Madelaine McMasters

Hi Strive, I stumbled across this... http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Merchants/Marketplace-M-rating-confusion/m-p/2769914#M50512

Hi Scasi, I've never heard of such an issue. I could imagine the map being a bit "behind" the movements of an avatar, showing where they were a few moments ago, not where they are now. But it seems unlikely the map would report an entirely wrong location. That said, there's a lot of weird SL behavior that you'd think unlikely. Clearly SL doesn't care what we think.

As Rolig says, there's no good explanation for the whacky behavior of the mysterious Linden Lab Word Maturity Detector (LL-WMD). I have previously suggested that this is the result of incompetence (see Hanlon's Razor), as I don't think the Lindens are evil. What a pity. Evil is easier to anticipate. ;-).

Hi Barry, Here's a table of benchmark results... http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/gpu_list.php I just searched it and find that the 740M scores 902 and the 820M isn't yet listed. The integrated graphics of current Intel chips score in the 400-500 range. So that puts both NVIDIA cards on the low-end of the performance spectrum. Here's a comparison of the 740m and 820m... http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GT-720M-vs-GeForce-820M The biggest advantage of the 820M appears to be lower power consumption, which is a good thing in a laptop. I hope this helps, but if it just adds to your confusionm I'm still happy! ;-).

Hi leGustav, As Rolig says, there's no way to bulk derender. But, you may be able to reduce lag by setting the maximum number of non-imposter avatars to a very small number. You change that setting in Preferences->Graphics. You can control the distance at which impostering starts using the Avatars slider under Level of Detail (LOD) distance factors. And you can learn more about avatar imposters here... http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Avatar_Impostors_tech_details I often run with Max # of non-imposter avatars set to... one! Of course that means I'm the only avatar that renders fully for me, but when I'm building or chatting across SL, that's not a problem. Good luck!

I think you're onto something here, though I think you're a li'l too tough on the fellas. They're not the only of the 58 genders to suffer slider-itis. Mr. Wigglies should not be attachments, they should be a part of the avatar mesh. And like "our girls", they should be subject to avatar physics. Nothing would lift my mood during those five RL days of my 28 like zooming the "Wiggliness", "Gravity" and "Attention" sliders around. I want a marketplace category for "Thoughfully Silly" stuff. Neither flowers nor knee length boots... propane and sandals. I suppose I won't miss glitch pants in SL, but I'm keeping them in RL. Nothing sets the mood for a summer party faster than squealing "Look, I'm wearing big-girl pants!" while hiking my sundress over my head to reveal jean shorts. I want the ability to ban anyone, anytime, anywhere, for any reason. I also want the ability prevent them from logging out. I'll think of more. Give me time. ETA: I want the Cornfield back, and I want to live there. ETA2: I missed the fine print in your post - "I think if we work together". That's a non-starter.

Hi miabella, The rate at which a sound falls off in SL is related to the size of the prim emitting the sound. It's possible the baby prim is quite large, so you hear it from a great distance. Fortunately, you can block sound from prims. To do that you must first find them. Go to "World->Show->Beacons" and check "Sound Sources". You should then see any sound emitting prims highlighted with yellow lines. Find the baby, right click it and select "Manage->Block". That should give you some peace and quiet. Uncheck the beacon to return to normal viewing. If the sound is coming from your neighbor's avatar (because she's wearing a baby attachment), right-click her avatar and again, select "Manage->Block". This will silence the baby, but will also prevent the person from IMing you, make them invisible, and remove them from your public chat as well. If only we could do this on long airplane flights. Good luck!

Hippie Bowman wrote: Want to race Maddy? You bet!... Happy Saturday, Kids!!!

LaskyaClaren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: It's not that I have faith in LL. It's that I don't have faith in myself. I'm hardly expert on what makes virtual worlds successful. It's possible that if SL1 worked the way I want, I'd be the only one using it. ;-). Oh, well, I agree. I'm hardly an expert either, and I have "concerns" or "questions" rather than solutions, really, for just that reason. Of course there's a paradox in your last comment: were you the only one using it, SL would hardly be working the way you want, would it? I am divorced, remember? And that's working well. ;-).

