Madelaine McMasters

Hi Jane, Posting in-world snapshots to the profile feeds has been a problem for many since the feed was introduced. No solution has been found, other than to give up and post your images to Flickr. :-(

Dillon Levenque wrote: I've tried really hard to see all this in a positive light, but I'm done. I haven't been actually following it much but I do lake a look every day in which there are matches to see who is going ahead and who is not. I was astonished to learn that in Group play the first tie-breaker was goal differential. I would normally expect the first tie-breaker to be based on head-to-head competition between the teams involved, and in Group play everyone plays each other. That is always the number one decider when two teams in the US wind up with matching records (except baseball, where if two teams wind up with matching records they play against each other until their records damned well don't match). I was not happy about goal differential being a decider in Group play but I let it go. Then I looked at the standings today. There were two draws: Chile v Brazil and Costa Rica v Greece. In both cases the team with the highest goal differential moves on, the other team is out. That is so incredibly wrong that I can't get my head around it. A team scored more goals against some other team that wasn't even on the schedule of the team to which they're being compared, and they ADVANCE? Sorry, soccer fans. Your sport bites. Never mind that it's really boring to watch. Never mind that most of the time a small plane could land on the playing field without seriously disturbing play. I am fully aware that if I actually understood the skills and strategies needed to win at soccer I'd probably enjoy watching it. I've talked to people unfamiliar with baseball who found it incredibly boring because all they watched was the ball. I assume the same thing holds true for soccer. HOWEVER: I will never pay the slightest attention to any sport in which tournament play does not require contests to be played to victory, however many extra periods it takes. Moon Over Miami (a little hint, for those who have, like the BBC, been quick to point out that some American sports allow tie games). FIFA lose. Maybe it's time for Bill Maher to do "Sportulous". I don't much enjoy watching sports. I'd rather play. But I did like sitting in the center field bleachers at Milwaukee Country Stadium when I was young, watching pitches from behind the pitcher, where it was pretty clear that they weren't nearly as varied or extreme as the radio announcer declared. Like religion, I've learned that sports is full of delusion, deception and just plain wierdness. Mom visits the Unitarian Church for their killer potlucks. I go to local softball games for the chili-dogs. And I still think Golf should have a defense.

LaskyaClaren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: I presume Facebook and Google are doing PHd and cringe worthy research internally, 24/7. I wonder how much the academics were bringing to the table. Just because you've not seen this degree of social engineering before doesn't mean it hasn't been happening. Regarding your ETA: The privatization of research has been happening for a long time. Once the world went online and data could be gathered remotely, the corporate world leaped well ahead of the academic world in research capability. There are those who want the government to keep it's fingers out of our stuff, and given the stereotype of government ineptitude, you can't brush off their argument. But there are times I'm not sure I want things in the hands of the efficient and focused. ;-). Even the Editor of Facebook's Mood Study Thought It Was Creepy Indeed, I'm sure this kind of thing isn't new. But that just makes it all the more alarming. What makes the corporate involvement in this particularly sinister is that the Facebook ToS was taken, for all intents and purposes, to supercede the normal research ethics requirements. In other words, where research ethics would normally require informed consent, that was deemed unnecessary because the FB terms of service don't require it. So, corporate "morality" replaces academic ethics. That's just plain wrong. I'd say this was more a case of academic involvement in something corporations have been doing forever. Microsoft employs game psychologists to help tune Windows and Office to ping our pleasure centers to encourage increased use of their products, not increase our desire or ability to get work done. I think that's pretty creepy. What might be making these things seem so sinister is the involvement of computer intelligence and the distancing of human involvement. When persuasion and deception were the handiwork of nefarious individuals, we could always tell ourselves that good people outnumbered bad, and there were only so many places to hide. But when nefarious algorithms can propagate like invisible gremlins? Research was once part of the product/service development workflow. Now, it's the product/service.

Parhelion Palou wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Parhelion Palou wrote: If the real world had only 2 years to go, would you kill yourself immediately so you don't have to wait till the end? I'd probably start killing other people, knowing that the worst they could throw at me is a two year sentence. ;-). And after a year, when they figure out how to keep the world from ending? Oops. Wait, you think it'll take LL three years to deploy SL2, but that they might be able to turn the current one around in one? What a dreamer you are! ... I'm coming after you with fireballs, Par! ;-).

