Madelaine McMasters

Keli Kyrie wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Keli Kyrie wrote: Not at all. It does not need to be that hard. If we all made one improvemnet in how we treat eachother the world would be a better place tomorrow. It can just be somrthing as simple as smiling at someone and telling them good afternoon. And if you smile and say good afternoon while that person is publically verbally abusing someone? There's a time to frown as well. I have seen people in real life in very verbally abusing situations find peace again by just such an act, but often times it takes more then one person smiling to make it work. For example you and your friend come across a couple having a very verbally abusive conversation, what do you do? You could call the cops but they might take a half an hour to get there and the couple could be gone by then. You could join in the fight and start verbally abusing the person you think is wrong in the situation, sure that might help. Or you can take care of what is happening in that moment in time and try to defuse the situation. You can smile at them, make a joke, do some unexpectedly nice for them. Once the argument is defuse you can take the girl aside and talk to her about how she is dealing with her relationship with this man. Your friend can take the man aside and talk to him about how he is letting the stress of his work environment get to him and how he is acting that out on his wife. This example may work or it may not work but how will you ever know if you never try to talk to people? I don't know about you but when I see everyone ganging up on someone calling them EVIL, especially if THAT PERSON HAS DONE SOMETHING WRONG, ...well how can I say this... (do you really know when it is time to throw rocks at someone?)   "(do you really know when it is time to throw rocks at someone?)" I never advocated throwing rocks. You've known me for well over a year, in both public and private, during which we've had conversations that I hope would have shown you that I've used all the civil methods you prescribe. If your statement was directed at me, I believe it's misplaced.

JeanneAnne wrote: >>Let's approach this from the point of view that Second Life really IS "just a game." However, there aren't any formalized rules or roles to this game -<< I think that the formalized rules are determined by grid architexture & software. The newbie enters the game & must rather quickly how SL works. They learn well & thrive or learn just enuf to function in the limited way they see fit or they fail to learn how things work, get frustrated & leave. The latter outcome seems the most common. Seems to me that SL has far more 'losers' who leave than 'winners' who stick. Or do I have that backwards? >>We play the roles we choose to play and ultimately WANT to play.<< Do we? Or are those roles wholly determined by our heredity & environment? >>And what we want to do comes from who we ARE, sometimes even more strongly than what we ACTUALLY do in RL where we temper our behavior to follow laws and conventions.<< So our real lives are the roles we play & our SL avatars better reflect who we 'really' are? Even if our avatar is a fire breathing dragon? Could be! for all I know .. Jeanne Once you acknowledge the conceit that the fire breathing dragon is able to type and is absent a script, it becomes difficult to deny that the character of the actor shines through.

Hippie Bowman wrote: An understanding of the natural world and what's in it is a source of not only a great curiosity but great fulfillment. David Attenborough Peace! Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars — mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination — stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern — of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent? - Richard Feynman

Tari Landar wrote: There's a difference between standing up to a bully, and trying to put one in it's place, imo. Sometimes it might seem like a grand idea, in theory, but once brought to fruition-not so much. Long ago in the previous GD forum, we had a long discussion about dealing with toxic personalities. I quite agree that trying to put a bully in his/her place is a grand and foolish idea. I wish I could remember the name of the person who observed that, in such situations, we wait for the opportunity to deliver that one perfect zinger that will put the bully in his/her place. She thought that was an arrogance we can't afford, and I agree. At the end of the day, it's about setting standards for yourself and living up to them.

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: To my mind, When selecting a name, do not choose one that violates a celebrity's right in their name, a trademarked brand name, or intellectual property right constitutes advice rather than a rule. LL, as we know, don't try to act as judge and jury in matters of Intellectual Property; they respond to complaints from the holder, or purported holder, of the IP in question. If the estate of the late Michael Jackson wishes, they can doubtless ask LL to stop people using Michael Jackson as a display name, and if anyone wants to dispute it -- perhaps one of the 10,000-and-odd other Michael Jacksons in the US (or the unquanitified number in the rest of the world) who may be residents of SL -- then the parties disputing the right to use the name can ask the appropriate courts to sort it out, as they would do with any other IP complaint. But I don't see how LL can possibly be expected to keep track of every name that might be subject to "a celebrity's right in their name," as opposed to the names of particular celebrities who have been in touch with LL to enforce this right. Agree. It's something for them to run away from if they can. Although - if a corporation was rolling in excess cash they could employee a bunch of people to chase this issue around. I think corporations only end up rolling in excess cash if they don't run around chasing every issue. They chase only those issues likely to yield a good return on the investment. I like to imagine that Rodvik has a little meter in his shirt pocket that he can poke into various LL activities to measure ROI. I see him raising his eyebrows now and then when he gets unexpected readings. We, who have different meters, raise our eyebrows when Rodvik acts on the measurements he's made. ;-)

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: i remember the thread well hehe..all the links in the thread point to one place now..they pulled some information from it..but i had it quoted in my final post in there.. Yes. I find I'm often frustrated by the info that has vanished when I go off to check my recollections. Yep, and it doesn't help that I often recollect things that never happened.

