Madelaine McMasters

emmettcullen93 wrote: valerie Inshan wrote: Good morning to you Hippie and all, thank you for your loving words. Sorry I won't be able to make it for breakfast at Cali's on Sunday as I will be at my parents's to support my Mom and visit my Dad in the hospital. I love you all so much, sending my warmest hugs to you. :heart: o Val i am so sorry. sending up prayers for you today. and good morning to you and Hippie and same to you LIa and Maddy. whenever they get here. I'm hoping for the best for you and yours, Val. I'm here, Emmett, ready for huggin'! Hi, Kids!!!

emmettcullen93 wrote: maddy what is fracking? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

5-23-2012 Facebook lead underwriter Morgan Stanley is accused of secretly sharing a negative assessment of the social network with major clients just days before the IPO. Apparently feeling spurned, Facebook "unlikes" Morgan Stanley and launches a flurry of derisive tweets. 5-23-2013 After yet another failed attempt to destroy a commercial airliner in-flight using explosive underwear, the CIA reveals that Islamic extremists have been obsessing over this particular terror tactic in response to the rising tide of explosions in the pants of young men attending militant madrasahs. Radical Islamic clerics unequivocally deny any connection between this and the mysterious theft of Victoria's Secret catalogs from mailboxes across Afghanistan and Pakistan.

valerie Inshan wrote: Hiya Hippie, good morning! Happy hump day to you and all! Big big hugs and love for everyone! /me waves @ Steave, welcome to the friendliest thread in these forums! Hugs, Val. Hi Kids!!! Steave, is this you?...

emmettcullen93 wrote: hello hippie. good morning good morning to Lia Val Cali and Maddy. and also our newest member Steve. looks like i got away just in time from Maddy i mean the monster. LOL You can run... but you can't hide.

Dillon Levenque wrote: You're right about one thing: lots of people considered that case trivial, including this one. I'd never tried McDonald's coffee so I just figured the coffee was about as hot as the coffee I make: hot but by no means dangerously so. If the facts in that 'Lectric Law article are as stated it's no wonder McDonald's lost the case. And it may be no wonder when a case is lost on the way to the singularity because we didn't understand what happens to our minds on computers. Twenty or so years ago, I read an article about a young man who'd become addicted to a 3D video game that used virtual reality goggles. He spent virtually every waking hour with the goggles on and began to have hallucinatory flashbacks, which seemed to the medical professionals very much like LSD flashbacks. It was once thought that LSD flashbacks might be the result of latent LSD in the brain. Now we know that what actually happened is that when under the influence of a hallucinogenic drug, the brain rewires to make sense of it all. When the drug is gone, the new (wierd) wiring remains. I expect the same things will happen when we start augmenting our perception with virtual input. We'll get unexpected results, some of which might be worthy of a court case. Microsoft employs game designers and pyschologists on the Office team, with the purpose of getting people to spend more hours at their tools. They do this by designing the interface, not to make you work more efficiently, but to ping your pleasure centers. (The article in which this was claimed may have exaggerated, I don't know, caveat reader). If the systems we engage are being designed in this way, I don't think it would take Perry Mason to get a jury riled up over big corporations trying to warp our minds with nefarious subliminal "worms". And I think the potential for odd judgments and large punitive damage awards will escalate as the computerized systems we deal with become more sophisticated, and therefore less penetrable by the average juror. The damages awarded by the McDonald's coffee jury was as much or more about sending a message to McDonalds as ameloriating the victim's pain. McDonalds might have been nefarious, but the coffee was just damned hot. Imagine when Facebook is seen as nefarious and their products are too.