Hi rainsom, You should be able to block public chat messages from the playlist chatter by blocking its owner. Of course that also removes the owner (probably the DJ) from the chat as well. Right click over the name of the object that's sending the playlist text and select "Block Text" from the drop down menu. (This works in Firestorm, not sure about SLV). Good luck!

LaskyaClaren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: The point, though, has less to do with the research outcome, which is probably fairly useless, and more to do with the ethics of this kind of research. This one involved not merely deception, but also outright manipulation of its subjects -- all without so much as a notification or request for consent. Google has been doing this to your search results for ages. We've discussed it. They know what you like, so they return results you'll like. This is how they keep you using Google. So your world view gets colored by glasses you don't even know you're wearing. But I suppose this has always been the case. Maddy wears slightly rose-tinted glasses in SL and their metaphorical equivalent in RL. I'm sure I don't know how much of that tint is of my own choosing, and how much is an unwitting response to manipulations by the world around me. What's changing is that those external manipulations are increasingly being narrowcast. In the past they were largely broadcast. I might chose a favorite news network, religion, political party, etc, which broadcasts messages I like. But they're not particularly aware of me, and so I receive the "average" message. Now, algorithms can watch my online (and increasingly offlne) behavior and taylor the messages specifically to me. This allows such sophisticated and covert manipulation. When the Democratic party twists the truth in a campaign ad, someone will call them out. If Google decides to give my search results a liberal spin, who's going to catch that? I can (when I'm in a particularly nefarious mood) imagine a world in which the algorithms herd us like border collies. (Have you ever attended a party at the home of a border collie owner? It's an amusing experience.) Yeah, the filter bubble is pretty old news, I guess. What makes this a bit different, though, is that this is no longer just about analyzing and responding to what we write by feeding us filtered information that we will supposedly "like." It's about actually changing what we write.4/7. Now, it's probably true that the underlying, unspoken point of filtering algorithms is to impact upon our state of mind and emotion, but I've never seen an experiment involving quite this degree of social engineering before. The other aspect that really bothers me about this is the uncritical participation of academics. Academics working hand-in-hand with the corporate world, governments, or the military is also not new news, but we have research ethics guidelines for a reason, and this study completely flouts their spirit, if not the letter. I really want to see these researchers nailed for this one -- and maybe the REB that okayed the study in the first place as well. ETA: Is this participation of these academic researchers a sign of the increasing corporatization of the academy? Insofar as research funding is increasingly coming from corporations, and not from arms-length government agencies, yes, I think it is. I presume Facebook and Google are doing PHd and cringe worthy research internally, 24/7. I wonder how much the academics were bringing to the table. Just because you've not seen this degree of social engineering before doesn't mean it hasn't been happening. Regarding your ETA: The privatization of research has been happening for a long time. Once the world went online and data could be gathered remotely, the corporate world leaped well ahead of the academic world in research capability. There are those who want the government to keep it's fingers out of our stuff, and given the stereotype of government ineptitude, you can't brush off their argument. But there are times I'm not sure I want things in the hands of the efficient and focused. ;-).

Good afternoon, Hippie! Happy Sunday, Kids!!!

Parhelion Palou wrote: If the real world had only 2 years to go, would you kill yourself immediately so you don't have to wait till the end? I'd probably start killing other people, knowing that the worst they could throw at me is a two year sentence. ;-).