Hippie Bowman wrote: Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear. Mark Twain Peace! Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm. Winston Churchill

Tari Landar wrote: Please. What you're talking about would only apply if the person with "free will" had a perfect childhood, a perfect adulthood, spent a few years in talk therapy, had attained cosmic consciousness, and even then they'd probably still get upset if someone pooped on them. All of us get our feathers ruffled...and, your avatar bouncing around gives me a headache.  Sorry it's not letting me quote, that stupid error again.... There is a huge difference between getting upset, feathers ruffled, whatever you want to call it when another person says or does something...and allowing those feelings to actually direct how you feel about everything else around you, how you react and/or how you treat others. Of course everyone gets upset, dislikes things and even acts on things from an emotional standpoint. That's just part of our human nature, and not something I'd consider a character flaw, by far. But you can feel a certain way about something, yet still not necessarily act on those feelings. Like when I get upset, I don't have to tell everyone and their mother. I don't have to let what griefers, or even a general bully, get me down all the time. I can be so extremely frustrated, angry even, at someone or something, yet still not allow those particular feelings dictate how I am going to live the rest of my life that day/week/month/year/whatever. That's my point. Free will is the ability to make choices for ourselves. That includes how we react to others around us and what they choose to do with their free will. You don't have to have had perfect life, or any of the above things at all, to be able to deal with things, people or situations, like a mature adult. Of course no one is a mature adult at all times, we've all got our moments. I wouldn't ever suggest otherwise. But sometimes, some people, let things get to them way too much. Griefing is actually a prime example of that(even here on the forums). By that I mean, how people deal with those they determine are griefers. If you constantly take their bait-as many do-you're not doing anyone any sort of service, including yourself. Same goes for griefing elsewhere in life-because it's not something we can get rid of entirely. We can however change how we let it affect us. We can't change the choices others make, but we can change the choices we make. I don't need to have gone to therapy to know that allowing others to dictate how I should feel, or act, isn't a healthy way to look at things. It's going to happen, from time to time, but I surely don't make a habit of it, lol. At least, not anymore, I used to though. That's exactly why i know just how odd that sort of idea really is. The idea that others can really "ruin" an experience for me, that is. I don't have to let them ruin it. No one does. When it happens though, it's because we choose to let it happen. I agree with this, even though I'm still contemplating my stance on free-will (I don't think it matters for this discussion). What is bothering me about this particular thread is the idea that we must be all inclusive or we'll miss out on something, and that the solution for disharmony is for those with thin skins to thicken it. It's been suggested to me by good friends that my ignoring bullying and griefing can, at times, appear as approval of it. By definition, they are correct. It is their observation. I counter with my usual argument that if they too ignore the bullying, they deprive the bully of his/her oxygen. That's true, but there are other sources of oxygen and it doesn't take long for the bullies to find them. So there's the dilemma. Do you just walk away from the bully and let those with thinner skins fend for themselves, with the belief that the school of hard knocks will whip them into shape? (I often do). Do you offer assistance to the victim of bullying, with the hope of helping them grow that thick skin faster? (I often do). Do you, without becoming a bully yourself, call out the bullying behavior? (This is the most difficult for me). I haven't got the answer, my friends and enemies alike will confirm that. But it does seem to me that blindly embracing everyone is not the answer. Discrimination is not an inherently bad thing.