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Celestiall Nightfire wrote: It would be hard enough to prove that emotional damage has happened to someone in RL, let alone the hypothetical damage that is claimed by interacting online with anonymous strangers. Right. But before Liebeck v. McDonald's who would have thought a spilled cup of hot coffee could get jurors to award $2.86 million (which was knocked down to $640,000 by the judge and settled out of court for less than that)? Well, first you are bringing up an entirely different type of case and damages Maddy. A case where real physical damage was done to someone VS hypothetical emotional damage. But, since you have leaped to a different comparison, I will address it. I worked on the Burn Unit at Riley Hospital for Children when the Liebeck v. McDonald case was decided in court. At work we discussed it at length. McDonald's held their coffee at a scalding temperature, despite knowing that it caused severe burns. McDonald's had a file that showed hundreds of people being scalded by their dangerously high-temperature coffee, yet they still refused to lower the temperature. The temperature was so high that a third degree burn could occur in mere seconds, and McDonalds acknowledged that they knew the coffee was too hot to drink. Stella Liebeck received third degree burns on her legs, inner thighs, and genitalia She had to undergo painful skin grafts, and burn treatments. A third degree burn is one that goes through all layers of skin, fat, and into muscle tissue. You are quite literally having your flesh burned away. (read the case details on the link below) http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm http://www.chw.org/display/PPF/DocID/21911/router.asp Many people use that case as an example of some trivial court case, but that is because they are not aware of the facts. So, Liebeck v. McDonald was not just a case about a spilled cup of coffee. The case was about a company ignoring the history of physical damage their product's dangerously high temperature caused. It does not surprise me that this case went with high $$ amount being awarded for damages. Madelaine McMasters wrote: I'm not agreeing with any of this, I'm simply allowing for the possibility. If Kurzweil's singularity is fast approaching (I don't think it is) society is gonna face some interesting questions and we're gonna be rolling our eyes over some (hopefully not most) of the answers. I also agree that Kurzweil's singularity is not fast approaching, and I personally doubt it will happen at all. Oh, did I tell you that I met one of the Cornell AI developers that works with the famous talking chat-bots? He was in the StellaNova sim checking it out. He said that the AI chat-bot conversation was not programed, and it was completely at random. Too funny! I know the McDonald's case was physical harm. I also know the harm was real. The case is widely cited for the "excessive" punitive damages awarded by the jury. I used it as an example of the direction in which litigation seems to be heading. I really do expect that we'll see some cases before the courts pressing damage claims from "virtual" interactions that you and I might think nonsensical, but a jury might not. I've been on three juries over the years and it's seemed that the outcome is more the result of the quality of the acting by the lawyers than facts of the case. What I'm suggesting here is not that virtual worlds are a legal parallel to real life, but that someone besides us will eventually press that argument. I'm waiting for lawsuits against game developers who use game psychologists to design the games to be addicting. I'm reading/hearing a lot about the common neurochemistry of addictive gameplay and drugs. Someone will make the leap. You did mention the chat-bot developer. I think they're going to be too funny for a very long time!

Makes you wanna see the corkscrew, doesn't it?

valerie Inshan wrote: Yay Cali, one of the sweetest vid I've seen so far! /me hugs you! That almost makes me want to give kittens nightmares, just to see that! I'll settle for giving Lia nightmares. Hi, Kids!!!

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: It would be hard enough to prove that emotional damage has happened to someone in RL, let alone the hypothetical damage that is claimed by interacting online with anonymous strangers. Right. But before Liebeck v. McDonald's who would have thought a spilled cup of hot coffee could get jurors to award $2.86 million (which was knocked down to $640,000 by the judge and settled out of court for less than that)? I'm not agreeing with any of this, I'm simply allowing for the possibility. If Kurzweil's singularity is fast approaching (I don't think it is) society is gonna face some interesting questions and we're gonna be rolling our eyes over some (hopefully not most) of the answers.

