Madelaine McMasters

LaskyaClaren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Rodvik seemed excited that SL was attracting 20,000 new signups a day when he arrived. He didn't mention that SL was losing 20,007 of them per day. New signups are now down to 11,000/day, of which we're losing maybe 11,007. They're disenchanting only half as many people as just three years ago. That seems like a significant improvement to me. Maybe LL is doing a better job of marketing? Retention is the issue. Sorry, Maddy; I don't know how I missed this. Maybe if you were less nefarious and sneaky, I'd have seen it . . . ;-) Yes. Retention is the issue. BUT . . . they need to attract those that they are capable of retaining, if you know what I mean. There is no point in attracting as new sign-ups people who are not going to be happy with what the platform has to offer, or who are just looking for a quick "snack," and will be contributing little or nothing to the economy, the culture, etc. Less nefarious? That's like asking me not to breathe. People have done that. Attract those they can retain. Retain those they can attract. Two ways to grow. There are probably more.

LaskyaClaren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: It's like watching a glorious landscape roll past from behind the window of a bus. ;-) I have fond memories of a group effort to convert the rear window of one to stained glass, using nothing but gently licked Jujubes. Ewwwwww . . . Well, it's actually a pretty comfortable bus. No onboard food or drink, but they have wifi, and the seats are good for napping. :-) Be thankful you don't wear glasses, the temptation would overwhelm me.

LaskyaClaren wrote: It's like watching a glorious landscape roll past from behind the window of a bus. ;-) You're riding the bus wrong / wrong bus. I have fond memories of a group effort to convert the rear window of one to stained glass, using nothing but gently licked Jujubes. Glory is where you findmake it.

Hi Teddybear, This problem has been experienced by others... http://community.secondlife.com/t5/LSL-Scripting/Unable-to-create-item-that-has-caused-problems-on-this-region/m-p/1895265 http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Inventory/Unable-to-create-item-that-has-caused-problems-on-this-region/qaq-p/1094887 http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion/Unable-to-create-item-that-has-caused-problems-on-this-region/td-p/1985635 You may find an explanation/solution in there somewhere. Good luck!

Hi Gillian, In addition to Lindal's explanation, here's how I move/align stuff relative to other stuff. In the case of a sofa that I want to align to a house, I first select the house and then type "Shift-G", or select "Build->Options->Use Selection for Grid". This is the same as selecting "Reference" in the "Snap" drop-down of the Edit window. This orients the axis arrows and compass to the root prim of the house, which is hopefully square to the house itself. Take a quick look at the axis arrows to make sure they're lined up with the house as you expect. Now that the axes have been set as "Reference" by "Shift-G", they will hold even if I select a different object like the sofa. I'd then select the sofa, which is now easy to rotate square to the walls, and drag it into position. Now, let's say that I oriented the sofa at an angle to the house and wish to align an ottoman in front if it. I'd select the sofa and again type "Shift-G" to reference the edit axes to the sofa, then select the ottoman and rotate/move it into position. Repeat this sequence as needed to align things to other things. Select the reference thing, type "Shift-G" to align the axes, then select the second thing and position it. If I wished to align the edit axes to the world again, I'd select "World" from the "Snap" dropdown in the Edit window. There may be a keyboard shortcut for doing this, but I'm not aware of one. Good luck!

Dillon Levenque wrote: Your mention earlier of that emotional bandwidth business got me googling just now. Found a recently published article about High Fidelity, written by someone who knows Second Life. I'm not sure the plans Philip has impress me all that much but without a way to test the theory there's no way to know. The article is here if you're interested. A comment near the end caught my attention, as it matches something I first heard from you, and have repeated elsewhere (it also cements my opinion that the author 'gets' SL). In comparing SL and other virtual worlds to current trends in social internet use—FB et al—he says, "On the other hand, based on my experience in Second Life, virtual worlds permit you to do something that present-day social media can't do: You can have a realistic illusion of a shared experience in real-time." Thanks for that link, Dillon. I'm in agreement with Mr. Wagner. I've long argued that mobile does not allow for the heavy cognitive load of SL. There are too many other important things to do while up and about, like avoiding lampposts and making eye contact (I'm looking at you, Glass). And as people increasingly multitask, the attraction of what Wagner describes as "snackable" services grows. Even TV became somewhat snackable with the advent of Pause/Play/FF buttons and mobile screens. My first year and a half with an iPhone has been lovely. I routinely message Mom and the neighbor kid. Both can find me on the map 24/7, and I can find them. When I'm at the shopping mall with Mom, she can wander off to look for a sweater while I inhale deeply at the spice shop. She takes a snapshot of something she's found and two minutes later I'm at her side, feeling the sleeve. I've watched wee hour jam sessions from Berklee, courtesy of Facetime and the neighbor. Being able to do these things is valuable to me. All those things compete for my time and social bandwidth. I love SL and, at the end of my days, I fully expect to have some difficulty distinguishing SL and RL memories. But I also expect to witness a shrinking of the real world, as mobile technology and snackable apps connect me to my friends and surroundings in ways that surprise and delight me. Maybe High Fidelity will be easy and compelling for starters, with a learning curve leading gently to the summit of professional level creation. That seems like a significant challenge. I hope High Fidelity doesn't fall into the Uncanny Valley on the way. Eye contact is serious business.