Brenda Connolly wrote: Hippie Bowman wrote: Brenda Connolly wrote: Ohhh, History. :matte-motes-sunglasses-1: Friday, May 18, 1980: When we get angry, it is said that we “blow our tops.” This saying obviously came from the angry gods that make volcanoes blow their tops. On this day in 1980, the 9,677-foot Mt. St. Helens, quiet for 93 years, became extremely angry and blew its top. The volcanic blast was five hundred times more powerful than the atomic bomb that leveled Hiroshima. Steam and ash erupted more than eleven miles into the atmosphere and darkened skies in a 160-mile radius. Forest fires erupted around the volcano and burned out of control. The eruption, and those that followed, left some sixty dead and caused damage amounting to nearly three billion dollars. Geologists said that the blast, which was felt over one hundred miles away, was probably triggered by two earthquakes. Scientists had been watching the long-dormant volcano since it first emitted some steam and ash on March 26. Eruptions occurred again on May 25 and June 12. Now that’s a long time to stay angry! http://www.440.com/twtd/today.html Thanks for that Brenda! Woot! Peace! A thread like this could actually make me want to stay here and put up with this horrid forum software. 5-18-2012 Brenda Connolly rejoins the SL forums. Madelaine McMasters bets she won't last three weeks. (When Madelaine Marbach left SL for good some years back, Brenda bet she couldn't stay away three weeks. Well, I stayed away five!!!) 5-18-2044 Presidental hopeful Mark Zuckerberg withdraws from the race after pictures of him lying face down in a pile of Harvard coeds appear on Facebook. Welcome back, Brenda!!!

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.

Keli Kyrie wrote: Not at all. It does not need to be that hard. If we all made one improvemnet in how we treat eachother the world would be a better place tomorrow. It can just be somrthing as simple as smiling at someone and telling them good afternoon. And if you smile and say good afternoon while that person is publically verbally abusing someone? There's a time to frown as well.

Helium Loon wrote: I would say a single prim per gate (or element, for those composed of multiple gates), with particle emitters for the various connections to other prims. Anything but a simple circuit is quickly going to get VERY prim heavy. But, you can have examples of the 'building blocks' as individual gates, to show HOW they work, then have ICs that do the work of multiple gates that are a single prim. So you show how a single-bit adder is built, then you have a 'single bit adder with carry-out' IC......which you show how it can be chained to make an n-bit adder. Then you have a, say, 8-bit adder IC which you use in the actual CPU. Each prim has a script which scans for nearby scripted objects, and filters based on name, and presents that as a list for connections. It shouldn't be hard to script most gates and elements. And by switching the texture on the particles that show connection, it can change appearance to show whether it is at high logic or low logic. I like this!

Keli Kyrie wrote: Jo Yardley wrote: Keli Kyrie wrote: I mean do you really want your mom or your boss to know what you do in here? Yes, I even gladly and proudly give them a tour I post what I do on facebook, share it with friends, family, employees, etc. Everyone may know what I do here! Well you have a lot to be proud of Jo, you have worked hard and it is great what you have done. Just remember not everyone in SL is going to be as opening about their RL as you are. There is nothing wrong with them and nothing wrong with you we just have to learn to communicate across these differences. Keli, Jo did not give me the impression that she'd forgotten that others are not as open about their RL as she is, nor that she thought there was anything wrong with that. Why do you think she needs a reminder?

