Madelaine McMasters

Tex Monday wrote: Thank you...this was my present... I love it, Tex!

D0RKiiiE wrote: So I'm looking for a name for my new avatar look. so far the choices I have are as listed: Meghan, Blake, Addison, Josie, Chelsea & Erin Which one do you guys think fits the picture the most? I don't think any of the names really fit, but Addison and Blake are probably the least misfitting for me.. You probably won't want to hear this, but I instantly thought of "Roz". I love that character and will probably become her over time. ;-)

Carole Franizzi wrote: Maddy wrote: “If that shadenfreude is apparent, might the social dynamics punish the holder?” I doubt it. You talk about it as if it is a hypothetical phenomenon, rather than one which actually exists, and, I’m guessing, has always existed. Much of the world’s gutter press is based on the minor and major downfalls of stars, starlettes, politicians and sportspeople. Prince William is losing his hair. Antonio Banderas is looking old. His wife was mistaken for a trout at an angling competition and got a fish hook through her swollen lip. President XYZ has a secret love child… And what about our day-to-day conversations? What percentage of them are hand-rubbing gossip? Let’s be honest… Societies don’t punish all that. They will actually encourage it. If a powerful/rich/leading nation takes a tumble, you’ll see schadenfreude on an institutionalised scale in other countries, including ‘friendly’ ones. I didn't say, nor mean to imply that shadenfreude was hypothetical and I do expect it's been around a long time. I'm theorizing that if a person is perceived to be a "shadenfreudist", that might affect the dynamics of their social circle. Sharing a love of gutter press with the masses does not elevate your schadenfreude to the level of "apparent". You're just down here in the background noise with the rest of us. But even at the macro level, are you sure that if it could be done, a direct survey or perhaps meta-analysis of proclivity towards schadenfreude along with general well being would show no correlation? We do such soft studies all the time, and we often argue about the results, but they can be thought provoking. And now let's mix the macro and the micro. Google wouldn't need proof of causality to target schadenfreudists if they had correlation with other behaviors they could exploit for gain. You've already described some examples of schadenfreudic public content. If you can identify it, so can Google. Although we may not be highly aware of our schadenfreude (or any number of human behaviors), detecting it in an individual seems well within the wheelhouse of "big data". Maddy wrote: “But I don't think I'd be surprised to discover that even when only known internally, that schadenfreude has an effect on health. What if it's discovered that people who engage in it frequently live longer than those who don't? I don't expect we'll see that study soon, and it'll be surrounded by critique, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that our natures affect our health.” Schadenfreude isn’t a bad habit like ciggy smoking. It’s a natural, instinctive, process which plays a part in preserving our psychological well-being. The more it’s present, the more the ‘holder’ evidently needs such a mechanism to deal with their own self-esteem issues. The healthier the self-esteem, I reckon, the fewer the episodes, internally and externally, manifested. But no-one will ever be totally schadenfreude-free. Maybe Mother Theresa. Or maybe not. It’s something we cannot know. However, as I said before, my belief is that it’s an effect, not a cause. Modern society evolved a hell of a lot faster than our genes. How can we be sure that schadenfreude has the same benefit now as it did 50,000 years ago? In ancient times, hearing a twig snap in the woods and thinking it was a predator was worth being wrong 99 out of 100 times because the one time you were right, the tiger didn't eat you. That same causal search mechanism is now credited with belief in fairies, ghosts, and shamans who preach the refusal of proven effective medicines and procedures. Nobody would advocate for the elimination of this subconscious mechanism, but many call for us to understand that it's error prone and strive to reduce its negative impact on us individually and collectively. If a mechanism is natural and instinctive, does that automatically make it healthy? Have you contradicted yourself by saying that schadenfreude is a process which plays a part in preserving our psychological well-being, but is not a cause? If it causes nothing to happen, then it plays no part. The strength of this mechanism may be correlated to self-esteem, and it may have been the effect of evolution, but it if it's playing a part in preserving psychological well-being, then it is a cause. The National Institutes of Health are funding research into the health effects of meditation. We already know that certain kinds of meditation affect dopamine production and blood flow in specific brain regious. We know we can teach patients to think in ways that reduce their need for pain medications. Functional MRI is helping locate specific regions of the brain which are responsible for specific kinds of cognition and thinking, and to better understand neurotransmitter production and modulation. You just know someone will eventually do schadenfreude tests on people with their heads stuck in MRI machines. Maddy ETA-ed: “While those "power of positive thinking" books might be mostly bunk, do we know they're all bunk?” They’re not bunk. They have exactly the same result as schadenfreude. They do? Exactly? How do you know? Wouldn't all the books be interchangeable then? I think there's more complexity here than you're acknowledging. All those neurochemists and pyschologists will want something to do, Carole! Instead of using specific others and their mishaps to make positive comparisons about ourselves – I’m not losing my hair, I still look young for my age, I don’t get mistaken for a trout – we let an author talk us into believing how great we are through sweeping generalisations. I don’t know about you, but I have a number of friends who litter Facebook with self-comforting little sayings on a regular basis: I'm not on Facebook. Could implying that, unlike your friends, you don't litter Facebook with self comforting statements, be a self comforting statement? Don't we all comfort ourselves, Carole? I know I just did by stating that I'm not on Facebook. ;-)

