Madelaine McMasters

Rolig Loon wrote: You can't wear a pose stand. Ahem...

Rolig Loon wrote: True, Maddy, but you'll have to admit that's a very narrow corner of the market. Limited edition works of art are almost always numbered and signed, following a long-standing tradition that was in use well before those few state laws were enacted. The much more common case, described at length in the wikipedia article that you quoted, is "special editions" or "limited editions" of DVDs, music albums, teacups, and paperback novels, for which "companies widely use special editions and incremental improvements to sell the same products to consumers multiple times." I certainly agree that there are ethical boundaries to the practice, but I think you'd usually have a hard time getting people to agree where they are. Yep, I agree. What got me to highlight the limited edition line was the OP's statement that the item was purportedly to be sold to 15 people. That feels a li'l like numbering prints. There's plenty of grey here. I sympathize with the OP. I don't think there's anything to be done about it.

Marybeth Cooperstone wrote: "Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your POV), to remove the ability to Cam someone would also require removing the ability to Cam around in general in SL" The only thing I object to is the "Zoom In" feature on the right button using the "People" window (in Firestorm, maybe other names in other viewers). AFAIK, that is the only way to cam into someone in a closed room, such as a dressing room. While that may be the easiest way to cam into a closed room, it's not the only way. I routinely cam around, moving through walls with impunity by alt-clicking on things and then mousing the camera around. You can't move the camera up or down this way, so there is some privacy afforded by altitude, but not much. For those using 3D pointing devices like the Space Navigator, Flycam mode allows you to go anywhere with ease.

Rolig Loon wrote: DISSONI wrote: Ok, i understand but it is not normal, we payed a SEMI- EXCLUSIVE, available for 15 persons ONLY and now its available for the whole marketplace for a much lower price than before a FAT PACK. Must be a rule or something about this, they dont have respect Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, that's sad but I can see exactly why a creator might do that. It takes a lot of time and creative energy to make a beautiful product, but it's very hard to decide what to sell it for. After all, it's not worth anything if nobody is willing to buy it. So, you set a high "semi-exclusive" price and hope that a few people will pay for it. Sadly, only one or two people do. After it has been on the market for a while, you swallow your pride and decide to take the Wal-Mart option. You drop the price 50% and it sells like magic. Did you cheat the one or two people who paid the original price? No. They agreed that it was worth paying. They just bought during the "test marketing" phase. The only time I would not even consider doing that is when I have created something as a custom item for a specific client. Under those circumstances, I promise the client that I will not sell the same thing to anyone else. The promise is only as good as my word, of course, so Linden Lab wouldn't punish me if I broke it. I'd know, though, and I'd probably lose future clients if the news got out. I doubt there's anything to be done about this, but the concept of "limited edition" does have some legal standing in the physical realm (in this case art prints). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_edition In which there's this line... "In the United States limited editions are regulated under state consumer protections laws."

Czari Zenovka wrote: Deej Kasshiki wrote: Despite the Lab's always talking about "the shared SL experience", there is in fact no way to ensure that two people (even if using the exact same hardware and viewer) will ever see the exact same thing. As long as there are graphics and performance settings that can be user adjusted, not to mention the variety of different computers, viewers, monitors, etc, the chances of having your av look exactly the same as what you're seeing is kind of low. I think the solution is to just make your av look the way you like. In the final analysys that's what matters the most anyway. :matte-motes-smitten: Yes, Deej, I realize that and stated such in a previous post; what really confuses me is why I look substantially different to ME and would like to find out if it is due to the viewer, a larger monitor, going from XP to Win 7, my PC specs, or which way the wind is blowing. That is what mystifies me way more than everyone else being able to see me as I see me. Earlier, someone posited that your use of a V1 viewer had, at some point, potentially decoupled your avatar shape settings from those stored in SL's servers, causing you to see a different shape for you than the rest of us. Sharing a few recent in-world pics of yourself should help determine if this is the case, or if it's something else. Have someone (I'd be happy to do so) take a pic of you and you also take a pic of you, then exchange them and compare.

Kylie, I finally got a chance to visit "The Trace". It's lovely and I must thank you for leaving a telescope out for me to use. I can't resist them. Nor can someone else...

Hippie Bowman wrote: LOL! I saw a clip on that! Whew! Was it 29 dogs? Peace! 69!

7-5-2013 Fire fighters called to the home of Joey Chestnut, winner of the Nathan's Famous Hot Dog Eating Context at New York's Coney Island the day before, are forced to lubricate the home's front doorway with mustard to extricate the ailing Chestnut from his living room. Paramedics at the scene argued over whether Chestnut's condition was rare, overdone, or both.