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Celestiall Nightfire wrote: When I was a little girl I made these cut-out paper dolls. Colored them with crayons and glued the paper to cardboard backing. My paper dolls were then fairly substantial. Gave my paper dolls names, and personalities, more daring than my own. I started carrying them around, and holding them in front of me to "do the talking". It was the paper doll talking, not me. Needless to say, when I broke one of my mother's handmade pottery pieces while playing tag indoors, that my parents did not buy into defense that one of my paper dolls had actually done it. My parents were cool about it though. They talked me through the logic process of seeing as how the paper doll could not walk on her own, and that as I'm the one who ran through the house holding the paper doll, that I was ultimately the one who broke the pottery. So, if anyone needs a case decided regarding the actions of their avatar, I'll give you my parent's contact information, and they will have it sorted for you in no time. Yeah, such tricks didn't work for me either. Damned parents! What's at issue here, I suppose, is what constitutes "breakage". I understand the argument that "you can just log out", but that ignores the emotional and monetary investments we make here. RL courts already acknowledge the value of emotional well-being, so if it is determined that the handmade pottery is actually another's emotional well-being, it hardly seems a stretch to place the responsibility on the person holding the paper doll. As we move our minds further from our bodies, we'll certainly have to work through these issues. The problem is in determining the state of another's emotional well-being. Online, I can present any type of emotional status that I choose. There is no way for my fellow web-denizens to know if what I present is real. Even if one could know what emotional status is real for fellow web-dwellers, there is also no way to determine what or who may have caused distress. Sometimes people who are already emotionally on edge due family, health, or job issues, may react to something that another person would just shrug off. Like the kid at school who breaks down crying when another kid says, "You're ugly and your mother wears army boots". A completely different kid might have burst out laughing, as they know they are not ugly and the thought of their mother wearing army boots, tickles their fancy. A griefer crashing a sim with a self-replicating spammer prim, yeah, we can see what caused the harm. But, if someone tells me that my singing sounds like a cat with it's tail caught in the door, do I get upset? Well, I wouldn't..because whether I can sing or not is a subjective matter of opinion. (plus anyone who has been exposed to my singing should be cut some slack as...well, you'd have to hear me sing to know...lol ) What if someone online says other mean things to me or about me? Is what I present to people, regarding my emotional status and reaction, caused by the meanie-cat person who said stuff about me? Or is my reaction more like the straw that broke the camel's back, because my life has so much stress that the little straw flipped me out? 1) A person who's only seen online, can present any emotional status, and there is no way to validate the status. 2) There is no valid way to determine that another's actions in an online anonymous virtual world like SL has actually been the cause of emotional distress. There could be other factors in that person's RL/SL that precipitated a heightened emotional state thereby creating a hair-trigger emotional reaction. So, if there’s a way to determine for factors one and two above, then we might be able to say that person A caused emotional distress to person B. But, did they really? Who’s ultimately responsible for my emotional well being? If I were a child, I’d say parents and other caretakers are partially responsible for my emotional well being. But, I’m an adult, and as an adult, it is I alone who is responsible for my own emotional well being. I didn't say this would be easy! The courts have already determined that emotional distress can be inflicted by others, so they don't agree that you alone are responsible for your own emotional well being. We already have at least one cyber-bullying case that's hit the courts, that of Lori Drew. Given the hunger of personal injury lawyers (and perhaps similarly hungry medical professionals), it might be only a matter of time before a virtual world is the medium through which someone claims to suffer sufficient damage at the hands of another to take a case to court. I'd be surprised by success, but not by an attempt. I think I'd be about as skeptical a juror as one could find, even though I'm very well aware of the emotional power that can be conveyed through SL. But you know they won't pick me for such a jury, I know too much. ;-)

Perrie Juran wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: As we move our minds further from our bodies, we'll certainly have to work through these issues. My mind has been in outer space for a long time. Where no one can hear you scream.

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: When I was a little girl I made these cut-out paper dolls. Colored them with crayons and glued the paper to cardboard backing. My paper dolls were then fairly substantial. Gave my paper dolls names, and personalities, more daring than my own. I started carrying them around, and holding them in front of me to "do the talking". It was the paper doll talking, not me. Needless to say, when I broke one of my mother's handmade pottery pieces while playing tag indoors, that my parents did not buy into defense that one of my paper dolls had actually done it. My parents were cool about it though. They talked me through the logic process of seeing as how the paper doll could not walk on her own, and that as I'm the one who ran through the house holding the paper doll, that I was ultimately the one who broke the pottery. So, if anyone needs a case decided regarding the actions of their avatar, I'll give you my parent's contact information, and they will have it sorted for you in no time. Yeah, such tricks didn't work for me either. Damned parents! What's at issue here, I suppose, is what constitutes "breakage". I understand the argument that "you can just log out", but that ignores the emotional and monetary investments we make here. RL courts already acknowledge the value of emotional well-being, so if it is determined that the handmade pottery is actually another's emotional well-being, it hardly seems a stretch to place the responsibility on the person holding the paper doll. As we move our minds further from our bodies, we'll certainly have to work through these issues.

valerie Inshan wrote: emmettcullen93 wrote: LOL i can send you some virginia clouds if you want. and hippie it always goes just not fast enough some days. Emmett, I would accept all the clouds you may send me as long as they DO NOT rain!!! Here are some clouds for you, Val... Hi Kids!!!

Unfortunately, I'm out of my realm here, as I'm a Mac user. What I've gleaned from watching threads like this in the forum before is that graphics drivers are often the culprit when everything else on your PC works fine, but SL doesn't. So, as I recommended in my first post, it's probably worthwhile to make sure your graphics drivers are up to date. Hopefully someone who knows what they're talking about will come along shortly with more/better ideas. Good luck!