Monica Querrien wrote: I think there is a market for this sort of service, but the trick is to find quality people who are serious about revamping their business. I have helped merchants in the past, and a couple of the issues I had with some were 1. they didn't want to pay for the service 2. they were highly defensive and not wanting to make the changes for their business. I think in order for something like this to work, it would be good to have your own team of builders, photographers, marketers, etc. Using the team, show the merchant what could be done to their product to raise it to the next level, and then talk about costs. Even though you can tell someone what to do, it needs to actually be done in order for it to be a success. A lot of merchants simply don't have the talent or the connections to market their product successfully. I've always been fascinated by the economy of SL. Clearly there are some merchants and landlords that make a go here, but I've yet to see evidence of an economic vibrance that could support the sort of services the OP is contemplating. I tried my hand at business development consulting a decade ago and walked away from it for the two reasons you cited... 1) They didn't want to pay for the service. Many small businesses are hanging on by their fingernails. They're hardly in a position to spend good money on questionalble expertise. Although I believe I had insights to offer, nobody in their right mind should have blindly accepted that claim without some evidence. As I was new to the field, I had no proof I was competent. This will be the case for the OP. 2. they were highly defensive and not wanting to make the changes for their business. Good grief, this is true. I was surprised by one startup that brought me aboard to review their scattershot business model, and a mission statement that read like an advert for new age meditation. I was highly critical at our introductory meeting, but they seemed eager for my ideas. My modest fees were covered by a local government grant, and I should have suspected that made my services both easy to accept... and ignore. And ignore they did. At the end of my engagement, they were nearly angry that I still didn't like their business plan. They hadn't changed a bit! They foundered for another year before disbanding. For many entrepreneurs, their business is their baby. Nobody wants to hear that their baby is ugly!

Czari Zenovka wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: Ban lines and good imagination = this some of you know what i am saying hehehehe Ooooo!!! I've done a bit of SL "trampolining" on banlined houses. Never thought of doing tricks, though. /starts looking through the MP for an AO...maybe my ice skating one will work. That brings back fond memories of bouncing off banlines in SL, but even fonder memories of jumping in RL. Thomas Edison said: "The chief function of the body is to carry the brain around." I love watching those young brains command those young bodies to so exquisitely carry them around... and around and around... ... sighs and pries herself out of the chair. I feel a jump coming on. If I'm not back in a few hours...