Hi bateliii, You can only locate people who are on the same sim as you, who are in your friends list and have given you permission to find them on the map, or who are wearing an object that informs you of their location.

LaskyaClaren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: I should think LL knows far more about what the in-world population is like than any of us. They know our spending habits, our total investments and divestitures, inventory size, visitation rates and durations, ad infinitum ad nauseum. They should also be easily able to discern if forumites are a different kind of creature. We can theorize. They know. By this stage in Rod Humble's tenure, I'd already written him off. I'm still enjoying the honeymoon with Ebbe. ;-). I'm quite sure that LL has access to a great deal of data that we don't, and in that sense should "know" better than we do. But there is a world of difference between having such data, and interpreting and applying it correctly. I don't think one has to look far to find instances of companies with reams of information at their disposal making very poor decisions. Here in Canada, we are still recovering from the disaster that Research in Motion has become. I hope your faith in LL is well-placed. My personal sense of loyalty to the company is just about zip; I seldom become attached to corporations. But Second Life is another thing: LL has produced something quite wonderful there, and I don't want to see it die. As for Ebbe, well, I'll agree that I am still hopeful. It's not that I have faith in LL. It's that I don't have faith in myself. I'm hardly expert on what makes virtual worlds successful. It's possible that if SL1 worked the way I want, I'd be the only one using it. ;-).

Hallo Binchen, Hier sind einige Links, die Ihnen helfen konnen ... http://wiki.phoenixviewer.com/wearing_entire_inventory http://blog.nalates.net/2012/05/11/second-life-wearing-all-inventory/ Viel Gluck!

Gavin Hird wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Gavin Hird wrote: I said that, IMHO, people that buy Apple products are IGNORANT Medhue, I think you need to revisit that opinion, because all research show they are not ignorant at all about their purchase of an Apple product. To almost all of them the purchase was a very conscious decision. You can be very sure that a good proportion of your customers are also Apple customers and using your product on Apple products. Chances are they are more willing to pay for your product it they see quality and value. If I were you – and this goes for LL too, I would make sure these customers tell their friends about your product, because they can be quite pationate when they have made up their minds. But they sure will tell their friends too if, to quote Steve Jobs, "The idea is good, but the implementation sucks!" If LL's plans for a new SecondLife comes to fruition, I can guarantee you there will be a whole lot more of them around this place. ;-) I don't think Apple owners are any more ignorant than average. Medhue's statement was so overbroad as to be meaningless, which he's approximately remedied by backpedaling on the scope of "ignorance". My personal experience is that Apple users aren't appreciably different from other computer users. I've been curious about Apple's success, and about innovation and leadership in general. I've been okay at innovation and terrified of leading. I don't know where I'm going, so I don't want anyone following me. They'll find me out. But I do want to understand why I follow some people, some companies, some ideas. I find this a compelling explanation...

Freya, I'd love to see that chart up to the present. It ends in 2008, before mobile devices and services really started competing for customer attention. I don't think there is as large a market for high attention bandwidth games like SL now. This, more than anything, may affect LL's thinking about what SL2 should be. If SL2 isn't mobile friendly, or perhaps even centric, I wonder how successful it can be. Facebook's acquisition of Oculus throws a wrench in my thinking however, as I don't see the headset as being mobile friendly. Perhaps there is a large market for chair bound virtual world surfers in the age of "sitting is the new smoking", but that just seems counterintuitive to me.