Hi fabbe007, Is this the first time you've ever tried running the Second Life viewer, or was it once working? PC or Mac? If it's the first time and you are on a PC, make sure you are running the latest and greatest graphics drivers. If it was working before, it's possible that a cache or settings file got corrupted. A re-install might not fix that unless you delete the cache and settings folders. On a Mac you can find those in Library->Caches->Secondlife and Library->Application Support->SecondLife. Any additional information you can provide will help us help you.

Griffin Ceawlin wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: I don't see Dillon stating that any words are or not not allowed. And I also see her saying that anyone who reads/hears those words is entitled to judge the speaker accordingly. I agree. I guess it goes to free speech, doesn't it? If someone should be allowed to say whatever they want about someone, it should go the other way, too, no? We can judge them all. Yep. It can be a frightful thing to watch, but in the end we often tar ourselves with our own brushes.

Griffin Ceawlin wrote: Dillon Levenque wrote: I've seen my friends called worse things than that on the Feed, and I have called people worse things than that on the Feed myself. I'm not proud of that or anything, but the Feed has some pretty rough language. Yes , it does. I do believe a person is entitled to think another person is 'scum' and say so right out loud, though, just as anyone who reads/hears it is entitled to consider the speaker a bad person for doing so. So... What words are allowed (I guess "scum" is) and which aren't? I don't see Dillon stating that any words are or not not allowed. And I also see her saying that anyone who reads/hears those words is entitled to judge the speaker accordingly. I agree. What part of that thesis do you disagree with, Griffin? As to what words are allowed in the feeds and forums, I think we've all rolled our eyes over the list of blocked words.

Keli Kyrie wrote: Because I believe every Human Being is of great value and should not be tossed aside like a piece of garbage because they do something other people don't like. I have done things in my life deserving of being thrown out like a piece of garbage but someone was there to help me even when I was at my worst. He told me I was of great value and was a beautiful person even though I was living a life I am now ashamed of. The only thing this person asked me to do in return for his help (which kept me out of jail) was that when I see other people at their worst I show them the same mercy I was shown. Another overarching pre-supposition. Who's advocating throwing anyone away like a piece of garbage? And again, I'm seeing self contradiction. You can't say that nobody should be tossed aside like garbage, then say you deserved to be. I don't believe the world needs trolls and bullies. We have them, we deal with them as best we can, but we don't need them. Would you lobby for the creation of mean people if we found we didn't have any? Showing mercy is not the same as showing support. Supporting bullies shows mercy for no one. And I am frustrated by your statement that you make no claim as to what's right or wrong, then do just that. Let me give you some examples. I'll put your quotes in italics and follow with my comments... "Some people think whatever is true in Real Life should be true in SL. It is true you can see SL as an extension of RL but I think you will take all the fun out of it." First, I think there are only a very few people who think that whatever is true in RL should be true in SL, so that's an extreme case. "Seeing SL as an extension of RL takes all the fun out of it" is your perception and cannot not be used as the basis for an argument in which all perspectives are to be accepted. I'll admit to not knowing whether you mean that if I take SL seriously, it's no longer fun for you, in which case you are admitting to being controlled by me (while elsewhere claiming that shouldn't be), or if you mean that taking SL seriously takes the fun out of it for you, in which case I don't have to take you seriously either, do I? "There are people in this world of ours that like to test limits, push buttons, play games, even create their own little social experiments to see how people will react. Should all of Second Life look likeDisneyland? Where is the sense of adventure, seeking out new worlds, new people, new ideas? If we can not learn how to react to each other in the safety of this virtual world how will we ever be able to in RL?" Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but again it is only your perception that one cannot seek out new worlds, people and ideas unless someone tests your limits, pushes your buttons, plays games with you and treats you as a subject in an experiment. And once again, you cannot expect anyone else to adopt your perspective. Sadly, this sounds like the justification my neighbor gave for the abuse she suffered at the hands of her alcoholic husband. In those dark days, it did not occur to her that she did not have to tolerate that kind of behavior or worse yet, need it. And once again, if you are not treating SL as an extension of RL (as you stated that would take all the fun out of it for you) then is your avatar deserving of mercy at all? As most of the grief I've encountered here seems to come from people who argue that they are playing roles, haven't they abrogated any claim to mercy or compassion? Surely you don't expect me to treat a cardboard cutout as I would a human? Or are you advocating that some SL residents can play the game by their rules while requiring the rest of us to play by ours? Although I think that happens, it hardly seems fair.