LaskyaClaren wrote: Syo Emerald wrote: Reads like someone again wasted money and time on a useless research. Well, yeah. For two reasons. First, the "results" tell us nothing we didn't know. Over 250 years ago, the novelist Henry Fielding noted that theatre-goers who were leaving a comedy were much more inclined to be generous to beggars than those who had just viewed a tragedy -- and he wasn't the first to notice this effect by a long shot. We all intuitively know that what we read changes our mood, and that that is reflected in our communications. So, yeah . . . duh. Second, the methodology of this study seems astonishingly crude. I don't understand everything there is to know about digital text analysis (although I've played with a few software tools a bit), but I do know that, properly done, it involves much more than merely cherry-picking words out of context. Sophisticated text analysis examines words in context, and generally in multi-dimensions in order to plot any one given expression in relation to perhaps dozens of other variables. I haven't read the actual research, but this one seems to have been, as I say, much cruder. And frankly, I'm deeply suspicious of the value of this kind of "sentiment analysis" anyway. The point, though, has less to do with the research outcome, which is probably fairly useless, and more to do with the ethics of this kind of research. This one involved not merely deception, but also outright manipulation of its subjects -- all without so much as a notification or request for consent. Personally, I think that Facebook should be censured for this kind of thing, and the academics involved raked over the coals. This was deeply unethical. Google has been doing this to your search results for ages. We've discussed it. They know what you like, so they return results you'll like. This is how they keep you using Google. So your world view gets colored by glasses you don't even know you're wearing. But I suppose this has always been the case. Maddy wears slightly rose-tinted glasses in SL and their metaphorical equivalent in RL. I'm sure I don't know how much of that tint is of my own choosing, and how much is an unwitting response to manipulations by the world around me. What's changing is that those external manipulations are increasingly being narrowcast. In the past they were largely broadcast. I might chose a favorite news network, religion, political party, etc, which broadcasts messages I like. But they're not particularly aware of me, and so I receive the "average" message. Now, algorithms can watch my online (and increasingly offlne) behavior and taylor the messages specifically to me. This allows such sophisticated and covert manipulation. When the Democratic party twists the truth in a campaign ad, someone will call them out. If Google decides to give my search results a liberal spin, who's going to catch that? I can (when I'm in a particularly nefarious mood) imagine a world in which the algorithms herd us like border collies. (Have you ever attended a party at the home of a border collie owner? It's an amusing experience.)

CharlieMack wrote: This has got to be one of the better (if not best) non-hyperbole answers or comments concerning the new Second Life. Down to earth and logical. Thanks Amethyst I'm agreed! And I'll add that as a midbie who fondly remembers her noobie days in SL back in early 2008, joining now allows you to enjoy the wonder that is still SL and in two years, enjoy that wonder all over again in SL2. But this time around, rather than being one of the late arrivals, you'll be a pioneer! Come on in, the water's fine! ;-).

Hi Parisio, I'm wading out into the cattails here, as my understanding of SL internals isn't expansive. The fastest the servers will run an SL simulation is 45fps. That's 22.22.... ms per frame. (And that is different from and independent of your viewer's scene rendering rate.) So, if you're seeing that frame time, the simulator is being governed, just like an unloaded lawnmower engine, which doesn't cut any better at 10K rpm than at 3K. That's a good thing, meaning the server has more than enough ooomph to do 45fps. The "spare time" number you see indicates that the server actually has lots of spare time. You simply can't use it because 45fps is the speed limit and the reserve CPU horsepower can be better used by other regions sharing your server processor. Once you start loading up the sim with things, the spare time will decline until there is none left. At that point, because the server must reserve horsepower for the other regions, it will decrease your sim's frame rate to hold your CPU usage constant. That's the point at which the frame time starts to rise, and you'll see zero spare time. This is the equivalent of watching your lawmower bog down when you run it into the cattails in the culvert. Don't do that! ;-).

LaskyaClaren wrote: Second Life is going to be diminished by this, and pretending otherwise is misleading. Pardon my use of editorial license here, Laskya. SL was being diminished long before "this". I wonder if some have been misleading themselves by pretending otherwise... I understand the concerns of SL residents, but I don't understand why LL should be more restricted in their choices for how to proceed than competitors are. If the best way forward for LL is to completely abandon everything and everyone in SL, by creating something that we'll like better (Ebbe's stated goal), why are we complaining. I understand skepticism over LL's ability to do "this". We've been skeptical over their ability to do SL. We've also been skeptical of every alternative to SL, including wildly successful alternative uses for our time like Facebook.

