venomai

You can shade it in the same way that you created your vector. Connect points to make a shape, then give it a colour. :) Inkscape is a great open source program for vectors in general.

Show us what you're working on and we'll try to help you out. Save the work in progress (WIP) as a .PNG if you are using MS Paint.

Agreed. :thumbsup: This gave me a laugh.

Show us how it turned out and we can give you tips as to how you should improve it.

Just keep making pixels. Don't bother with human anatomy for now. Try to practise with still life, landscapes, etc. Extreme detail isn't always necessary, so long as you have the basic form and composition down. Before you begin drawing animals and humans, you should have a good grasp of perspective, lighting, colour theory, proportion, etc. Not all pixel art. :) It should look a little bit more like this, also with a smaller sun and a higher horizon line. (Assuming it is the horizon line.) [hide=ref]http://www.wherescherie.com/thumbs/00002846.jpg http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbvi ... e-rays.jpg[/hide]

Filler text: http://lipsum.lipsum.com/ Here's a nice place for inspiration. http://www.csszengarden.com/

For what reasons do you feel that prohibition is a more effective means of lowering the use and abuse of the drug? Strange... in some jurisdictions, it is already. A causal effect has not yet been shown, even in large samples. http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7059 Correlation does not imply causation Sources please? Mine suggest otherwise. http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/ Say goodbye to fast food! :lol: What makes you think this? Right now many teens find it as easy (if not easier) to acquire weed than it is to acquire alcohol or cigarettes (two very legal drugs). Proper decriminalization would, however, remove the criminal element of purchasing weed. i.e. Users would no longer need to purchase it from criminals in the cover of a dark alley. :lol: Sources please? Harmful in what particular ways? Ugh... I certainly hope that never happens. The majority of people fighting for the reform of marijuana laws want to see decriminalization, not full blown legalization akin to the commercialized tobacco and alcohol industries.

People using MS paint to slap their name on somebody else's tag have even fewer resources than those making 'render tags'. It's not expensive to illustrate 'from scratch'. A pencil and paper is all you need. If you want to be a digital artist, you'll obviously need more resources, such as a computer, an input device (mouse and/or tablet) and the appropriate art programs (Blender3d, Gimp, Inkscape, etc). But since you're posting here, it's pretty clear that you already have (or can freely acquire) those necessary resources! Seems like there is more to it than the monetary costs. ;) Don't get me wrong, I agree with the copyleft movement, but there is a pretty obvious double-standard here. This topic, though, is about copyright infringement -- not "Who made it?" but "Who owns it?" I'm not referring to open source media. The licenses of many 'ripped' works in The Gallery -- from 'renders' to Photoshop itself -- is explicit in that we do not hold the rights to copy, modify or distribute the work or any derivatives, even for non-commercial purposes. Imagine if we could simply hide behind the 'non-commercial' clause after illegally downloading hundreds of songs and/or movies for personal use! :)

Game name "Dr Dave" I always enjoyed playing the medic in games, so I decided to go with some funky alliteration. This was many years ago. Forum name "venomai" Still years ago, it's just "venom" with a random Latin prefix that I thought sounded cool. :lol: I've asked a couple admins here if I could get a name change... no response. I now prefer davedes or davedesl, the first few letters of my first and last name.

Interesting how we jump on the "ripped" tags created by forum members (e.g. recent pixel thread) as a serious infringement of copyright laws. Yet 'render' tags -- essentially a mess of colours under a "ripped" piece of artwork (such as a copyrighted photo or popular illustration) -- are seen as fine and dandy, and are sometimes even encouraged. Is this double-standard reasonable? Or hypocritical? Discuss.

"... he takes to the streets shaking a banana at people and tries to convince them it's making a sound ..." "Being different" is not always an appealing or reasonable attribute to aim for. Damaging one's image can lead to serious social alienation such as losing your job and girlfriend. I don't necessarily agree that society should put so much emphasis on image, but I tend to accept it, mainly because I don't find it particularly difficult to build a good one. If you want to protest for change, you will need to do more than "be different" -- if being different removes you from (mainstream) society, your message will not get far. (I interpret "different" to mean "radically deviant behaviour." If you simply mean 'not the same', then we are all fundamentally "different" in every aspect, and thus there is little discussion to be had here except what everyone else is saying, which essentially boils down to variety is the spice of life.)

wow man! u r good at art :lol:

Shinjula - Why does every belief need to be taught? It might be useful to, in the context of a World History class, touch on the beliefs of Christianity, Shinto, Buddhism, Taoism and even the Mayan religions in order to illustrate the diversity of human thought, but it would not be practical (for the curriculum or the child's memory) to teach of each specific belief in detail. It would also not be suitable to place emphasis on the validity or importance of particular beliefs over others without adequate reasoning for doing so (e.g. empirical evidence). It can be said that 1 + 1 = 2 is an opinion in the same way that 1 + 1 = 4 is an opinion. The latter opinion, though, is clearly incorrect. It is taught in a special class: that of science. Both evolution and gravity fall under scientific theories. The specifics of both are disputed by scientists world-wide, even if their premises have been well-established as factual. Evolution is a well tested scientific theory that uses the scientific method. It is because of this that it, along with theories of gravity, biology, etc. are taught in science class. Creationism has not been tested nor is it a scientific theory -- it is quite simply a loose collection of non-scientific beliefs regarding a supernatural explanation for the origin of life.