What took you so long, Par? We're glad you've joined us!... Happy Saturday, Kids!!!

LaskyaClaren wrote: Your remarks sort of suggest that you are giving up the ship. Can you see no alternatives yourself? I've been here for six years, with approximately the same attitude towards SL as on day one. If that's giving up, I'm taking my time. But this ship isn't mine to give up. I'm not even sure it's a ship. It might be a bridge, an anchor... or an elephant. I have no access to the LL business dashboard, so any recommendations I make are born of potentially massive ignorance. I do glance at the SL statistics, which seems oblivious to the things we decry and applaud. It's my nature to look at things from different angles and to question pretty near everything. I'm just doing what I do. While we hum Philip Rosedale's old mantra of "Your World, Your Imagination", he's off touting "emotional bandwidth" at High Fidelity. There's no mention of DIY creativity, but of honing the environment to make our interactions with each other more "real". It sounds to me like Rosedale is on a different ship, if it's a ship. Do see alternatives for myself? Yes, always. I've just designed a few parts for my new telescope, using out-world design tools that I could have pointed at SL. I had them 3D printed by a friend. Her printer cost her less than I'd pay for three months of a full sim. She's used it to start a small business on Etsy. She's got a good eye. The hype over 3D printing reminds me of the hype over virtual worlds, but she's having the time of her life and it's fun to watch. Do I see alternative's for LL? This reminds me of watching Dad do something... "Dad, I think you're doing that wrong?" "You do?" "Mmm hmm." "Okay, but before you tell me what I'm doing wrong, tell me what you think I'm trying to do." "I think you're trying to (insert description here)." "Ah. I see. Well, I'm actually trying to (insert vastly different description here)." "So you're doing it right?" "I'm not sure. Let's ask your Mother when I'm done." And that last comment was a double entendre. Dad often thought he was done before Mom did. Not only do I look at things differently, but I may have a modest ability to say nothing without appearing to. Surely some of you have caught on by now?

Dillon Levenque wrote: MizzFuzzyMoran wrote: bah for peeple who agree with your world your imagination you are not showing much you are all thinking inside thebox and trying to wrk out how to fix what already exists instead of starting with what youve got you should be thinking if sl didnt exist what would you want it to be then sell that Not really. The OP questions how to SELL what already exists. The rest of this Forum, and many of the others, deals with how to fix what already exists. Which is why I've been questioning the value of trying to sell SL at all. If I had a defective, misdirected or uncompetitive product, the last thing I'd do is try to make more people aware of it. I'd go quiet (which costs nothing), work like mad to get the thing to a marketable state, then start making noise again. Although I have my opinion about whether SL is defective (yes), misdirected (yes) and uncompetitive (yes), I have little certainty that my opinion reflects reality. I've gone through most of my life harboring vastly different opinions than the general public. I am not typical. I'm probably attracted to atypical people. So I don't think I know who SL is suited for, nor whether there are enough of them to support SL's growth if only they knew about it. While we continue to repeat Rosedale's mantra of "Your World, Your Imagination" here, Philip is now all about "emotional bandwidth" over at High Fidelity.