LaskyaClaren wrote: Vivienne Schell wrote: "The question is too simplistic and therefore the answer both obvious and useless." So you declare obvious customer/consumer will being useless? Where do you live? Between the code lines? It certainly cannot be on this planet.Oh, and the phones you installed, i guess the customers just wanted to phone somehow. Oh, what an obvious, useless and simplistic declaration of will. Maddy can answer for herself with regard to the weight she places upon customer will. However, her suggestion that the simple question, "Do you want to be able to port your inventory to SL2? YES - NO" is simplistic is dead on. Why would anyone say "No" to this question? Having choices is always better than not having them . . . until one begins to consider the ramifications of having that choice. I myself have very little in my inventory that I would particularly want to carry over to the new grid -- a few outfits, perhaps, and some hair. Maybe my skin and shape? But even though I'd frankly be fine with leaving it all behind, I'd probably still answer "Yes" to this question because it always seems best to have choice. On the other hand, if you asked a more nuanced question, my answer would change. For instance: "Do you want to be able to port your inventory to SL 2, even if complete portability means that the new VW will not be as good as it might have been, and may possibly be little different from SL 1.0 as a result?" In this case, I'd definitely answer "No." And so would most people, I suspect. Anyone who has ever set a test, survey, or questionaire knows that the form of the question will impact upon the answers. Customer will is everything. If they won't, you have no business. But customer will is not customer want, or at least not something they can usually articulate. You've got to be careful when asking questions. It's easy to "lead the witness". And you cannot expect people who don't understand the technology, the market, or your ability, to give you direct design input. It's your job as the designer to get at the needs and desires of the customer as accurately as possible. This is no small task. And it often involves observation more than interrogation. People shift their focus when answering questions. By way of example, I once designed a product with a big display. Virtually every competing product had the display on a tilt/swivel mount, so it could be pointed at the operator. The machines themselves were rolled between rooms during a normal procedure, and were operated from a distance of several feet while standing. It was presumed by our marketing department that a tilt/swivel display was a "need". We'd been designing them that way for 20 years. Yet that "need" wasn't obvious me. (Some will tell you that nothing is obvious to me ;-). I went on a customer field trip to watch people using our products and those of competitors. I asked questions on arrival, observed them for a full day, then took them to dinner for conversation. Everyone I asked about tilt/swivel said it was a "need". Less than half of those I observed ever tilted or swiveled. Every one of those who did adjust tilt did so because the display had shifted position during the move between rooms, particularly when crossing raised thresholds. Those who adjusted swivel never changed the display angle by more than about five degrees from straight forward. So, I eliminated the cost and complexity of the tilt/swivel mechanism over strenuous objection from the marketing department. The product was ultimately very successful. Why? Because the tilt/swivel "need" was imagined, but the need for a less expensive machine was real. Had I listened to the customers, what would have happened? Had I not observed them, what would have happened? And, as the wise president of my company predicted, the most useful interactions I had with those customers was over dinner. There, they opened up about their personal lives, their goals, the challenges of their jobs, all things that were both nebulous and tremendously useful. They were not thinking about my product (as they would if asked questions about it), they were thinking about the challenges and opportunities before them. And my job was to help. If I couldn't do it with my product, perhaps I could do it by talking to our field service department to suggest a new way of handling customer issues, including a free field upgrade of special washers to secure the tilt mechanism so it wouldn't move during transport. SL residents, like people visiting Jiffy Lube, have both unique and shared needs. The reasons people visit SL are tremendously varied. People visit Jiffy Lube for an oil change. Yet both sets of customers need (yes, need) to feel they are getting a good value and respectful treatment. We all want to be delighted by the experience. Product design involves optimizing something in a highly dimensional space. There's more than length/width/height to the design of SL. No customer, and not even all the developers, can get a good grasp of all the dimensions that describe it. You get at this in your rephrasing of Vivienne's question to address the complexity you rightfully imagine in the creation of SL2. In his book "Serious Play: How the World's Best Companies Simulate to Innovate", Michael Schrage recounts stories of software design teams who, working from specifications driven by querying the customer, delivered programs that elicited responses like "This isn't at all like I thought it would be." Yet the product met every single requirement of the customer approved specification. Teams that prototyped incrementally, showing interations to the customer while observing them use it, completed their projects faster and with higher customer satisfaction. Questions were asked, but those questions were highly informed. So even with all of Vivienne's objections, I stand firm in my belief that polling customers won't lead you to success.