Wes Teebrook wrote: I'm new at making clothes, and I'm running into a problem. The shirt I made seems to hug every little bump on the avatar. It distorts the logo and text. I'm sure I'm overlooking something. How can I get it to not do this, so that images and texts will not be distorted? Hi Wes, Standard SL clothing is, in effect, a replacement skin or coat of paint, for your avatar. The clothing textures you design are combined with the skin texture you wear and are then "baked" into one texture that's applied to the shape of your avatar to make it visible. Your shirt hugs every little bump on the avatar because it becomes part of the avatar skin. As the avatar moves, the skin (and therefore your tee shirt) must stretch. There is no way to avoid this distortion, other than to avoid those places on the avatar that are most subject to it, such as the armpits and mid/lower torso. Put your avatar through some animations (dancing, etc) and carefully watch your tee-shirt distort to see where the worst regions are. Then try to move your text away from those areas. The central upper chest and back, away from the arm joint, are the best places to put logos and text. Good luck!

Hippie Bowman wrote: Morning all! Happy weekend to all of you! Peace! Good morning, Hippie. Today I shall cavort with Nature... Don't stick your head out the train window, Val! Enjoy your vacation!

Perrie Juran wrote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- i couldn't resist _______ braggart!

Yep, Ceka. That's why I don't mind seeing kudos for the moderator(s). I could imagine that LL underlings are as fed up with things as we are, and simply need the paycheck. Of course I can also imagine they're all a bunch of geeky social misfits who are so enamored of the technology they don't really care whether mere mortals can use it SL. Or they're all running scared as mobile eats their lunch. Or, the average SL resident would think the forum is filled with crybabies. Ooooh, someone should start an LL roleplay sim, where we can all gather to pretend we are ruining the show! Pass on a few hugs from me to your coworkers, sounds like they need 'em.

I let the cops use my driveway as a speed trap and bring them root-beer, so they won't tag me for five over. I chat up the garbage guys and give them weird ornaments for Xmas so they won't complain about that weekend when I emptied out half the barn on them. I leave treats in the mailbox so Dave the mailman will walk the mail to my neighbor's door when her driveway guy fails to clear the snow. I'm not sure I'd leave a tip for an invisible hand that swooped out of the restaurant kitchen to scoop up the mouse droppings left by one of the li'l devils as he scooted across my dinner table. I participate in several other forums, larger and busier than this. One enthusiast forum has over a million posts. I've never seen spam on any of them. One might feel a little sorry for whoever has to clean up after the incompetence that allowed the creation of a forum that's so easy to spam, so I don't mind seeing the kudos.

Me three. I have one mesh item, a pencil skirt from Mon Tissu that uses mesh to replace the prim panel on older style skirts. It's knee length, which would have been impossible to do with a prim attached to the pelvis. Clothing layer glitch pants complete the skirt. It's not perfect, but for the first time in my five years in SL I can sit on a chair without looking like I bought a pair of capris to match the chair's dust ruffle. I've tried a few tops and found them to be absolutely terrible. Last weekend, I tried a peplum jacket that flared at the waist like a tutu with a bustline large enough to smuggle two child avis into Zindra. It makes absolutely no sense to me to give up all the slider work I did to get my shape as I like it, only to eat a mesh muffin and look like everybody else in town.

valerie Inshan wrote: Hippie Bowman wrote: Way late today! Good day to all of you! Have a great vacation Val! Peace! Thank you Hippie! Finishing packing tonight and ready to jump in the train tomorrow! Love you this much guys!!! Have fun, Val!

Hippie Bowman wrote: Way late today! Good day to all of you! Have a great vacation Val! Peace! I got tired of waiting for you and took a nap...

Awe Thor wrote: there must be a limitless number of subjects for you to post about in these forums that you don't have a clue about. Precisely!