A better analogy may be introducing the "Stork Theory" of human reproduction into science class as to respect other people's views, even though there may be no credible evidence to suggest that human babies arrive via stork delivery. Evolution has many years of strong scientific evidence in support of it. There is no better place for it to be taught than in science class.

Even if the whole world was gay, the population wouldn't turn to zero. :lol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination (Not to mention the obvious point that homosexuals can and do have sex with women.)

In the United States, drugs like opium, heroin, marijuana, cocaine, LSD and many others were all widely accepted and widely used at certain times before their 20th century crackdowns (the "War on Drugs"). Certain drugs (e.g. cocaine, opium) were often encouraged to be used in labour, medical, military, religious and even recreational contexts. There is no such thing as a pervasive and extensive social taboo against drugs. It ultimately depended on the society, the drug(s), and the era. In recent years, there has been a significant growing support for law reform of marijuana, and even other "harder" drugs.

How would you define a right?

Most likely due to poor technique, crappy weed and/or anxiety. All of which is common in a first-time smoker. Do some simple research even by searching Google and you'll find that it's a myth. One of the first results... http://www.thestraighttoke.com/getting- ... 008-05.420 My first few times were similar. As they say, don't judge a book by its cover. :) I don't mind writing rebuttals. If you have any more arguments, don't hesitate to post them! :mrgreen:

Oh dear, you wouldn't want to get a sunburn or have to deal with soapy water. :roll: 40 hours of community service was mandatory to graduate from high schools in my city. I got my hours done working with disabled kids at a camp. I loved the work, don't get me wrong, but washing trucks in the sun and getting paid a ridiculously high wage sounds like a luxury compared to some of the things I was dealing with.

No more or less pathetic than depending on any other drug to get through the day. Physical addiction isn't an "excuse" for people to become dependent on a drug. They are both drugs that can cause depenedence. That is the only aspect I am comparing. Heroin is more addicting in that it produces more physical withdrawal symptoms. Physical dependence is characterized by physical withdrawal symptoms after abrupt discontinuation. Psychological dependence is characterized by psychological withdrawal symptoms after abrupt discontinuation, including insomnia, irritability, loss of appetite, depression, etc.

And I'm the lazy and unproductive pothead. :lol:

You just got over the drug? Or talking about the drug?

Substitute the above with any recreational activity: video games, sports, art, casual sex, etc. Drug use is, for many, yet another thing that can add pleasure to an already rewarding life. Personal differences. I love the smell and the taste, and I enjoy the high. The majority of people do. Same here, but that doesn't mean I don't also have a good time while high. More importantly, on some days my time is better spent high than sober. Even if you personally don't like the drug, just as I personally don't like sardines, surely you can understand the importance of law reform? Something that would likely not only reduce its use and abuse, but also boost tax revenue, increase medical potential and much more. Psychological dependence is, as I've said, not something to be taken so lightly. :| It has destroyed thousands of careers, educations and social lives. For some, withdrawal symptoms can be pretty horrible, and it's not uncommon for them to contribute to continued use. Psychological dependence is one hell of an expensive "habit."

It's pretty ignorant to assume that psychological dependence is nothing serious. I'll say it again... I am not comparing a marijuana addiction to heroin addiction. :roll: I'm not suggesting we remove age limitations altogether, I'm suggesting that it would be unwise to create yet another "forbidden fruit" for those under 21. High age restrictions and zero-tolerance policies are counterproductive if our ultimate goal is to reduce its use and abuse among youth. I hope you aren't stupid enough to use this as an argument for its prohibition. :| I know a couple of Christians who believe the Earth is several thousand years old...

Um... I'm not saying that at all (although I won't disagree with such a claim). Let's revisit your claims: "Its illegal because it has high potential to be used in a destructive manner." This is not why marijuana was prohibited. ". . . it has high potential to be used in a destructive manner." If by "destructive" you mean violence, theft and other criminal activities being destructive to society, then no, marijuana use has not shown to pose these risks at all. These myths did help contribute to the prohibition of marijuana in the United States, though... ". . . governments around the world know the extent of their errors in legalizing alcohol and tobacco use . . ." Perhaps you mean prohibiting? The American Prohibition was a fine demonstration of the errors that arise when a drug of high demand is prohibited by means of the law. "Errors" like a high incidence of alcohol and tobacco related deaths/injuries/addictions are not caused by the 'legalization' of these commodities. People who abuse alcohol do so without regard for the laws surrounding its use -- in fact, prohibition of alcohol has shown to increase the rates of abuse. I'm not. Just saying that there is no reason to look down on any addiction, whether it be psychological or physical or both, as "pathetic."