LaskyaClaren wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: I think this may be the magic bullet. People think of creativity as building or scripting, etc. -- but the RP is no doubt the most popular form of creativity in SL, even when it is not called or recognized as RP. People take objects that others may have made/scripted, whatever, and incorporate them into various roles and RP environments -- historical settings, sci fi, anime, love nest, family home, fantasy, bordello, etc. This is SL's market -- a very diverse one, but with this fundamental attraction to RP in common (for most if not all). I agree absolutely. And I don't think it even needs to be marketed as RP. All that needs to be done is to show what is possible. This hardly differentiates SL from other role-play environments. And those other environments often have familiar (or easily accessed) canon/fanon as guidance. Remember when SL tried marketing to the vampire crowd? How'd that go? We probably don't really know how it went, only how we in the forums reacted to it. Meanwhile... http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/04/29/first-footage-of-world-of-darkness-vampire-mmo-shown

Hi Allatra, From this page... http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/Accounts-overview/ta-p/700019#Section_.5.2 there's this... Re-activating a canceled account If you have cancelled your account, you may be able to restore it, depending on how long ago it was cancelled. There is a US$9.95 reactivation fee for restoring an account. Warning: Even if your account is restored, the associated inventory, land, and Linden dollar balance may be unrecoverable. To start the process: Open a support case. Under What type of problem are you having? choose Account Issue. Choose Reactivate an old account. Enter the required information Click Submit. Good luck!

Hippie Bowman wrote: Oh what the hay! Hippie does a swan dive into the glorious mud! (You will have to add me to the picture. To hard to do on this android. ) Peace! Welcome in, the mud is fine... Val? Watch out for bubbles!

Woo hoo, I've got Val to join me! What are you waiting for, Hippie?... Happy Friday, Kids!!!

Rodvik seemed excited that SL was attracting 20,000 new signups a day when he arrived. He didn't mention that SL was losing 20,007 of them per day. New signups are now down to 11,000/day, of which we're losing maybe 11,007. They're disenchanting only half as many people as just three years ago. That seems like a significant improvement to me. Maybe LL is doing a better job of marketing? Retention is the issue.

Hi Kat, Go to: Me->Preferences->Notifications Uncheck - Tell me: "When my friends log in or out". In Firestorm it's Avatar->Preferences->Notifications, Uncheck Notify me: "When my friends log in or out".

Hi dizzy, You've not provided us any information to help us help you. Launch your viewer, and before logging in, click the "Help" menu and select "About Second Life". This will pop up a little window listing some information about your computer. Click "Copy to Clipboard", then come back to your question, select "Options" over there on the right and pick "Edit". Then paste the information into your post, so we have some idea what we're working with here. And it would be helpful to know even more than that. Have you had this problem since joining SL in October, or did it start recently? Do you have problems everywhere and all the time, or just at certain times in certain places? Tell us what you can. Until then, I'll leave some a link to Nalates Urriah's article about improving your computer's connection to SL, which is often the weak link. It's long, it's geeky and it covers a lot of ground, but solutions to many problems are there... http://blog.nalates.net/2011/10/26/troubleshoot-your-sl-connection/ Good luck!

Hi Chester, We here in "Answers" are residents, just like you. There is nothing we can do to resolve this issue. You'll have to deal directly with the vendor, who is also another resident. Linden Lab does not get involved in resident-to-resident disputes, so I'm afraid any resolution of your problem must come either from the person you paid for the service, or by you dropping the issue and moving on.

Perrie Juran wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Coventina Dalgleish wrote: Current statistics on media storage failures are 1.5% for ssd and 5% for hard drives. I've read that statistic as well. A couple years ago, Google presented a paper describing their experience with HD failures across all their server farms. They punctured a lot of myths with that paper, including the "bathtub curve" and "hot is bad". I look forward to a comprehensive analysis of solid state storage from a major player someday soon. Fusion IO and others are running headlong into the SSD server market, and I don't think they're doing it blindly. Tom's Hardware surveyed a number of Data Centers about failure rates back in 2011. LINK It would be nice if they were to do the followup survey that they said would be needed. The biggest problem with SSD's as I see it is that failures occur with no warning and that when they fail you (at least at this time) cannot recover data from them. I was aware of Tom's survey, but the sample size was pretty small. SSD failure mechanisms are different than those for HDD and it'll take some time for the management algorithms (which affect recoverability) to catch up. But, as Google discovered in their massive survey, SMART (the management algorithms used in HDDs) is also pretty stupid. None of the players in the Tom's survey were large enough to compare with Google. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and others are deploying SSD on a large scale. SSD is the only storage technology in most mobile devices. This suggests businesses are confident they can manage the risks, and that it's worth it. As we shift to mobile devices, the biggest unrecoverable error we face is... losing the devices! Hence the importance of an effortless backup plan.