Tari Landar wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Tari, while I'm in general agreement with the idea that we can walk away from unpleasant people and their behavior, that doesn't always ensure happiness. I have watched some of my friends endure the aggravation of unpleasant characters here in the forums and feeds. They are, to varying degrees, able to weather the abuse by ignoring it. But, to the extent they cannot, my enjoyment of SL is diminished by their unhappiness. So it's not quite true that no one can ruin your experience unless you let them. While we can try to make the best of a situation, as long as we have empathy and friends, our happiness will be affected by others. For this reason, I do not advocate inclusiveness to the point of amorality. Sadly, it is sometimes necessary to walk away from people we like to avoid people we don't. I disagree entirely. Absolutely no other person can control your emotions, or your reactions, no matter what. It is entirely possible to have some of the worst things said, done, whatever, and still be able to walk away, head held high because you didn't allow that action or those words, get you down. Saying that's not possible is basically saying you have no free will. I don't believe people lack free will. It's a conscious choice to let what others say and do, affect you(negatively or positively). So you can always make the choice to allow things to only affect you in a positive way, and leave the rest behind, if you want to.Hard? Sure it is, at times. Impossible? Absolutely not. Although I never did say ignoring that which you dislike will ensure happiness, I think there's much more to happiness than just that, lol. I can guarantee that making different choices when it comes to how you will deal will offer up a different outcome. If we let everything others say and do, affect us negatively all of the time, we'd be a very unhappy species-generally speaking. My opinion on that matter doesn't change simply because this is sl. This is the same thing I tell others who have dealt with people who truly try their hardest to bring others down. Sometimes those people are successful, but it's only that way because their intended audience allows them to do that. I lost a friend a couple years ago to one such person. Her inability to realize that this person couldn't possibly ruin her life, if she didn't allow it, ended up being her literal demise in the end. I miss her terribly, and of course I don't support the way this man treated her, nor do I blame her or anything like that. But she could have walked away. She could have done a lot of things to change the outcome. It was her choice not to, and in the end it was her choice to deal with it in such a permanent way. Was I happy she was so miserable? Of course not. Did I let her unhappiness ruin my sl? Of course not. I can be sad, upset even, at what's happening to another and still not consider my sl ruined, lol. To say otherwise would mean she had complete control over me. That doesn't make a lick of sense. I would like to think that had I, and others, not been there from the word go, trying to help her realize she could just walk away from it, things would have ended even sooner. Our positive attitudes, had just as much of an effect on her, as her negative one had on us. Positivity should always win out, in the end. I find it tragic when it doesn't, and unfortunately that happens way too often. You can counteract the negative with a positive, you just have to put forth the effort to do so. We're all human though and we are often lead by emotion, which can be both a positive and negative thing. I still see no reason to give up our free will simply because others are choosing to utilize theirs with bad intentions. You disagree entirely? I covered a bit of ground Tari, and I see you extrapolating beyond what I wrote. I think I operate pretty much as you describe yourself. I offer encouragement to friends, including attempts to show that they can choose to walk away from strife. In the end, I do believe we are often our own worst enemies. Your "Was I happy she was so miserable? Of course not." does not sound so very different from my "my enjoyment of SL is diminished by their unhappiness." The unhappiness of a friend hardly ruins my SL, but it does decrease my enjoyment of it and so I do expend the effort to improve things. I think you are misreading what I wrote... diminish is hardly obliterate. My use of "ruin" was in response to your use of it, where I said that it was "not quite true" that any aspect of one's SL experience can't be ruined by another. I'll chalk this up to a poor recapitulation on my part. I also said that I don't avocate inclusiveness to the point of amorality, by which I mean that I don't value the presence of those with bad intentions as much as I value the presence of those with good ones. My perception of those intentions can be inaccurate and they are measured against my personal morality. So this is not an error free selection process, but I do select. I don't expect others to abide by my personal morality, but I have one.

PeterCanessa Oh wrote: Translate OP please :-( What's wrong with telling a prim which other prims are its inputs and then having it use llGetObjectDetails() to find out their values, applying the local logic to those values and setting this prims value? I must be missing a lot of the requirements or something. Peter, wouldn't your method require something to periodically trigger llGetObjectDetails()? If Mike's system has the user as the ultimate input, perhaps touching "bit" prims to set ones and zeroes, then sending output messages to the inputs of other gates only when an input message or a touch is received minimizes the processor load. Absent any change from the user (or any feedback that could result in oscillation) all the logic scripts would be laying in wait for touch or listen events. Each user touch would cause a cascade of events as the logic "flowed" through the system, eventually coming to rest again.

5-17-2012 Vermont becomes the first US state to ban the controversial practice of "Fracking". 5-17-2013 University of Vermont College of Medicine reports a sharp drop in Vermont's birth rate over the previous year.

I agree that link numbers are the wrong way to ID a gate, for the reason I described. The right way to do it will depend on Mike's overall goal. If he invisions a system in which people can rez and connect gates "on the fly", llMessageLinked is off the table as there will be no linkset, just individual gate prims. This would require a way for gates to find each other, after which they could chat via distinct channel numbers. I might be wrong, but I think using channel numbers to identify gates would reduce the logic system's messaging load. The script could have two listen filters, one on a "global" chat channel (used for gate discovery) and one on a channel that is unique to the gate (and so would be considered the gate's ID), which could be set during the discovery process. After discovery, the gate's logic functions would respond only to input on the specified channel and the gate would speak its output on whichever channel was set by whatever controls the wiring (which could also be setup on the global channel used for discovery). On top of all this, if the system is clocked, the clock rate can't be so short that messaging delays would result in race conditions.

Mister Webwyre wrote: It's too bad that apparently links cannot have child links, as that would possibly simplify things, from the little I've read about LSL scripting so far. Mike Sadly, hierarchy is a powerful concept which appears to have escaped LL entirely. Imagine how lovely building would be if we could link things hierarchically. I don't think llMessageLinked is the right way to pass logic levels between gates, as the ID of a prim is determined by the link order at the time the linkset is created. This is an operation which is outside of, and invisible to, the scripts. The result is that the wiring of your logic system is obfuscated. I think it makes more sense to have your logic gates respond to messages directed to specific chat channels (so the channel number becomes the gate ID), or broadcast messages on a common channel (you could use llMessageLinked for this) and parse them for gate ID. The important idea here is that the identity of a gate should be something you can easily observe and control.