Vivienne Schell wrote: "I do remember an LL poll - about the V2. The had the poll and then ignored the results and went ahead with it anyway." The original polling, introduced by Linden Lab in 2004 was done on an at least monthly, if not weekly schedule (any other oldsies left here who remember the exact schedule?) and abandoned before your avatar was born. But it´s plain wrong that Phil Rosedale did not listen, the opposite is true. At that time Lindens were present and actively communicating at every newbie hub and we had a lot of fun bashing them for their beards. Even later on a friend of mine set fire under Oz Lindens bottom during an office hour. I think that they gave up on it once the big 2006-2009 hype let first SL and theri their servers explode, which exposed their fragile pixel psyche to public wrath in a too unpleasant way (or maybe they were as fed up as we were by the scheduled thurdsday blackouts!). "There should not be a poll on SL2. It has nothing to do with SL, except that it's a new model." I agree that there should not be a poll on the technology. But other aspects would probably be enlightening for the Lab. Like: Do you want to be able to port your inventory to SL2? YES - NO. :matte-motes-oh-rly: Why would anyone need to ask "Do you want to be able to port your inventory to SL2?" We can safely presume the vast majority would answer yes, and save ourselves the effort. The question is too simplistic and therefore the answer both obvious and useless. The problem is that porting inventory will be a technically complex thing. We won't know the tradeoffs, and so our opinion will be uneducated. Who wants uneducated opinions? LL has been operating SL for a decade. If we don't believe they understand SL, it would be fair to doubt we can educate them. You suggested that my professional experience must have been based on short term memory. If you're right, I'm probably in no position to disagree. But, as I've mentioned elsewhere, innovation rarely results from asking customers what they want. If you don't believe this, read a few biographies. I'll suggest Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Steve and Steve Jobs for starters. They were keen observers with disdain for focus groups. In my own career, I discovered firsthand that asking people what they wanted wasn't the best way. The president of my company refused to allow the marketing folks to run focus groups. He simply sent them, and the design engineers, out into the field to spend days or sometimes weeks with the customer, just watching them. As proof that "polling" doesn't work, the president suggested I write up some questions to ask early in my customer visits, and to compare what they said with what I saw. I couldn't believe how wrong the customers were. They'd say they wanted improvements in a feature I never observed them using or that they were using because of a defect in some other aspect of the system, like wanting "undo" in a system that is hard to operate correctly, when simply making the thing easy to use would eliminate the need for "undo". I'd then say something like "wouldn't it make more sense to make this easy to do right, than easy to do over?". "Oh, that would be awesome!". Had I sent them a survey at the start of the project, I'd have sent them a lemon at the end. In my internet connected designs, I installed software probes that reported back on various aspects of system usage, such as the frequency of use of various functions. I'd then compare those measurements the informal feedback from customers and once again discovered that they were asking for the wrong things. By watching what they were doing, right or wrong, I was better able to discern the needed changes than they were. But that's how it should be, improving the thing was my job, not theirs. So, I stand by my assertion that polling isn't the best way to success. I can hope that LL has been measuring the effects of things they've done over the years with more specificity and sensitivity than I. I only watch concurrency, which shows storm clouds on the horizon, and I believe explains why Ebbe and the Lindens are building a new ark.

LaskyaClaren wrote: I have some sympathy with this idea, although I don't of course think it would ever be considered. I'd be curious to know, however, how many SL creators, including those who might support this kind of direct input into LL's decision-making process, would be willing to apply the same "democratic" principles to their own customers? I have little sympathy for this idea. Imagine what second life would have been had Philip Rosedale solicited input from potential customers, rather than followed his dream. The best work I've seen in my professional life came from people who "just don't listen". But they do watch.

Hippie Bowman wrote: Good morning all! Happy Friday! I found this thingy that makes you jump! What fun! Peace! Is this rascal way down your family tree?... Happy Friday, Kids!!!

Parrish Ashbourne wrote: coke classic was one of the biggest marketing success stories ever, may be SL will out do SL2 with the right marketing, I like SL legacy better sounds more Tron like, or how about the SL Matrix I'm not sure Coke Classic is the best analogy. It was, after all, the emergency response to the debacle that was "New Coke". ;-).