Here's another demonstration of what can happen when you scale down an image, showing exactly the opposite effect (preservation) of my previous post. Here's a black/white checkboard texture, 128x128. This is the highest spatial frequency pattern you can create. Our eyes look for high spatial frequency content, and since this contains a lot of it, you may notice that the pattern flickers, or is a bit hard on your eyes. That's because it's begging for attention. You may also see some display system artifacts if you scroll the page, change your viewing angle, or lick your fingertip and touch the pattern (that's the most fun, as it reveals the Red/Green/Blue pixels of your display. The little saliva drops on the glass act as microscopes!). At a distance the pattern appears to be a uniform grey because the angular distance between pixels (the reciprocal of spatial frequency) becomes smaller than the angular distance between the rods and cones on your retina. It now takes multiple pixels to illuminate one rod/cone and the result is that you see the average of the pattern, not the pattern itself. And the average of black and white is.. grey. Doubling your distance from the pattern is the same as shrinking it in size by a factor of two. Now, let's see what happens if we ask the computer to shrink the image by just that amount. Here's the result of using Photoshop's "nearest neighbor" decimation algorithm, which replaces the four pixels around a target pixel with the color of the nearest neighbor. Depending on where the algorithm sets its zero point, the nearest neighbor could be either a black pixel or a white one, but nothing else. The original image has only those two colors in it... That doesn't look anything like the orignal pattern from 2x as far away, does it? Now, lets use the "Bilinear" algorithm, which produces output pixels that are the linear average of the nearest 2x2 box of original pixels... Now that's a uniform grey, but I'll guess it's not the same shade of grey as you see in the original image when viewing from a distance. This is because your computer's display system probably isn't linear (your eye isn't either). Computers try to address issues like this via "gamma" which is a correction curve applied to pixel intensity. Unfortunately, gamma cannot account for display system artifacts that are spatial frequency dependent. Here's another scaling algorithm that works well on typical image content, but fails miserably on a regular checkboard, it's called "Bicubic" and produces results (particularly on enlargment) that are smoother than bilinear and much smoother than nearest neighbor (again for enlargment)... Notice the horizontal artifact in the middle of the image? Oops! You may also notice that this image is not the same shade of grey as the original from a distance, nor the bilinear reduction. So, unlike my previous post, where fine lines were preserved through a massive reduction in size, we've seen just a 2x reduction destroy ALL the detail in a texture. And that's because the detail of this second image is all at very high frequency. The four lines in the images of the previous post were actually fairly low frequency information, and easy to preserve. Maybe next I'll show what happens when you enlarge stuff. If you want to have even more fun, import the original checkerboard texture, apply it to a prim and cam around it. If you're cheap (I am!), IM me and I'll send you a copy. ;-)

Hippie Bowman wrote: valerie Inshan wrote: Morning Hippie! Spring offically starts today, YAY! Sends you all plenty of sunny hugs! YAY for Spring! Hugs and love Val! Peace! You bet yay for spring! The neighbor kid was home from college for spring break, so I took the opportunity to show him how to enjoy the season. I wish my legs were as long as his. "Colder than a witch's nipple" is entirely too true today... Happy Spring Equinox, Kids!!!

Object hierarchy would be analogous to functions or subroutines in LSL. Imagine building a castle with four turrets. If you're thinking clearly (a challenge for me, if not all of us) you'll build the turrent first, then drag three copies to make the corners of the castle. So far so good. But then you decide that you don't like the spiral staircase, so you change it. Currently, you must change all four instances of the staircase, or delete three of the turrents, edit one and copy it out again. Under object hierarchy, you'd link the turret before copying it and call that linkset "Turret" and ultimately link four of them into the castle. If you unlinked the castle, the turrets would survive as linksets, not be dissolved into individual prims again. If you edited the staircase in one instance of a "Turret", the change could be propagated to all other "Turret"s, potentially even in castles you built a year ago halfway across SL. The power of hierarchy is enormous. The building tools I used in my RL engineering work have hierarchy (and so much more) and make SL building tools look like a child's toy. That is both the blessing and the curse of SL. Done well, hierarchy can be both powerful and easy to use. As others have suggested, it may be too late to do this well, requiring it to be done over.

Carl Thibodeaux wrote: Ever take a picture of your face in SL? Your notice your smile after the picture is taken. Why is this? I think this is to mimic RL, where I also smile after the picture, not during it. The SL imitation is not perfect though, my eyes are always open in the snapshots I take.

madam Martian wrote: i got no clue what sassy really means, but it sounds cute.. so I'll be one LOL)... From the Urban Dictionary... Sassy - possessing the attitude of someone endowed with an ungodly amount of cool. Since you are now a goddess (proof is here), I suppose you have a goddessly amount of cool. Well done!

3-19-2014 Lis becomes the first Goddess of Cute.

Cute buttons.