Even when you get up late, it's too early for me...

Czari Zenovka wrote: KarenMichelle Lane wrote: Actually I beg to differ. It is about technology. many of the current features that make SecondLife even more enjoyable [shading, reflections, spectral brightness, etc ] are using technology not available on the older graphics cards GPUs & Firmware. These features make SecondLife more real to and for many of us. And in like manner, many of us who have been in SL for years have thoroughly enjoyed SL without all those features. My main enjoyment within SL is the people I've met and I can enjoy them while sitting in my SL house and IM-chatting as well as I could chatting with them in a sim that has all those features. For at least the last year, I've done most of my chatting with friends while standing on the ottoman in my lighthouse. It hardly makes a difference if I'm in Low or Ultra if I've got my IM window covering 95% of the screen. What does make a difference is the quality of the conversations I have with the interesting minds I encounter here. I have a computer with a huge display, capable of running ultra, which constantly reminds me of just how beautiful my lighthouse might actually be, if only the viewer would render all of it! I understand KarenMichelle's desire to have more realistic rendering in SL, but I'm the sort for whom "reality" encompasses a lot more than what I see. I have flown real airplanes in RL, but ultimately found that to be less fulfilling (and far more noisy) than climbing into the little paper airplane I just folded, tossing it into the air, and riding it across Lake Michigan to visit the strange creatures who live on the far shore, eating popcorn with forks. ;-)

Perrie Juran wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: @ Madelaine & Perrie To be fair the LL is probably just taking a little short cut with the 'you can't have a contract with an avatar' FAQ item. Something like 'while we fully believe the contracts we have with avatars are valid it is considerably easier to deal with real life identities - so we require you to provide and sign with your real name.' The longer version may be more accurate but it doesn't flow as well or sumptin. There's generally no need for LL to have an avatar's RL identity. If you break the TOS and they boot you, it's up to you to decide whether you wish to out your RL self in order to challenge them. This is why I say the TOS can act like a big stick, even if it's legal swiss cheese. The TOS was written to protect LL. There might be a reason for LL to take legal action against the operator of an avatar, but I can't think of one off the top of my head. In that case, anonymity would be a practical protection, if not a legal one. It would not surprise me if one of these days a law suit did not pop up by LL against one of the operators of these phishing web sites. I think that would be a welcome sight to many of us. I think such a lawsuit would based on something like trademark violation. Those phishing sites needn't be operated by anyone who actually uses SL. I'd have to read the TOS carefully to help me find a situation in which I think LL might come after someone in court for violating it. That last thing I want to do on a beautiful summer day (or any day for that matter) is to carefully read the entire TOS. That's what our li'l chipmunk is here for! Happy Fourth, Perrie! I hope you find some tasty berries and seeds while you're out exploring, Qwal! ;-)

7-4-2013 Once again, adult children throughout the US celebrate Independence Day by returning home to their parents for free food and unconditional love.

Happy 4th, Everybody! Hippie, I'll be buzzing your house a little later today...

Czari Zenovka wrote: When I first began SL and the highest altitude one could put a structure was...600m or something like that (?) my former partner and I regularly had "high flyers" hovering around our house. Some of them were amusing, like the ones that kept banging into the windows like birds that don't see glass. I typically pulled up the profiles of anyone who got within a certain range of our house and on one guy's profile that was hovering around he had multiple groups associated with being a voyeur. I had no idea those groups existed in SL! It was after that profile that we invested in a security orb. That didn't keep people from "voyeuring" from a distance, but as long as they weren't near our house - out of sight, out of mind. My SL partner and I shared a 1/4 homestead island. We didn't have an orb, but we had estate rights, so we could ban folks easily. Voyeurism wasn't as much an issue as squatters. I'd often log in to find people using our hammock or bed. I'd used the MLP engine to put poses in them, and used only two animations from the standard set. A side by side reclining pose for the hammock and "spoon" for the bed. I left all the other animations in each, but I reset their positions so that if anyone tried any of the sex animations, they'd end up separate bushes behind our hut, or in the trees over the hammock. I got the idea from my partner's first house (which was my introduction to SL and thoroughly amazed me). Shortly after moving in, I decided to log in early and sit on everything in the house to see what it did (I still sit on everything in sight). I tried the bathroom shower, which showed promise, then the commode, which posed me as you'd expect, but outside in the back yard, floating in mid-air next to a tree right outside the bedroom window. When my partner logged in, she had to wander around the house to find me while I explained that I'd tried the commode and found it interesting. When she finally spotted me, I asked if she was amused. She was. Oh, I dearly miss those noob days.