Keli Kyrie wrote: Tari Landar wrote: Personally I'm not fond of any opinion that supports the thought that another person can actually "ruin" sl for someone,or any aspect of it. If that makes any sense at all. No one can ruin your experience, unless you let them. I live my Sl the way I choose to and believe others ought to be given that same opportunity. We each control our own sl, for our own self. If something, or someone, annoys me, sometimes I speak up and sometimes I simply walk away. It depends entirely on the situation at hand. I don't find it difficult to avoid the things I know I dislike, though. Or to, at least, pay them no mind when I do come across them. I don't really need to use mute, or give them more thought than I think they deserve. I don't sit and wish they were banned, or continue mulling over whatever it was that happened. It is what it is. But that's just me. Very good points Tari and I wish more people would handle things the way you do. But what do we do when these different people come together in the Forum? There is no mute button here and the Dragons, Trolls, and Vampires (virtual and metaphors) have just as much right to be here as the rest of us. How do we react when we can't walk away? Keli, although you have softened your rhetoric since this post, where you declared that we need trolls, your current contention that they have a right to be here seems not to be held by the Lindens, who have banned a few, some permanently. In the four years I've been in SL, I have filed one AR and have yet to mute anyone. Tari, while I'm in general agreement with the idea that we can walk away from unpleasant people and their behavior, that doesn't always ensure happiness. I have watched some of my friends endure the aggravation of unpleasant characters here in the forums and feeds. They are, to varying degrees, able to weather the abuse by ignoring it. But, to the extent they cannot, my enjoyment of SL is diminished by their unhappiness. So it's not quite true that no one can ruin your experience unless you let them. While we can try to make the best of a situation, as long as we have empathy and friends, our happiness will be affected by others. For this reason, I do not advocate inclusiveness to the point of amorality. Sadly, it is sometimes necessary to walk away from people we like to avoid people we don't.

Mike, both examples you cite are highly constrained, which makes them feasible in SL. Do you intend to offer a demonstration of a pre-wired system, as in the Fetch Decode Cycle demo? Or do you intend for people to wire the gates themselves?

Coby Foden wrote: What the heck is this trend with the downward lips? This makes me cry. :smileysurprised: :smileytongue: What next? This perhaps? Or what? lol I'd vastly prefer the rolling eyes, Coby. Maybe this is the estrogenic equivalent of macho?

emmettcullen93 wrote: The fringed curtains of thine eye advance. - William Shakespeare, "The Tempest", Act 1 scene 2 http://www.on-this-day.com/cgi-bin/quote.pl?NonSSI "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" - The great and powerful Wizard of Oz

emmettcullen93 wrote: today is my parents 14th aniversery yay. ... does the math and grins. Mom and Dad would be in their 61st year together if Dad hadn't run off into the void. Give 'em a hug and a wink from me, Emmett!

Hi Naomi, welcome to Second Life and the forums! If you are taking about the little "crinkles" on either side of the nose near the bottom, I'm afraid that's the result of imperfections in SL's computer model of the face. It is possible to edit aspects of the nose in "Edit My Shape" (right click on your avatar and you'll see that option) to potentially improve things (or make them worse ;-). Those crinkles used to drive me nuts. I've just had to make my peace with them. (I recommend that solution to many of SL's problems, just accept 'em and move on.) As for editing shoes, it's probably easier to edit the size of your feet! Most women's shoes are designed for a foot size of zero. If the shape you purchased is modifyable, you can reduce the foot size in "Edit My Shape" if it is not already zero. If your shape is copyable, make a copy before you edit, or remember to "Save As" rather than "Save". I sympathize with your frustration over Second Life's steep and never-ending learning curve. I've been here for four years and still find SL really confusing!

5-16-2012 After hearing of a Canadian driver who hit a moose and then drove 28 miles to work unaware of the accident, one-time presidential hopeful John Edwards takes the stand at his corruption trial and claims he must have rear-ended his mistress, Rielle Hunter. 5-16-2014 After two years of investigation into the mysterious lack of oxygen reported by pilots of the nearly billion dollar a copy F-22 Raptor fighter jet, defense contractor Lockheed Martin adds little flippy vent windows near the front of the canopy to bring fresh air into the cockpit. In another concession to wary pilots, full crank down windows are installed, allowing them to order fast food during in-flight refueling. The F-22 quickly becomes the most popular plane in the nation's arsenal.