PeachJubilee

For your edification, hips are not asses and asses are not hips; now you know. Even as virgin students there is really no reason to confuse these two parts of the anatomy. I appreciate that when you and your pals were all student buddies, you all may never have seen another human being naked and perhaps were all too self conscious to gaze into a mirror or look downwards when naked, but you can clearly see hips and asses are different parts of the body even when someone is dressed, so really no excuses...

I just noticed now when I couldn't do a temp upload...so a lot of people might never notice. My avatar still looks fine after all.

The IP issue that does exist for texturers of full perm mesh is that the license often obliges them to not distribute any of the content full perm (and yes it sometimes even specifically mentions the alpha texture just to be clear that they really meant that too). I don't know why they'd do that. As you seem to be pointing out, there is no loss of value to the original creator if these alpha textures that are specific to particular pieces of mesh clothing are distributed full perm. Unless someone buys the mesh clothing itself, what else can they do with the alpha specific to it? But if it is in the license, then it's in the license...

I woulnd't buy a texture template kit without a download link to the layered files (with the elements on different layers, like the wrinkle shadows, the highlights, the edging, the body-shape shadow/high lights, the main fabric, etc). I don't think tinted grey scale is really up to standard these days. You can tell it's tinted grey scale and even if you alter it in an external editor, there's no control over individual elements. You need the layered files to fine tune and finesse things like shading to be able to recolor and change textures properly. Otherwise the outcome is just not really market-quality in my view.

It is not a favor to take people to freebie galaxy.

Brenda Connolly wrote: You also should not care if they come for the Jews, unless you are a Jew of course. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a Godwin! *whips off her pants and waves them in salute. Ladies and Gentlement, we have another one who does not understand the point of Godwin's formulation. We'll ignore the fact that the nazis are not the first or only folk to come for the Jews (while perhaps no one expects it, surely most of us have at least heard of the Spanish inquisition) or that the point of the literature you seek to censor my reference to is not about nazis per say, but merely references that subject matter as a real world example and inspiration of the epiphany the particular piece of literature referenced was attempting to convey. Godwin's law is intended to preserve the power of the subject material it discourages inappropriately glib and hyperbolic use of, because that subject matter has value in appropriate contexts. The law assumes that the subject matter has innate value in discussion where it is not hyperbolic, and that hence the glib misuse of it is to be avoided. The use of the law to censor all discussion of the subject material, rendering it utterly valueless in discourse is diametrically opposed to the purpose and justification of the law, yet, that's how you are using that law here. But you need not worry. Most of the audience you seek e-peen from with your pantie whipping censorship probably do not understand the meme any better than you do, and are likely to be fooled into thinking you are as sophisticated as you think you are when you engage in this shallow and uncomprehending form of censorship.

Why would a small minority who stand to benefit impose the dumping on the rest of you? Well they are not going to be forced along with the herd when they know they have options. Look if they don't use or own nightclubs and something bad happens to ruin all the fun and income of the nightclub set, the dump-profiters are not effected so they don't have a problem. You've got dumping imposed on the majority by a minority because your "I don't care about you or anyone else, so long as I got mine" mentality is the only legitimate morality and attitude in the "market democracy" model. The dump profiters are being rational actors, and we should all celebrate not only their freedom to do so, but that they rationally choose to do so. You should not care about the nightclubs Ceka, it would be irrational to do so, just as the dump profiters should not spare a thought for anyone who does not want to be imposed on by the dumping. You also should not care if they come for the Jews, unless you are a Jew of course. If it's not your problem, what kind of an irrational herd like plonker would you be to care?

Phil Deakins wrote: PeachJubilee wrote: With respect to the market, that's nice for you Ceka but it does not help the person with G rated products who has someone's BDSM gear showing up on their G rated listing, in their G rated store which they are checking up on while they are logged in with their settings set up to only see G rated items, from their place of work in Saudi Arabia. Nor does it help a teen checking their store in similar circumstances while their parent is over their shoulder, and if it comes to that and the parent happens to be particularly "sue-happy" it probably won't help LL much either. Haven't they fixed that problem yet? It's been quite a while since I read about it happening to a lot of marketplace merchants. It's completely ludicrous that it started happening at all. Has LL said anything worth saying about it or are they still in the 'we don't have to tell you anything' mode? I think from the patchy communication that LL's stance is that it is a years old problem form the XStreet migration that just seemed worse because of all the DD transition activity. This apparently made the problem much more visible or something. Anyway, more or less, they are aware and always have been aware of this problem. They are and always have been fixing it. In good news, chocolate rations have gone up. Most recent thread about this issue...