Perrie Juran wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Trinity Yazimoto wrote: awwww Maddy ! What did you eat today for being so devilish ?..... you know... i may PP in your fireplace :smileywink: It wont burn anymore... /me hands a cup of herb tea to Maddy "take that, Maddy, you seem to need it, and breath... breath deeply... that's it... i feel you more relaxed now... any willing to incinerate sm1 still ?" Nothing will deter me from incinerating you, or anyone else who'll visit my lair... You are already treading on thin ice with the Martian. Are you sure you want to mess with his friends? Bring it on, puny Martian! Who doesn't love bacon?

Czari Zenovka wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: A simple question. How would you identify if someone was using a graphics crasher or that you had one used on you? I recall reading somewhere on these forums not too long ago that there is a setting on the viewers, or at least one viewer, that keeps one from crashing due to someone wearing a ton of objects. I'll have to see if I can find that thread. My recollection was that the settings were a blunt tool, that could limit normal drawing as well as crashers. Here's a link to the settings... http://thegreenlanterns.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/debug-settings-to-make-graphics-crashers-obsolete/

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: awwww Maddy ! What did you eat today for being so devilish ?..... you know... i may PP in your fireplace :smileywink: It wont burn anymore... /me hands a cup of herb tea to Maddy "take that, Maddy, you seem to need it, and breath... breath deeply... that's it... i feel you more relaxed now... any willing to incinerate sm1 still ?" Nothing will deter me from incinerating you, or anyone else who'll visit my lair...

Czari Zenovka wrote: Hi there, Jinny! I was using the same Phoenix as you until yesterday (the last pre-mesh Phoenix viewer) and one of the options I loved on Phoenix (and assuming Firestorm) is the radar option. As Perrie said, the radar feature has nothing to do with seeing people far away. What it *does* do, among other things, and what I find really useful is when I've been in a busy sim and received an IM from someone and, on my old PC, couldn't see far enough to find the person. With the radar I could double-click on the person's name and my camera would zoom right to that person; however, if someone was a certain distance away, I'm not sure how far but still on the sim, sometimes I would get the message that the person was out of range and would not cam to him. What is likely happening is that whoever was checking the couple out had their camera distance disabled (or a setting something like that); it allows one to cam out much farther than the default setting. I'm not quite sure how the following works, but I've heard that one can even use some method to see a person a sim or two away. Iirc, if one cams on someone at the far end of the sim, somehow that person can be used as an "anchor" of sorts to then see the next sim, etc. Or that might be all wrong. Main point - the issue you describe isn't due to the radar feature. If you disable camera constraints, you can option/alt-click on visible targets to leapfrog your way just about anywhere. I've cammed across at least a couple sims this way. It's far faster than any other means of navigating about.

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Trinity Yazimoto wrote: Malanya wrote: After you and Trin have your dinner (her garden is absolutely beautiful btw) you both come to my house and we will sail, then jump in the water and watch the waves hit our screens *hugs you and your new pc* yay !!!! sure !!!After the oppening of my gallery ill be all yours for a great and fun boat trip !! i told you already : my swimsuit is ready :smileywink: And after she's done visiting with all of you, she's welcome to visit my lighthouse and be pushed over the railing into the ocean, or incinerated in my fireplace! if you do this Maddy, i swear i will never let you again put your hands in my pockets ! You're welcome to visit my fireplace as well, Trin. You won't have pockets for me to put my hands in after a few seconds in my blazing inferno.

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: Malanya wrote: After you and Trin have your dinner (her garden is absolutely beautiful btw) you both come to my house and we will sail, then jump in the water and watch the waves hit our screens *hugs you and your new pc* yay !!!! sure !!!After the oppening of my gallery ill be all yours for a great and fun boat trip !! i told you already : my swimsuit is ready :smileywink: And after she's done visiting with all of you, she's welcome to visit my lighthouse and be pushed over the railing into the ocean, or incinerated in my fireplace!