Awe Thor wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Your absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense Awe . . . for someone who argues so much, why do you keep making these very basic mistakes? ETA: All the references quoted related to North American studies; they aren't generalisable, and have been selectively identified by a biased collator - would you ask Obama which party to vote for and expect a balanced view? ETFA: The article you quote is irrelevant, anyway; it wasn't the concept of positive thinking that you were asking about, but books about positive thinking. ETEFA: As you note, no causative link has been identified; perhaps 90% of the people who believed in positive thinking could not participate in the studies because they were dead, having jumped off a roof believing they could fly. That would also help to explain why I have never met anyone who could. ETAOMT: I've no reason to think they will find evidence of causation - which doesn't include a double negative to dilute significantly the statement's impact. The argument you make about the locale of the study and the bias of the collator will apply to all locales and all locators. Science handles that daily. Yep, I did word my question as if it were all about the books. I'll offer up the same question about the concept. Is it entirely bunk? Feel free to promote your theory that positive thinking research is severely impacted by jumpers. It would be pretty exciting to discover that researchers had unwittingly managed to identify a subset of the general population decimated by a 90% jumper fatality rate. Or were you suggesting that 90% of the general population has jumped to their death? My belief that we'll make progress on the causation (or rather my disbelief that we won't ;-) stems from my belief that science will continue to progress in any direction it probes. There are plenty of people probing in this direction. The "dilution" in my statement was intentional. I'm not certain about any of this stuff.

Awe Thor wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: While those "power of positive thinking" books might be mostly bunk, do we know they're all bunk? Of course they are. Awe . . . hasn't met anyone yet whose positive belief that they can fly, unaided, has proved successful. ETA And all you have to do is look at the number of lardasses scootering around American theme parks to know that they don't work on dietary problems; or perhaps obesity is associated with illiteracy in the USA? Your absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense (for someone who argues so much, why do you keep making these very basic mistakes?) Here's some evidence to the contrary... http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/positive-thinking/SR00009 Note that this is correlation, not causation, as revealed by... "It's unclear why people who engage in positive thinking experience these health benefits. One theory is that having a positive outlook enables you to cope better with stressful situations, which reduces the harmful health effects of stress on your body. It's also thought that positive and optimistic people tend to live healthier lifestyles — they get more physical activity, follow a healthier diet, and don't smoke or drink alcohol in excess." But you just know people are looking for causation. I've no reason to think they won't find evidence of it.

Carole Franizzi wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: Didn't really understand what you meant in the bolded sentence but here's my two-yens worth anyway. Schadenfreude - neither healthy nor unhealthy. Just natural, normal, and very, very human. I'm in approximate agreement, I think (this isn't something I've thought about much). But as our social evolution is moving faster than our genetic evolution, I wouldn't be surprised if we discover that schadenfreude, as well as being natural, does affect overall health of an individual and the social group, though perhaps in opposite ways. I'll be fascinated by the experiments that attempt to tease this all apart. It's very interesting to see how researchers attempt to isolate the things they're looking for. In reply to the bolded bit. If I'm to be coherent, I have to say I would be surprised. If I'm going to stick to what I said before then schadenfreude is only a symptom and not a cause. Just as a fever is a sign of the body fighting infection, a schadenfreudian (??) reaction is, I suspect, only a symptom of the schadenfreudic (???) person's debilitated ego reacting. Sure, if everyone gloated all the time at everyone else's misfortune, it would be a dreadful sign of the times, however, the problem wouldn't be the schadenfreudianism (??????) per se, but the underlying society-wide cause of the death of all empathy. I forgot to retain the part of Aethelwine's statement that makes what I said make more sense "Schadenfreude is not a healthy pleasure to be boasting about." If that shadenfreude is apparent, might the social dynamics punish the holder? (We could discuss whether Aethelwine was talking about the schadenfreude being private, I don't have an answer about healthiness either way.) But I don't think I'd be surprised to discover that even when only known internally, that shadenfreude has an effect on health. What if it's discovered that people who engage in it frequently live longer than those who don't? I don't expect we'll see that study soon, and it'll be surrounded by critique, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that our natures affect our health. ETA: While those "power of positive thinking" books might be mostly bunk, do we know they're all bunk?

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Tex Monday wrote: I do applaud after a waitress drops a tray of glasses...but then I feel bad that she's got to clean it all up afterwards. The instances in the forums, to which I was refering, usually take place after the tray has been dropped. Some waitresses know what they're doing and can be quite efficient at cleaning the place up... others just scatter things about and make a bigger mess than what was there before. Tell me that you wouldn't snicker at someone as inept as that. ...Dres Dunno what Tex would tell you, but I probably wouldn't snicker. If it was my tray they dropped, I might help them clean it up. If they were throwing the tray at me? Well, that's a whole 'nuther kettle of fish. Don't ask me why they brought a kettle of fish, I asked for a salad.