Peggy Paperdoll wrote: Are you sure Deltango? ------------------------------------------------------ [ edit] Legality [ edit] United States The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled [9] in November 2002 that the Federal Wire Act prohibits electronic transmission of information for sports betting across telecommunications lines but affirmed a lower court ruling [10] that the Wire Act "'in plain language' does not prohibit Internet gambling on a game of chance." But the federal Department of Justice continues, publicly, to take the position that the Wire Act covers all forms of gambling. [11] In April 2004 Google and Yahoo!, the two largest Internet search engines, announced that they were removing online gambling advertising from their sites. The move followed a United States Department of Justice announcement that, in what some say is a contradiction of the Appeals Court ruling, the Wire Act relating to telephone betting applies to all forms of Internet gambling, and that any advertising of such gambling "may" be deemed as aiding and abetting. Critics of the Justice Department's move say that it has no legal basis for pressuring companies to remove advertisements and that the advertisements are protected by the First Amendment. [12] In April 2005, Yahoo! has instigated a restrictive policy about gambling ads. [13]  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Somehow I don't think many businesses who value their busines would interpet the law as you have. Somehow I don't think any vigilent populice who value their freedoms would put up with a Justice Department that obviously thinks it is above the law as interpreted by the courts.

Part of what has to be delivered on is the appearance of caring. Caring for the quality of product, caring for the experiences customers are having. Sure you don't have to actually care, but you're not delivering if your customers believe you don't care, and it tends to work out that those who care about their customers' experience are better at deliverying the kind of high quality experience that gives customers the impression that the provider cares. With respect to the market, that's nice for you Ceka but it does not help the person with G rated products who has someone's BDSM gear showing up on their G rated listing, in their G rated store which they are checking up on while they are logged in with their settings set up to only see G rated items, from their place of work in Saudi Arabia. Nor does it help a teen checking their store in similar circumstances while their parent is over their shoulder, and if it comes to that and the parent happens to be particularly "sue-happy" it probably won't help LL much either.

Agreed. I understand why we have their categories outside our shop area in what we might describe as the "search commons", but when someone navigates to my shop, they should see what I want them to see, including the number and kind of categories that I think my products are best organized into for my customer's convenience.

Well you're not wrong about shoot first and think it over later. I just logged onto my email to find the ticket I put in has been resolved. It turns out that the item was appropriately listed all along and both a flagger and the Linden reviewer both happened to think it should be in another category that apparently it also would fit in. I've been told I can relist it again in the same category it was delisted from. I just hope it does not happen all over again, because nothing about this process gives me confidence that it won't.

I just wish they would sort out their current categories and delisting process and treat us like customers rather than cheats. Most importantly of all, tell us where things should have been put in the delisting notifications, both for practical reasons, and because it is indescribably disrespectful to not do so. I'm still waiting to hear which category an item delisted last week belongs in. I should not have to waste my time submitting a ticket, or waiting around, and LL should not be wasting its staffs' time having them double handle an issue that should be initially handled in a way that least inconveniences customers, not the way that most inconveniences them while also creating more work for LL's own staff.

The debt does not have to be paid in Euros or dollars. In fact it does not have to be paid. Obviously creditors would prefer to be paid and in Euros or dollars rather than drachmas, but that does not mean Greece "have" to pay in dollars or Euros.

I'm not sure what you mean by interesting. That the Greek people want to stay in the Euro but under different terms is and has all along been as obvious as the fact that other country's like Germany want them to stay in but under the same terms. That's the crux of the problem and has been all along.

Unfortunately 16, the loss is immediate. To invest in FB the money had to come from somewhere, and probably not under a matress. To not lose the value of savings you already have, you have to persistently grow their nominal value to keep up with money's devaluation through inflation. FB was over valued and is highly unlikely to achieve the price these people paid for it, and even if they broke even on nominal price they've still lost value on their savings. That's without any accounting for "lost opportunity" to grow their saving's real value elsewhere at a rate that increases their actual value.

