Bradford Mint

I really look forward to VR or augmented VR where a virtual classroom works but I've never seen SL as this platform, just as it was never going to be a business to for virtual conferencing. Anyone either in IT or who takes part in such activities soon realises that the lowest common denominator in such things is universally a web browser. Even getting a full quora with webcams is considered a huge result, 50% is even an outstanding win. The idea of adorning a headset and sitting in a virtual classroom is lovely but we're not there yet and many other more appropriate tools exist. It'll take a few more years of the involvement of the sex industry to advance the technology as that's what it will take as the driver just as weapons development drives other technologies.

"Oh yes I would" *looks shiftily behind*

Education starts early:- Teacher addresses the class of six year olds: "Some of you will grow up to be more beautiful than others, some of you will have more money. Some will be more spiritual and some will just be funnier. Life is competitive, start learning now." I'd make a great teacher.

Any Saints have no bearing, my point is that it's not a public holiday, such as Christmas which is a traditional holiday. The English tradition as referenced in the thread, pertains to the gesture of sending something to a significant love interest and usually, anonymously. To then reduce this tradition by generally wishing everyone on the day a Happy Valentine's Day is just incorrect. I watched an American film the other night, in one scene a chap checked in at the hotel and just as he was about to leave the reception desk, the receptionist looked up and said "Oh, Happy valentine's Day!" and then added a fake smile. That's exactly what I mean when I say that is reducing the novelty sentiment behind the tradition to diluted fake nothing.

Nooooo, that's like the school sports days where "everyone is a winner". Just no. Life is competitive, deal with it. For me, just spamming cards would dilute the sentiment because nobody is special by the sheer virtue of everyone being the same.

Nope, I would send a card to someone of interest or maybe they would send me one but as I'm not a love interest of everyone that I meet on Valentine's Day, saying it to me just comes across as a pointless, disingenuous comment with zero substance. Might as well wish me happy grumpy day, at least I'll smile back at them instead of giving them a perplexed look as I wonder why they've bothered to say Happy Valentine's Day for no applicable reason! Besides, it's not a day that I celebrate.

It seems to me that the sentiment of Valentine's Day has become entirely lost. It's not a public holiday, everyone is not your Valentine, thus wishing everyone a "Happy Valentine's Day" is inappropriate somewhat! Just thought I'd drop that on a thread.

Nailed it. Yes, it's a one way data pipe for cross domain security solutions.

That's a great suggestion actually and gives the added benefit of auto enrolling you into at least two off-site cloud backup programmes with data centres in the USA and the UK. Getting your content back can be a bit of a problem though as the data centres are fed via data diodes.

Except that LL would first need sufficient identification before releasing the information that the poster needs in order to identify themselves.

I know what you mean by it, I'm curious as to why the apparent exclusion? Aren't we all just "people"? I prefer not to colour code people.

Isn't white a colour?

Ah but that's only half the issue, you also have to be age <insert acceptable fantasy age range> and <insert fantasy body type> with [ ] flowing [ ] short <fantasy colour> hair. The fact that I probably fail on all of these is irrelevant to how amazingly HOT you'll find me. *smiles charmingly*

None of this is an SL issue. This is entirely an arrangement between the buyer and seller, just as it is in RL. If you are in a physical shop in RL, there is no right to return goods, unless they are subsequently found to be faulty. You are deemed to have had the opportunity to inspect the goods before finalising the contact. I.e. payment. Many shops however, will offer their own policy with regard to returns and this already exists in SL. The is absolutely no reason whatsoever why a merchant cannot choose to offer a return or refund on any transaction, copy/transfer/full perm or whatever and some do! Now having said this, the UK does have the Distance Selling Act (although my memory fails me, I've a feeling it has been superceded in name) but this applies to products bought online or via phone, any method where the purchaser did not have the opportunity to inspect prior to purchase. This act grants legal right to the purchaser to return UNUSED products within 14 days but does not refund postage. The key part is unused, you don't get to try it out and determine suitability, that's still at the discretion of the vendor. This is as close as you'll get to a similar purchase within SL but the point remains, nothing needs to change, just contact the seller, all what they're able or willing to do. Fundamentally, it's not an SL problem, it's a people solution.

Probably more like the fact that fax only requires the use of a crayon and the subsequent document given to a government aide. Use of such fangled technology as a keyboard is far beyond the capability of many politicians! Oh then there's the current crop of "must ban encryption for the sake of the children (and terrorism)" which would render signing being a tad broken. Now I get it, those pesky politicians were actually advanced in their thinking.

Disappointing but it depends on what verification of your identity would be required for Docusign for the certificate used. For example, in the EU, e signing requires eIDAS compliance for certain compliance. https://www.docusign.com/how-it-works/electronic-signature/digital-signature (there's a download link about eIDAS and their service) I'm not sure what you'd need for other parts of the world but for a technology organisation to refuse a fully qualified certificate to such a standard in favour of a fully defeatable method such as fax is a joke!

Should not apply to qualified digital signatures. That's why they're qualified, it's the whole point and if governments both issue and accept them, there's no reason why LL shouldn't. To OP, are you sure we're taking about suitably issued certificates to a suitable Identity verification standard? Fax is so subject to tampering, it's laughable to even consider it as suitable for legal purposes. All fax transmission asserts today is that you've used an incredibly out of date protocol, absolutely nothing more. The legal process has also caught up and generally accepts emails now.

I seem to recall some years ago that LL accepted DMCA via email where your email is signed, using the private key associated with a suitable certificate issued by a qualified trust service provider. Maybe check up on that and ask for the exact requirements that would satisfy their needs?

The moment that this becomes a debate over right and wrong methods is the moment that the point is lost. It is without any doubt whatsoever that in order to obtain money from someone, you make it as easy as possible for them to do so. Their methods may be different to your own but to them, any barrier is just that. The sensible response would be a simple "thank you for your feedback". No merchant is obliged to change their their method but to argue that it's a better method is fruitless. If the business of a potential customer is not valued, that's fine, that is also a choice but in no way invalidates the customers personal preferences either.

Lack of demo is easy to address. A refund is ALWAYS an option, there's no issue. I don't understand creators that have an issue with this. If someone is really unhappy, they're unlikely to use the item thus there's no loss. Alternate option, just give anyone that asks if there is a demo, the product, adding a suggestion that if they like it, they could return and buy it. If you've never tried this, you may be surprised at the result.

I agree with you entirely although encryption isn't always needed. We could just as easily devise a code based upon prim locations. The biggest problem we'd have is deciding what to wear on our avatars while playing around placing prims

Thank you for doing that.

And just to be sure, has someone as a purchaser performed a redelivery and had it go to the recipient? Presumably this is an option? Forgive my scepticism but when merchant initiated redelivery was first implemented, when a merchant triggered a gifted item redelivery, the redelivery went to the purchaser, not the gift recipient. I wouldn't want to think the same mistake had been repeated.

Shame, no reason why they shouldn't be offered redelivery but thanks for clarifying.

I'm feeling lazy but what about gifted items, can the recipient self redeliver or does it require the original purchaser to initiate redelivery? Is it even an option for gifted items? No reason why not.