Awe Thor wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: We all make mistakes, it's what makes us human. Where does this piece of nonsense come from? Are you seriously suggesting that all the other species on planet earth get everything exactly right all the time? Awe . . . can't wait for the next bit of apple pie and motherhood kitsch cliche with no reasoned basis. "Mistakes" go all the way down to the genetic replication level, but you've gotta be pretty far along the evolutionary path (and on the right one) before you find a creature that consciously perceives mistakes as such, and better yet has a word to desribe them. It is pretty cool that you can back up on the path a bit and find other animals that get close. I like apple pie, motherhood (though not enough to try it), some cliches and stepping outside the confines of your reasoning. What's the reasoned basis for your attempting to refute Aethelwine's statement yesterday with evidence that had no bearing on it? Some mistakes are effortless, and some seem to require baffling amounts of work. ETA: It's even cooler when you back wayyyy along the evolutionary trail to a fork before the thing you found, then take the other path and find it popping up there was well. Will this vexing "natural irrationality" turn out to be a better than average way to go?

Carole Franizzi wrote: Didn't really understand what you meant in the bolded sentence but here's my two-yens worth anyway. Schadenfreude - neither healthy nor unhealthy. Just natural, normal, and very, very human. I'm in approximate agreement, I think (this isn't something I've thought about much). But as our social evolution is moving faster than our genetic evolution, I wouldn't be surprised if we discover that schadenfreude, as well as being natural, does affect overall health of an individual and the social group, though perhaps in opposite ways. I'll be fascinated by the experiments that attempt to tease this all apart. It's very interesting to see how researchers attempt to isolate the things they're looking for.

I'm saddened to hear of your loss, Dres. When I lose someone in RL, I think back to a memorable moment or characteristic and work up a story to tell. I recently lost an aunt and went back through my memories of her to find a good story. It wasn't hard. She gave me a drum set for Christmas when I was six or so (go women's lib!) and had me play it while she and my uncle danced a polka in the living room. My parents never forgave her ;-) I believe a life is a collection of stories, and passing them on is as near an afterlife as I can imagine. However you do it, tell a story of your friend.

Tex Monday wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Tex Monday wrote: I do applaud after a waitress drops a tray of glasses...but then I feel bad that she's got to clean it all up afterwards. The instances in the forums, to which I was refering, usually take place after the tray has been dropped. Some waitresses know what they're doing and can be quite efficient at cleaning the place up... others just scatter things about and make a bigger mess than what was there before. Tell me that you wouldn't snicker at someone as inept as that. ...Dres Of course I would...but the point of that whole discussion was that we need to have a little sympathy for the waitress in having to clean it up rather than just pointing and snickering and laughing at her. It's like seeing a person in a play who is messing up horribly. It's ok to laugh, but you have to understand that they're trying to crawl inside their skin to get away from it. Without a little sympathy for the person, this world would be a truely cruel place indeed. And yes, I did see the Stooges movie...but I thought you were referring to the original shorts that i used to watch almost religiously on Saturday morning television... I'm often the one dropping the tray and I don't mind the applause, but I agree with you, Tex. We all make mistakes, it's what makes us human. When someone is trying to crawl inside their skin, I'll sometimes try to pull it over me as well (couldn't you have found a better analogy, like crawling under the covers? ;-). I've been there, I've done it, I still remember.