Cali Souther wrote: Examples aside, if I just answered that question - then - As long as people treat me with respect, I don't have a problem with how they choose to live their second life. I am pretty much the Queen of Live & Let Live :-) I require respect to be shown to more than just me. It would be hard to explain to my friends why I bring people into their midst who do not respect them... so I don't. (Well, if I do, would ya tell me?)

Perrie Juran wrote: I was not looking for a one party shooter. Reads what ya wrote, then looks at your forum badge. ;-)

Dillon Levenque wrote: I'm gonna guess that's the one about his father not teaching him the bird's name :-). And of course his point is correct. Possibly I should have elaborated my statement: when I learn a new bird's name it is because I've seen it and not recognized it. That sends me to the bird book where I learn what it was and where and how it lives. Like the nighthawk. They are as far as I know unknown in California, but I saw one getting its dinner one evening above a small stream in northwestern Nevada and even there we were at the extreme edge of its range. Not really a raptor; an insectivore with somewhat hawk-like wings and striking black and white coloration. First (and last) time I ever saw one. It is, and I am sooooo tempted to look up the foreign names he spouts off. I'm pretty sure he just made 'em up. I would! ;-)

DQ Darwin wrote: Maddy ( I want to know what your argument is for our needing trolls and/or bullies.) for the same reason we need cancer, the flu, ALS and all the other diseases. I doubt she has an answer, but it sure as hell isn't for balance or the betterment of humankind. I'm not doubting that Keli has an answer, I just want to hear it.

Dillon Levenque wrote: Learning the name of a plant or a bird or a constellation, getting a better understanding of geological processes and their affect on the landscape, learning something new about groundwater: all those things add to the pleasure of being outdoors. The more you learn, the more at home you are in the natural world. Dillon, I'm certain your joy of learning will survive this clip, but I believe you'll have a different appreciation of "names" hereafter, I know I did... Dillon Levenque wrote: That Feynman guy was pretty sharp, wasn't he? mmm hmm ;-)

Keli Kyrie wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Some time ago Keli Kyrie wrote (emphasis hers): I KNOW MOST WON'T LIKE THIS... but we need trolls... just like we need Lurkers, Helpers, and Goofballs. No one is more important than anyone else. If everyone was a Helper how boring would that be? To me it was all the Wild and Diverse Personalities that made the old GD so great and this party is a place for all of them to come together in one place. And now Keli Kyrie writes (emphasis mine): Hi Cali, I am not saying I condone trolls or bullies what I am questioning is how we react to people that see things differently from the way we do. The fact is some people see SL as a game and treat “the characters” in it as a game. Do we let these people freak us out on a daily basis, do we let them “ruin” our SL just because they see things differently then the rest of us? If you go to the stove once and grab the cast iron skillet and get burned that is one thing, but if you do it day after day... Come on grab a pot holder, make sure the stove is off, adapt to the situation. Even if someone carries the skillet into your room and says it is safe don't trust it.... those skillets can stay hot for a long time. Test it. We don't have to keep getting hurt over and over again. If you are going to handle bees wear thick gloves don't go in there with your heart on your sleeve. Keli, before I read this as self contradiction, can you explain it? And why should we expect the victims of bullies to grow thick skins, yet not hold the bullies accountable for their actions? It seems to me you are being hypocritcal. Okay so a bully writes on a forum your singing sucks. What to you do? How do you punish them? Do you cry about it and attack them back? Or do you just roll with the punches and let those bullies make you a millionaire? Nearly 32,000,000 hits on youtube who is laughing at the bullies now. I am saying you can't execute people just because you don't like what the write but you can choose how you react. Even Katy Perry is her friend now because she didn't let the bullies get her down. Life is more about how you react to situations then what happens to you. I'm going to stand firm here, Keli. I asked for an explanation for your apparent self contradiction and I didn't get it. I am not arguing against helping people to grow thicker skins. I want to know what your argument is for our needing trolls and/or bullies. If you don't wish to engage me further on this, say so. I am getting tired of what appears to me to be either over arching pre-suppositions on your part (I have never suggested we execute anybody), or your inability to see any perspective but your own in the middle of arguing that we should welcome everybody's perspective.