Madelaine McMasters

Storm Clarence wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Storm Clarence wrote: Read who started the ad hominem post(s)... and don't forget to count yourself as one of them. Ad Hominen - an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. I negated the truth of your claim by presenting the facts. I made no statement about your character in this thread. I thought your calling Masami ignorant was out of line given and your initial reply to the OP was harsh. That's my opinion of your actions. Yawns! A picture paints a thousand words. Even harsh ones. And a thousand words paint a picture.

Storm Clarence wrote: Read who started the ad hominem post(s)... and don't forget to count yourself as one of them. Ad Hominen - an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. I negated the truth of your claim by presenting the facts. I made no statement about your character in this thread. I thought your calling Masami ignorant was out of line and your initial reply to the OP was harsh. That's my opinion of your actions.

valerie Inshan wrote: Thank you Lia, Emmett and Hippie! Yeah, these good news make me want to dance on my desk!!! Big big hugs and loving kisses to you! ... tosses huge pillows all around your desk. Dance away!!! Val, I'm so glad you are getting some good news! Hi, Kids!!!

Storm Clarence wrote: Your 'gamma' tweak suggestion was just as incorrect, was it not? Debugging a faulty application or hardware from a screenshot posted to a forum is much different than what this OP is requesting. I think you are smart enough to know the difference, but ignorant enough to be snarky. Good for you. I did not come out swinging in this thread, people like YOU are! Here's my diagnosis from Jo's thread... Reply to Jo Yardley - view message 3 weeks ago Jo Yardley wrote: But the graphics with a game work fine. Right. It's clearly not an inverter issue, as you were able to demonstrate the problem with a screen capture and I'll presume that your desktop and other applications look fine. Do the UI elements of your view look okay to you? If so, then the issue is likely in the viewer's rendering of the SL scene, not with Window's handling of the viewer application itself. As Arwen mentioned, it may be that your viewer is using a gamma (brightness/contrast) correction that's wrong for your new computer. While Windows will use your system gamma to display other applications and the UI elements of your viewer, it is possible that your viewer applies yet another gamma correction to scenes. Could it also be possible that your Windlight setting has been corrupted. You might try playing with that. Good luck, Jo. Jo later replied... "I found out how to turn the gamma down in firestorm, it improves a little, but I still think the lights somehow have too strong an effect on the surrounding textures." There was no certainty in my diagnosis. The certainty and retraction were all yours. And now you claim that my gamma suggestion was as incorrect as your inverter diagnosis? I've stated the facts. They disagree with you. Yes, Firestorm's gamma setting was only part of the problem, but it was a part. As for who came out swinging, your first response in this thread called the OP's question unfair, while describing a "nightmarish hell" that may await him if he didn't follow your recommendations. That seemed harsh to me, as did your calling Masami (or at least people like him) ignorant. And after all of that, you call me ignorant and snarky?

Storm Clarence wrote: Masami Kuramoto wrote: Storm Clarence wrote: The rest of what you wrote is garbage; typical n00b talk; if no one is going to teach me then how am I to learn type talk. I enjoy nothing more than to help, offer guidance, and work within an environment in which I am brutally comfortable, and have embraced since its inception. Yes, I am a pedant when it comes to installing, configuring, tweaking, and using/developing operating systems and writing software. There is a right way and a wrong way. It is called computer sciences for a reason. YMMV. Storm, let me put it this way: People like you are the reason why Linux has a bad reputation. Unfortunately that is not the case here. The SL viewer for Linux comes in the form of an unpack-and-run archive and requires a writable install location for automatic updates, which practically rules out everything but the home folder. If that bothers you, tell Linden Lab how to fix it. Do not tell the OP how to fix it, because that is not his job. The OP is a user, not a developer. He didn't ask for a lesson in computer science or an introduction to the ten commandments of Linux system administration. Masami, let me put it this way: people like you seem to display your ignorance so willingly it is no wonder SL has a bad reputation. (I did not know Linux had a bad reputation; since when-- today?) I don't need a lesson on how to create a writable directory structure within the Linux FS hierarchy--the OP needs this lesson. Perhaps so do you! The OP did not get a lesson in computer science today as you have offered absolutely nothing. I offered advice to the OP to learn basic Linux skills or he will suffer nightmares in the future. Ostensibly the same nightmares you are wrestling with regard to creating writable directories. Go figure. Before you run around calling other people ignorant, recall this... Re: Everything is VERY bright Reply to Jo Yardley (by Storm Clarence) 3 weeks ago Jo Yardley wrote: I just got a new laptop that can handle everything at ultra settings, very nice. But somehow everything is also VERY bright now, like I am wearing a atomic bomb strength facelight, and I am not. I even turned other peoples their facelights off. I've turned all the lights off I could find, but my picture still looks like below. Is there some setting I've got messed up or is there just another super bright light nearby I couldn't find? Also, just noticed my glasses appear orange in stead of metallic as they should be. Been tweaking my settings all day but not quite there i reckon. Hi Jo, I know you may not want to hear this, but if it is still under warranty I would bring back. Everything is telling me it is a screen inverter issue. No easy fix, like swapping out the graphics card. This is a board issue. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am *that* wrong. Jo posted a screen capture of her "too bright" display in the OP, proving that the brightness problem was something that could be uploaded to the web, and therefore not in the inverter. Yet you were so certain it was a "screen inverter issue".

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Oh, well that makes perfect sense. Thanks That was unintentional. You're welcome ;-)

I post to the feed, then browse to the snapshot (full size), right click and "Save As..."

5-24-2016 The remains of Amelia Earhart and an unidentified male are discovered locked in an embrace under a palm tree on an uncharted desert isle. A heart is found carved in the tree's trunk, enveloping the letters G and A. 5-24-2023 While backing up a server, Twitter technicians discover a series of tweets from Linden Lab that were apparently waylaid by a system glitch eleven years earlier. The tweets announce major new developments from the company's hard working development teams. Upon hearing of the undelivered Linden Lab tweets, ex-employees of the defunct company wax nostalgic about what could have been had residents of Second Life only known. 5-24-2034 Activists planning a march to protest EPA global warming regulations are thwarted when the hot-melt glue they used to attach signs to their vintage Hummers fails to solidify.

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.