Hi Ninna, I'm only guessing here, but as it's forbidden by the Terms of Service to transfer accounts between people, that may be the thing the Lindens are investigating. Here's the clause from the Terms of Service that you've probably violated... "You may not sell, transfer or assign your Account or its contractual rights, licenses and obligations, to any third party without the prior written consent of Linden Lab." While being given an account by a relative or friend may seem innocent enough, from a legal standpoint, it is the person who registers the account and accepts the Terms of Service who has contracted with Linden Lab to use Second Life. If that account is then given to someone who has not accepted the Terms of Service, Linden Lab has the right, and probably the obligation (to protect themselves) to terminate the account unless the circumstances of the account transfer are communicated to the Lab and written consent is obtained. As you know, there's nothing we can do here. I've simply offered a theory to explain your present circumstance. Good luck. ETA: Yes, they didn't sell, but they did transfer. And by accepting the accounts, you are actually at fault. As I've found out in the past, ignorance of the law is no excuse. (Well, I wasn't really ignorant of the "Min Speed 45" sign on the freeway, but I thought I might get away with the truthful explanation that my VW Beetle couldn't actually go that fast. Ooops.) I wouldn't be surprised if this sort of account transfer goes on all the time. Yet, that doesn't make it acceptable. If the Lab contacts you allowing an explanation, be honest and contrite. Don't expect mercy, but be appreciative if you get it.

LaskyaClaren wrote: Maybe I'll just leave these here for a moment . . . :-) Following up on the answer above, do you see the Community Standards as remaining more or less stable? Will there still be free avatar accounts? (I assume that accounts will remain anomymous/pseudonymous.) if there are free accounts, will there be limits on the number of accounts (I think there are, theoretically, now, but if so it isn't enforced). Will there be built-in viewer building tools for things like mesh, comparable to what currently exists for prims, so that more creation can be accomplished in-world? Will the new VW feature a version of the LEA, so that support will continue for the arts on the new grid (this is an important question for me). The move to make the new world work for Oculus Rift notwithstanding, will the viewer UI continue to be relatively friendly and usable for those using more old-fashioned tech? (I.e., a mouse and keyboard) I am delighted and impressed by your answers here -- do you see other forms of consultation with residents in the future? And not just with the high-end land barons or content creators? If I'd known all you're asking about SL before joining more than six years ago, I'd probably never have hopped aboard. I learned when I was little that sneaking into the attic to unwrap and examine my Christmas presents was the worst form of expectation management. I want to be a noob again! What I want to hear from Ebbe is that he's having a blast in his new job, and the team is excited. As he well knows, if they don't have the vision and drive to wow us, someone else will. So I'm not worried about what I'll do with my future spare time. Someone will get my attention. But, it would be cool if that's Ebbe and the Lindens. They spoiled me, but that's not my problem. Just ask Mom. ;-).

Gavin Hird wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: If you are right, then would it be reasonable to extrapolate that SL2 cannot accept any SL1 content that wasn't completely created by the migrating resident? And even then, only after excution of a signed business to business contract? If so, we can stop haranguing Ebbe about migration! Remember most of this discussion was about European legislation and how exactly that will pan out in the US I am unsure of. However, the way to fix this is to establish a developer group and set up developer and distribution agreements for all those who wants their items to be transferred. I would think this can be relatively be fixed by setting a flag or two on the items in the database and make once off tick-offs for developers who accept their creations are transferred. This would most likely solve the need they feel they have to have that special provision in the TOS that gives them full rights to everything. of course for old stuff where the developer is no longer around, there may be some issues, but then again... Okay, so LL creates a new class of resident called "Developer". I want to migrate my content from SL1 to SL2. To do so, I must join the developer group and then what do I do? If it's simply a matter of checking a box saying I agree to the developer TOS, how's that any different than checking it as a resident? Is this a distinction without a difference? I don't know what difference there might be between the US YouTube TOS and the EU YouTube TOS, but there is (as far as I can remember from reading it a year or so ago) only one significant difference between the general drift of the YouTube and SL terms here in the US. And that difference is that YouTube relinquishes any rights to your stuff if you remove it from their servers. It's been a year since I read it, but I recall wondering what happens if YouTube uses a snippet of contributor content in a marketing effort (say a "Best of" video). If the contributor removes the original, I doubt YouTube would re-edit the "Best of" video. Law is well behind the technology curve here, so it's not surprising we have these questions.