Perrie Juran wrote: A simple question. How would you identify if someone was using a graphics crasher or that you had one used on you? I'm gonna guess, as I don't actually know anything! If I understand correctly, crashers rez so much junk that viewers crash from the overload. There is probably no foolproof way to tell that such an overload comes from a griefer, but you can look for hints using meters. First, you might use the SL Statistics meters. If your scene was stable, meaning the bandwidth meter had returned to background level after loading all the textures, and FPS was normal, then bandwidth spikes and FPS drops, that's an indication that something has been rezzed. If that activity is followed by a crash, that might suggest a griefer. Bandwidth might not spike if the crash is caused by rezzing a large number of objects all using the same texture. The geometry of objects is much more compact than the textures on them. But if scene complexity is the cause of the crash, I'd expect FPS to drop like a rock just before the crash. There are CPU and GPU monitoring tools that tell you how hard the CPU/GPU are working. If it's the GPU that's causing the crash, a standard CPU load meter (like that included in Mac OS) might not catch it. Seeing a sudden spike in GPU activity during an otherwise stable time might indicate the rezzing of a complex thing intended to crash you. And maybe you would see a spike in CPU activity before crashing. The trick will be to keep one eye on the meter and the other one on SL. These methods would only work if the griefers are simply overloading the viewer by rendering a complex object and taxing the raw CPU/GPU resources beyond capacity. If there is some latent bug in the SL viewer code that's particularly sensitive to some odd aspect of rendering the scene, it might be impossible to detect that someone has exploited it. The CPU/GPU might not be working hard at all, but just running down a code path that's vulnerable. ETA: As the methods I described have you looking for spurious activity in an otherwise reasonably stable scene, they are not likely to work as well when you're standing in the middle of the chaos that is a welcome area or public sandbox, or if you are in a crowded region that has you feeling on the edge of a crash already. ETA2: I just watched this YouTube demonstration on how to crash SL... If this represents the average skill level of a griefer, then they may not be targetting a specific vulnerability. This fella is just wearing endless copies of something that seems intended to bog down the server/server/link. Given how long it takes him to don his griefer garb, you may see a step in bandwidth and a slow ramp in CPU/GPU activity, not a spike. ;-)

Czari Zenovka wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Tari Landar wrote: Awesome, congrats on the new pc!!! I'm so glad you finally got a really great pc. I know all too well what it can be like using onboard graphics, lol. The pc I used to use I had been using onboard graphics up until hubby got me a graphics card in 2009. I had no idea what I was missing before then. Out of all the things I could finally see, water was what amazed me the most. Before then it was blue, and relatively transparent to me. I saw no ripples, forget any type of reflection. It was just blue space. Couldn't even tell it was actually water, because it didn't look like it was moving at all. Funny how the little things can really make your day. Tari, for my first few months in SL in 2008, I was using a 2003 vintage HP laptop. I don't know what setting got messed up, but I had yellow skies with black clouds and pea green water with no detail, as you described. I thought that's what SL was supposed to look like until I got a snapshot from my partner. Arrgggghhhh...that sounds horrible! I was too distracted by my partner to find anything horrible. ;-)

UncommonTruth wrote: I'm not overly analytical (I even had to copy/paste the word from your post to make sure I had it right ) but I think that yes plenty of people have to have their worlds turned upside down to be able to see something from another's view. I watched this video because it was forwarded to me by my niece, who got it from some classmates. It is apparently making the rounds via facebook and email through school kids, and sending them a powerful enough message to feel the need to pass it along. That can only be a good thing Also, the girl in the video had a brother. The sexes weren't totally segregated as some of the comments on the vid said, and some of the posts here seem to be stemming from. Just wanted to point that out since to me the message was clear and didn't have anything to do with gender segregation lol. edited: reskimming the thread, and I might have imagined the vibe that made me add the second paragraph I'm using it being almost 4 am as my excuse :matte-motes-asleep-2: The question I have is whether reversing the stereotypes is helpful. Yes, it's done all the time, but that doesn't mean it actually works. I've had some pretty intense discussions on other topics with people who would be adamantly opposed to same sex marriage based on fundamental religious beliefs. I've tried that reversal technique (again, on other topics) and found that got them to really dig in their heels, as they felt mocked. In the case of this video, they'd have a very valid counter to the reversal. Procreation requires a male and a female. It's hard to argue that society would accept that reality, yet find it an abomination. And once you've started from such a questionable premise, will you have any leverage? Did I find the video moving? Yes. But, as one who supports same sex marriage, I'm interested in framing the discussion to move the opposition, not me.

7-3-2013 One day after Bolivian President Evo Morales' plane was forced to land in Austria due to refusal of France, Portugal, and Spain to allow traversal of their airspace, at the request of the US over concerns that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden was on board, President Morales allowed Austrian officials to inspect the plane, revealing that the only other passenger was Rick Astley. When queried by CNN about potentially violating international law, only to be Rick-rolled, CIA director John Brennan refused to comment.

Hippie Bowman wrote: VAL! So glad you checked in! Here is hoping you are having a fantastic time! Great big bear hug to ya! Cya Sunday! Peace! Go easy on my ears, Hippie! Val? You need a washcloth for yours?