Freya Mokusei wrote: Hi Maddy, this is a really good rebuttal to my points. The Haswell series is very promising, and I'm sure there's a few other things I've not seen coming. There are indeed some exceptions to some of the general rules I posted (although I think you will be disappointed if you compare a laptop power supply to a reasonable-efficiency ATX one, and batteries - while consistant - are still an expensive single point of failure). I won't respond to each point in turn however, because as you pointed out the OP is quite set on a laptop, to an extent that I didn't realise when I posted. Thanks! Hi Freya, I hope you didn't feel like I ran over you! I once designed both stationary and portable medical monitors, and so had to deal with many of the same issues faced by desktop and laptop designers. The points you raised have been circulating for years and I've been wanting to address them for about that long. You just happened to be crossing the street when I drove through! At the time I began my design career, field failure data indicated that the portable versions of products my company made were less reliable than the stationary stuff. Field service was fixing everything, but not complaining to engineering. I'm dreadfully curious, so started eating lunch with the field service manager to learn from him what could be improved about our products (who better to know?) Oy, did I get an earfull! Much of the trouble centered around batteries and connectors. The charging systems weren't really designed properly and were stressing the batteries. Connectors were failing due to vibration. By the time I worked my way up to having my own little design team (doing primarily portable products), we had our field failure rate below that of the stationary products. We fixed the battery systems and eliminated connectors by squishing everything onto one circuit board. On a modern laptop, almost every failure is memorable because it's costly. There's often only one circuit board in the thing and everything is on it. Power supply failure? New motherboard! Headphone port get blasted by static? New motherboard! Desktops are heading the same way. After Haswell comes the generation of Intel CPUs that bring everything into the chip, Ethernet, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, USB, Thunderbolt, GPU, SATA, PCI... it'll all be on one chip. No more plug in cards. We'll lament that we can't just replace the part that breaks, but parts will break less often. Thanks for letting me beat on ya! Hugs, Maddy

Czari Zenovka wrote: Bronxcheer wrote: Czari Zenovka wrote: herself into a hole I have no earthly idea what you are talking about. That would make two of you ;-)

Awe Thor wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Awe Thor wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: The statement made by Aethelwine was... "Schadenfreude is not a healthy pleasure to be boasting about." The study you cite reports that shadenfreude happens in children and, in the little I could find describing the report, makes no claims about any health effects deriving from it. The presence of shadenfreude is not in doubt. Dresden demonstrated it. The claim to be challenged here is that schadenfreude is not healthy. If the report offers evidence to the contrary, why didn't you mention it? The study offers no indication whatsoever that schadenfreude is not unhealthy. In fact, the tenor of the paper - albeit one written by Germans - implies that schadenfreude is an entirely natural emotion - and the conclusion of the researchers says: "Our data revealed first evidence that schadenfreude might have an important impact on social (i.e. helping) behaviour even among young children. Thus, it is highly important to further analyse the determinants and consequences of schadenfreude. Right now, we are standing at the beginning of the understanding of this emotion." Awe . . . is still waiting for any evidence of justification that schadenfreude is unhealthy, as Aethelwine unequivocally stated. The evidence that schadenfreude may impact helping behavior is precisely what you should have brought here in first place. I won't blindly trust that you quoted the study accurately, nor will I take the study itself as gospel (I'm simply being as wary as you), but appreciate being made aware of it. Aethelwine's statement was, I think, easy to comprehend. You had the chance to refute in the first volley and missed it. Instead, you fired off evidence (of shadenfreude in the young) that didn't even graze the target (shadenfreude is unhealthy). You don't advance a position by waiting for the other side to retreat while you stand still. This MadBagLady is happy to have got you to take a step forward. Gee, I'm even starting to sound like you! ;-) I am still waiting for a scrap of evidence that does not rely on personal bigotry to suggest that Aethelwine's criticism of Dresden is in any way substantiated. My contention is that schadenfreude is not unhealthy, as Aethelwine mistakenly stated, and that studies support my belief that it is a natural emotion. I don't have to refute anything, as it is up to Aethelwine to explain the basis for his statement. Awe . . . enjoys watching others in the forum scrabbling around trying to justify the unjustifiable But don't you think it was counterproductive to exhibit a lack of comprehension of the statement by refuting something else, while you were waiting for supporting evidence from Aethelwine? Perhaps my analogy was a bit off. You don't advance a position by waiting for the other side to retreat while shooting yourself in the foot. It was only after I brought your aiming error to light that you fired off a shot in a potentially productive direction. I don't have an opinion on this, but at least I now have a few things to read.