kiramanell wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: When I state an opinion, I generally preface it with "I think", "It seems to me", etc. You don't do that. You make statements like... Actually, once you're seeing the assorted "I think" qualifiers applied over time, they start to annoy for the faux appeasers that they really are. My favorite Gunnery Chief, Ashley Williams, nailed it when she spoke: Why is it whenever someone says "with all due respect", what they really mean is " kiss my *ss"? Sometimes people foregoing on the charade, and just plainly voicing their opinion, can be quite refreshing. After all, one should be secure enough about oneself to realize that what the other says is, without them confirming it, just their opinion, right? I disagree. My self assuredness is what allows me to reveal my uncertainty, not presume yours. Medhue's certainty about his position telegraphs to me that evidence will not sway him, as the evidence available to me contradicts the statements he's made. The certainty with which people make statements that are so broad and stereotypical as to be casually discounted signals that they are not open to discussion. I like discussion. Certainly there are faux appeasers, and you may think me one of them. But on the issue of attempting to express no more certainty than I possess, I'm following in the footsteps of both Socrates and Benjamin Franklin (who adopted the Socratic Method when the Franklin Method failed him). Ask Medhue if he thinks I appease him. ETA: "with all due respect" says nothing about the speaker's certainty. That phrase often precedes an insulting comment. I think you are mixing concepts here.

Coby Foden wrote: SimonTemplar Bernard wrote: I wonder how I am gonna type with a rift headset on You drill some holes onto the Oculus display screens. A bit similar way as in this example: Problem solved! This amazingly innovative tip has been given as a free service to all Oculus Rift users. :matte-motes-big-grin: [Edit] If more transparency is needed just enlarge the holes by using a bigger drill. Have I ever told you that you're brilliant?

Medhue Simoni wrote: Why can't i just have an opinion and that is it? I apologize for taking this subject this far in this thread. When I state an opinion, I generally preface it with "I think", "It seems to me", etc. You don't do that. You make statements like... "And how does Apple do this? They do this by hyping their products by spending ridiculous money on advertising, and by pricing that product 2 and a half times more than an equivalent pc. This is also why they immediately started to use government to get their products in people hands, as those people would never have gotten them without government money. So, basically, Apple created a system where by the public pays Apple for other people to own and use their products. You end all those programs, and Apple is bankrupt." and... "I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts." Those are your opinions, provided without evidence, and should be qualified as such. I'd have no problem with you saying... "I don't think I base things on HYPE, I think I base them on the facts." To be consistent myself, I really only think I'm an evidence based thinker. I won't try to prove it, out of fear someone will bludgeon me with evidence to the contrary. The problem with incompetence is that we can't accurately judge our own. ;-).

Gavin Hird wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: People that buy Apple products, are, for the most part, ignorant, and care more about being trending, than what is smart. It is interesting that you, as a developer, find a user base of 750+ million uninteresting and stupid, despite their willingness to pay, and pay more for your potential product. But that is perfect with me – one less competitor ;-) This is a demonstration of the peril of "belief". I can't count the number of times I've had to change my mind because the evidence wouldn't.