I don't know what those things have to do with the theme, but they are apparently not slacking off on the delisting as I found out when I logged in to discover my mix n match ensemble, whole outfit for women delisted from the mix and match ensemble sub category under whole outfits (for women).

WolfBaginski Bearsfoot wrote: No, it isn't worth that. The price is a sign of a Bubble, again. I don't know what the rules are in the USA, so I can't comment on what you say about Goldman Sachs, but they apparently lied their pretty little heads off, and pocketed a huge fee, to get Greece into the Euro-zone. I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, although I concede that "prettiness" is perhaps somewhat subjective.

There is a perfectly good explanation. It's the new secret breedables. They are ridable ponies, but these new ponies are in secret beta testing and so secret they have been made invisible. The reason some avatars look like they are riding invisible ponies is because they are. Occam's razor. As to why these avatars appear unhappy, it's because no one can see their ponies. If you had an invisible pony, wouldn't you want to show it off?

It's difficult to know who is talking and knowing about what with so much going on. Someone reported a transaction that was only reported in one place with an odd order number (two digits short). They only knew because the customer spoke to them. There is another thread with discussion of a seemingly similar case instigated when a customer contacted a merchant who could not find their transaction records, but that turned out to be caused by fragmented reporting (stale shopping cart order with transaction completing, transaction reports and notifying email chronologically disparate), er, I think... In the midst of this there is some speculation that low sales might be about items delivering but not being properly processed by marketplace and that we'd never know because we get no indication that an item was sent unless the marketplace properly finishes the transaction and tells us so. (Assuming I've understood their posts properly), Flea seems to think that the last problem is more visible to a merchant with DD than MB because MBs "fail silently", but I think that if the market backend does not process an order properly after the item has been sent, that with DD you cannot know the item was sent, only that you were not paid, but with the MB a merchant had a very good chance of knowing the item was sent and even when it was sent. If they were there at the time, they'd even see their MB change color. Items being sent are now invisible to us. We only have the marketplace information, so if there is a backend problem processing transactions in addition to the real MB limitations and glitches, then that will be completely invisible to merchants with DD.

Sassy Romano wrote: PeachJubilee wrote: . MBs notify the marketplace the item was sent: this must fail if an item is to be sent without leaving a trail for the merchant MBs notify the merchant: this must fail if an item is to be sent without leaving a trail for the merchant. Well... the architecture is broken because there are non transactional operations and by transaction here, i'm using the term "transaction" in the atomic defintion of it either completing in full or rolling back. The issue with MP is that a MB could send an item and THEN FAIL to communicate back to the back end just as easily as there be a forward failure of the back end to communicate with the MB to send an item. Once that return failure exists, the back end now is potentially in a holding state waiting for a retry of a timeout and in the case of a timeout, the MP back end could refund the customer. My view on the broken back end is articulated here https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/web-4508 and closed as expected behaviour. It's dysfunctional and will remain so. Since we are mushrooms, we have to be kept in dark places and fed **** but it's not too difficult to reason what is in place. Unfortunately, it's something that has grown from their take over of xstreetsl and the reality is that Direct Delivery was/is a quick fix but still has tenous links to other parts of the processes involved and nobody has the time or inclination or direction from management to drive this whole platform to a sound architectural solution. What you describe would probably not produce a silent, no-trail delivery. If the MB does not send confirmation to the marketplace or marketplace does not process the confirmation, there would have to be a second failure in the same transaction for the merchant to not be notified that the product was sent. What I contest is Flea's suggestion that DD failures entailing billing customers and sending them the delivery without the merchant knowing a transaction had happened, were happening all along with MBs but were "hidden" because MBs are "silent" when they fail. That's not the case though. MBs are not silent when they send a product out. They talk to the marketplace and they talk to the merchant and there has to be at least two failings for the merchant to not be aware their box sent something out. If these failings were happening and were "hidden" and "silent" under MBs then they are more hidden and more silent under DD, not more visible and louder as Flea is asserting. ***Also (completely besides the point) I noticed I'm logged in as PeachJubilee again but I'm more commonly Anaiya Arnold.

