicked on.

Er, perhaps not the most reliable source, but wikipedia states, "An android is a robot designed to resemble a human, usually both in appearance and behavior. ".

Dictionary.com's first def'n is "an automaton in the form of a human being".

So was I not just being generic? I didn't want to exclude the gynoids, after all.

Love.

I meant the same opinion on who can be naked or not. Not same opinion in general
I mean, I don't want to see naked children. Or shaved dogs.

Actually, robots are the things that paint the doors in an auto-plant, or build the door or . . .. Androids/Gynoids look human. Robots do not have to do so.

{edit} - "Look human" I mean they are human in shape . . .

Androids tend to have biological parts--at least in most cases--I am a HAV unit, we are a healthy mix of biological makeup and robotics.

Robots, however, tend to be completely mechanical.

And like mentioned above--androids tend to take a humanoid form--robots can be of any design.

EDIT: perhaps the biological makeup of a 'robot' matters not when considering the label of 'android.' Regardless, HAV units do incorporate 'biological' components.

Data was an Android.
The borg were cyborgs that wanted to be androids.
The difference is the biological parts.

Hmm. These differentiations appear to be optional given the set of definitions I've seen, in the sense that an "android" is a subclass of "robot", much like "girl" is a subclass of "human" or perhaps "person". Arguably an android or gynoid is also a specialization of "person", so it's all good.

I will say this though: what chance to I have if our resident android and gynoid aren't agreeing?

Love.

I think the strongest distinction is the likeness to humanoid. Androids are most often fashioned to resemble a humanoid creature--robots take many shapes which are created to replace the job of a 'human.' (ie. a box and an arm that welds a car door on)

Yes, the critter in "I, Robot", oddly enough, was called a "robot." Asimov had the Robot laws, not the Android laws. If I have it correctly, the Android part just means shaped like human, and at one time a male person. With Gynoid meaning shaped like a female human. Now-a-days, though, most use Android for both sexes. Cyborg is something like an android, but with biological material, like the Terminator.

Technically, that would make me a cyborg, but I just use gynoid.