Medhue Simoni wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Regarding ad spending, Apple's competitors vastly outspend it... http://qz.com/103266/google-is-about-to-spend-half-of-apples-annual-marketing-budget-promoting-a-single-phone/ http://bgr.com/2013/11/01/microsoft-marketing-budget-2-5-billion-dollars/ http://www.dailytech.com/Samsung+Breaks+the+Bank+w+14B+in+Advertising+But+is+it+Trying+Too+Hard/article33846.htm http://bgr.com/2013/04/11/samsung-advertising-spend-analysis-430831/ Since you said you are an evidence base thinker, I'll point out that this isn't an argument against what I said. If anything, it is proof that these company's are trying to emulate Apple. It's an argument for my position, not against it. They even use Apple as their benchmark, and that tells you alot. Today, Apple doesn't need to advertise as much cause they can market directly to schools and teachers, who will do their marketing for them. As far as value in a Brand, sorry but that all depends on what you think that brand represents. I see no added value at all. If there is any at all, it is destroyed by the price difference, and the shear amount of products the people using their competition can use. Madelaine McMasters wrote: Regarding Apple's dependence on the education market... Apple's 2013 total revenue was $171 Billion. Of that, less than $4 Billion came from the education market (I don't have ed revenue for the full year, but if the best quarter topped $1Billion for the first time, the year total can't be much above $4Billion). I don't think Apple would go bankrupt on losing 2.4% of revenue. I'm an evidence based thinker, and look forward to evidence to support your claims. What is missing here, is Apple's definition of what constitutes their educational market. I'll also point out, that if we want to talk just about Apple's total profits, then we shouldn't be talking about their actual products, outside of their stock. I don't know the exact numbers, but it's likely that their stock alone makes up a good portion of those profits. It's kind of the same as saying that Facebook made all this money, but the actually platform didn't make a profit at all. It's all speculative money, that could be lost in an instant. It's not real tangible profits. Apple's ad spending is rising, and quickly, as they push back against Samsung's onslaught. Apple is a follower when it comes to ad spending. If they get a better return on their advertising dollar, good for them. Using the leader as a benchmark does indeed say a lot. Who wants to emulate a follower? You are entitled to see no value in Apple's brand. You are even entitled to claim there is no value in a brand. That does not mean there isn't, it simply means you're wrong, or that centuries of brand building around the world has all been for naught. It is for others to decide which is more likely. Apple's definition of "eductional market" is revenue booked from/through educational institutions, rather than individiuals at retail. And that would be where government subsidies apply. This is all available in their SEC filings. It has long been a complaint of the Apple investor community that Apple does very little marketing to the educational community. They do offer educational discounts, but those are both smaller and narrower in scope than years ago. When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, the focus turned squarely to the consumer. Apple had been far more education friendly before that. The definition of "profit" is a legal one (tax codes wouldn't work if it weren't). Appreciation in stock price is not profit for Apple, it's capital gains for Apple shareholders. Some of Apple's profit is paid to shareholders in the form of cash dividends, which are quite tangible. Apple's profits are well documented in their SEC filings, and shareholder's capital gains are documented in their individual tax filings with the IRS. Have you confused the two?

Medhue Simoni wrote: madjim wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: madjim wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: As far as MS not being part of the mobile market, I would beg to differ, as the Surface Pro is the only actually productive tablet on the market. It is the only tablet that is what tablets should have been from the start. Presently, I have yet to buy a tablet, as why would I buy a useless toy to read webpages. That's only worth about 50 cent to me. I might actually go get the Surface Pro 3 tho. Given your apparent propensity to back obvious losers, please don't offer me any racing tips. Father "heaping Pelion upon Ossa" Jim Using this same logic, Apple was a loser for the vast majority of their existence. Even today, if you look at the stats on any website, you'll see that it's not people with apple products visiting websites the most. I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts. Apple is STILL a loser. Check those stats of iPhones against Android. Just like Mac and PC all over again. Father "Losers buy Apple products because they want to be like other losers" Jim My point is, that if you can make a profit without using government money, then I would hardly call you a loser. I total agree with your Father. People that buy Apple products, are, for the most part, ignorant, and care more about being trending, than what is smart. Again Medhue, I'm going to ask you to back up your claim with evidence. I just Googled "apple owner demographics". Here's the first (for me) returned link... http://www.marketingprofs.com/charts/2013/10957/how-iphone-and-android-ownership-varies-by-demographic From which I cribbed this chart... The average Apple phone owner appears to have higher income and education than the average Android phone owner. If you are right about Apple owners being ignorant, might we then conclude that ignorance is the result of education, and results in greater financial success? I'm willing to entertain the former idea, but the latter would really bother me. I haven't digested all the information here, but it's interesting that Apple owners skew older. That might explain the higher income as people work their way up through their careers. But it doesn't explain your trendiness theory. It has been my experience that the young favor trends. Old timers are thought to be stuck in their ways, aren't they?