Flea Yatsenko wrote: From what I have seen, LL does not keep the money. Basically, here's what happens. A user tries to purchase an item.The item (I'm staying agnostic on the method of delivery, it seems like both can be affected by this) then delivers the item, but it fails to contact the SLMP website to let it know that the product was delivered.The website never hears from the Magic Box or DD, so it assumes the transaction has timed out and is partially failed.The website assumes the delivery has not gone through after a few hours, and refunds the customer their money from the intermediary account. This is the key factor because not a lot of customers are going to speak out and say they got your product for free. As a merchant, you only see a delivery partially failed that you didn't get paid for. This is what I am talking about when I say Magic Boxes fail without the user knowing (at least one of the ways). When the MB delivers a product it sends two messages. One to the marketplace and one to the merchant. If the marketplace does not get or fails to process its message, the merchant still knows their box sent something, who it was sent to, and what was sent.

One of my transactions became "aborted" too.

MBs never confirmed payment. How or why would they do that? You are extrapolating from behaviour under DD, (that items are delivered and there is no trace of this from the merchant's perspective,) that MBs were silently doing the same and that there's a common, marketplace back-end cause for this. That's not plausible. Aside from the fact that if this were the case, we'd be no more aware of it with DD than with MB. The awareness of an "invisible sale and delivery without payment" arises from customers communicating back to merchants about sales that from the customers point of view appear to have been routine and complete. It's implausible that either DD or MB entailed any kind of mind control function that could alter the chances of a customer contacting a merchant about such a sale, so we'd not expect that DD would alter how aware merchants would be of such a problem if it was there all along. Regarding the MBs' function: MBs received instructions to deliver: if this fails, no product is delivered. MBs send the product: if this fails, no product is delivered. MBs notify the marketplace the item was sent: this must fail if an item is to be sent without leaving a trail for the merchant MBs notify the merchant: this must fail if an item is to be sent without leaving a trail for the merchant. So for the MBs to deliver a product without leaving any trail or giving any money to the merchant, the MB had to fail two tasks in an otherwise succesful transaction, and one of those tasks is completely independent of the marketplace back end. As to no-payment, no-trail deliveries under DD, these cannot have the same cause as a no-trail delivery under the MB system. Nothing on the backend is capable of preventing an MB from informing its owner that it sent a product, and the MB problems you identify cannot possibly cause DD failures. So whatever is failing on the marketplace end cannot interfere with MBs sending out messages, and none of the reasons given for MBs failing can possibly effect DD transactions. Also, it's not true that the MB did not give information, and in fact it gave more information tham DD. The box did not just silently fail without leaving a trace. That just was not possible. Only the marketplace, the single source for information under DD, could make an attempted transaction fail without a trace or trail. So we have two sources of information with MB and only one of those sources could be responsible for silent failed transactions that leave no trace that a transaction was even attempted. Under DD, that same source of information that could cause silent failed transactions that leave no trace is the only source of information. You're not better informed, but in fact have halved the sources of information and the retained half is the unreliable half.

Innula Zenovka wrote: I have to say I read the bit about circumventing the permissions system as being directed at stopping people changing the terms of the licence the object's creator has granted them to use it, but there's only one way to find out -- if someone thinks a no-copy, no-mod, no transfer item is against ToS then simply AR it and see what, if anything, happens. I would read it exactly the same way if the ability to set an item to no copy and no transfer were available from the permissions section of the edit menu. Your method would not identify whether or not it is a TOS violation to merge items for the purpose of circumventing this restriction, and I doubt that there is a way to identify as much because if it is intended to be technically against the TOS, such a term is effectively unenforcable. There are plenty of reasons why someone might merge a no copy item and no trans item. Merging a no copy house door with a no trans script because you want your house door to have the functionality the script brings, is not merging them for the purpose of circumventing a limitation in the perms system. From a practical point of view, enforcement is unlikely no matter whether or not the activity is intended to be prohibited because enforcement would need mind reading capacities to determine why someone merged two items to produce a no copy and no trans item. The crux of my post is that it's unclear, and as you point out you "read" the TOS to mean something that it might mean, but nothing in the text of the TOS excludes the possibility that the TOS means exactly what it says rather than what you read it as meaning. It's ambiguous if you have to guess beyond a strict literal interpretation, or in other words, if it's a bottom line, it's a line that lies beneath muddy and opaque waters.