Gavin Hird wrote: irihapeti wrote: Gavin Hird wrote: According to the law you cannot give away your IP rights in the form of a TOS. The TOS can in many ways be seen as a one way declaration which makes it void. i dont think thats right. How you interpreting it i make a song. I have to give the record company rights to reproduce/copy and distribute my song/content. What you describe here is a business to business contractual agreement that you are in a position to negotiate. In a business to consumer offering like Linden Lab's Secondlife is, the TOS is regarded a one way declaration because the consumer, in reality, has no way of changing the terms or renegotiate them. Because of this TOS must satisfy the minimum requirements of the law, in addition they must protect the consumer from casually signing away legal rights. As I said in a previous posting any material a consumer, in this case a Secondlife user, has created outside of SecondLife and uploads a copy of it for storage and rendering by the SecondLife runtime is by the law the intellectual property of the creator. The compilation of these elements is also the intellectual property of the creator. Some of the clauses in the TOS that people balk over has to do with how LL can handle these creations internally in their storage systems, moving them between machines, for rendering them to other users, for letting other users buy or use the creation, and for being able to take backup of the items. This does not, however, mean they can be transferred to a new service for storage and rendering in the new service, unless the new service is an upgrade to the existing one (meaning the existing one goes away.) What they also have done is making new provisions in the TOS retroactive where they essentially have given themselves the full IP rights to what is the user's IP. This may - and I stress may, have been acceptable if the owner was given the option to retrieve a full backup of their creations and remove the existing copies fully from the existing system if they did not accept that change. I cannot recall having seen any such options. If you are right, then would it be reasonable to extrapolate that SL2 cannot accept any SL1 content that wasn't completely created by the migrating resident? And even then, only after excution of a signed business to business contract? If so, we can stop haranguing Ebbe about migration!

Hi Heather, The snapshot must have been given to you by someone else for it to be no-mod/no-transfer. You cannot save such images to your PC from the viewer. I believe the only way to get a copy of the image would be to display it in the viewer and then capture the screen. I'm sure Windows has a tool or key command for doing so.

Hi Annabelle, Long ago I had a lovely piano. It contained the playing animation, but the music came in sheets that you rezzed on the music stand. You had to click the sheet music to start/stop the sound. You may have to do something like that with your piano, double check the instructions. Also make sure that you've enabled "Sounds" in the sound control panel at the right edge of the viewer's manu bar. Sound from prim sources is not the same as sound from the environment, voice, media or button noises. You may have turned down the volume on sound sources. If so, turn it back up! Good luck, and enjoy the new piano!

Perrie Juran wrote: WickedWanda1956 wrote: Thanks Zena. I am honestly beginning to think that this is a generational arguement. With the old (like me) thinking that ownership means a damm versus the new (like my daughter) thinking that EVERYTHING is disposable. You're right about that. Now a days when someone's toaster breaks they go buy a new one. Me, I open it up and see if a wire came loose. Unfortunately more and more things have become more expensive to fix than to replace. But that also brings me to the reason I came here to post. Thank you for giving me a good post to tag this on to. I am hearing many people saying they are abandoning their land or downsizing. Why? I don't completely see the logic in this. At best all that all of us have ever done is pay rent here when you boil it down. You had your move in costs (buying the SIM or Parcel) and then you pay rent (Tier). Now if you were purchasing land today as a way to generate income, it would be different because you would want to be certain of your return on investment. But if all you are doing is using the land for personal enjoyment, what's the big deal? Why deprive yourself of that enjoyment? Every month, there's a story of some natural disaster that wipes something out. A year later there's an article about the recovery, showing shiny new things sitting right where the old ones were blown away. Every winter, I make a snowman. It seldom survives a month. Every autumn, I carve a pumpkin. It seldom survives a week. Every summer, I build a sandcastle. It seldom survives a day. Every evening, I cook dinner. It seldom survives an hour. Every hour I make a mistake. Some of those survive forever. ;-).

Gavin Hird wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: They're even more likely to give you legal avenues to give those rights away, as you do when you agree to the TOS. Actually no. You cannot give away the minimum rights as stated by the law. This is something all software companies have experienced meeting European legislation. Google's TOS are not the same in Europe as they are in the US. What right do you give away in the TOS that's in contradiction to an EU law?