Medhue Simoni wrote: Gavin Hird wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Using this same logic, Apple was a loser for the vast majority of their existence. Even today, if you look at the stats on any website, you'll see that it's not people with apple products visiting websites the most. I don't base things on HYPE, but the facts. Fact is that Apple has close to 150 billion USD in the bank, and can fit Google's entire quarterly turnover in the AppleTV department (slight exaggerationthere - but Android is currently a loss for Google). They are competing with Exxon to be the company with highest market evaluation in the world and have both the highest brand recognition in combination with the best customer service in the industry. They have shipped over 750 million devices running iOS. They rake in over 75% of all revenue in the tablet market, and for high end laptops it is closer to 80% Symptomatic the national broadcasting corporation here were criticized for not making a Windows Phone app for streaming of their live broadcasts. They said at between 0.6 and 1.1% visitors with the device on their website, it was not worth it at all. And how does Apple do this? They do this by hyping their products by spending ridiculous money on advertising, and by pricing that product 2 and a half times more than an equivalent pc. This is also why they immediately started to use government to get their products in people hands, as those people would never have gotten them without government money. So, basically, Apple created a system where by the public pays Apple for other people to own and use their products. You end all those programs, and Apple is bankrupt. Regarding ad spending, Apple's competitors vastly outspend it... http://qz.com/103266/google-is-about-to-spend-half-of-apples-annual-marketing-budget-promoting-a-single-phone/ http://bgr.com/2013/11/01/microsoft-marketing-budget-2-5-billion-dollars/ http://www.dailytech.com/Samsung+Breaks+the+Bank+w+14B+in+Advertising+But+is+it+Trying+Too+Hard/article33846.htm http://bgr.com/2013/04/11/samsung-advertising-spend-analysis-430831/ Regarding product pricing for Surface Pro 3 and MacBook Air... http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2458320,00.asp You can certainly find less expensive non Apple computers, but they're generally not similarly spec'd. Apple's "Tax" is more myth than reality, as shown above. And it can be difficult to find a direct comparison, as Apple's computers are more than just the collection of parts. They put significant effort and expense into the sort of industrial design you'd expect from aspirational brands. That is not valueless. I am sometimes vexed by the excessive value people place on aspirational brands, including Apple, but the recent test drive I took in a BMW convinced me that such brands are not all hype. I won't be buying a BMW anytime soon, but it was a truly lovely car. Regarding Apple's dependence on the education market... Apple's 2013 total revenue was $171 Billion. Of that, less than $4 Billion came from the education market (I don't have ed revenue for the full year, but if the best quarter topped $1Billion for the first time, the year total can't be much above $4Billion). I don't think Apple would go bankrupt on losing 2.4% of revenue. I'm an evidence based thinker, and look forward to evidence to support your claims.

I'm ready too!... Happy Thursday, Kids!!!

If I seem tardy in posting these days, it's because of my new wheels... Par has already asked if I drive around town with my top down. I do! Honk, Kids!!!

LaskyaClaren wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Qie Niangao wrote: I think the communications on this have been very carefully managed. I also think it's quaintly charming, how folks imagine that the CEO just blurted something out accidentally, as if there weren't a detailed plan worked out in advance. This is an interesting perspective, and certainly at odds with the perception of most people here. In your view, is this strategy "working"? Or is it too early to tell yet? May I give an answer to that? Gonna do anyway Imo, it's working just fine. From what i've read in the threads, most people are actually looking forward to the new platform, and accept that all of their stuff won't go over. And this was achieved so much in advance that everyone, except a few die hards, will settle down to continuing with SL as normal. So SL will continue as normal and without any ongoing panic or similar. That seems like a success to me. You may be right, Phil. I hope you are right. At the moment, however, it may be too soon to really know, and most of the information we are working with is anecdotal. The SL forums, for instance, are hardly representative of the in-world population as a whole. I should think LL knows far more about what the in-world population is like than any of us. They know our spending habits, our total investments and divestitures, inventory size, visitation rates and durations, ad infinitum ad nauseum. They should also be easily able to discern if forumites are a different kind of creature. We can theorize. They know. By this stage in Rod Humble's tenure, I'd already written him off. I'm still enjoying the honeymoon with Ebbe. ;-).

Bree Giffen wrote: We need a virtual world that engages all of our senses. The Oculus Rift will give us sight and sound but we need taste, smell and touch! Think of it! It would be stupendous. Although this sounds good, the reality of it is more likely to be horrendous than stupendous. Oculus users are already dealing with "rift sickness". Add taste, smell and touch, each with their own delays, asynchronicities and palette limitations and you've got a recipe that'll need more than Pepto-Bismol to keep down.