Phil Deakins

Trinity Yazimoto wrote: raaaaaa, im stuck for tomorrow so ! i dont have any tweed skirts.... and i hate tops buttoned to the top, it seems to me someone is strangling me... but im fine for the shoes.. bec of ankle problems i now can only wear flat ankle boots. So well... ill go naked and just wearing my ankle boots so...(btw i have both colors : brown and black, so im totally fine for this...). I guess the public in my library tom will appreciate your help then...:smileywink: (well if someone ask, ill, of course, say its because of you then) ps : you seem to not go too much in library those days, no ? ive never seen any librarian in my surrounding dressed with a tweed dress btw... You're right - It's been a few years since I was in a library. But I did say "preferably tweed". I didn't say that tweed is mandatory.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: A female librarian should wear a skirt that's well below the knee and preferably tweed, and a blouse that's buttoned either to the top or to one button down from the top. She must never wear high heels. Flat, or nearly flat shoes are a must, of course, and preferably brown or black. I hope that helps, Trinity You forgot the glasses, they must be a bit pointy... and the librarian strap that dangles from them when worn and that they dangle from when not. It's all about the glasses, Phil. Oh, and the eyes! There is the "peer over" which is necessary for people who cough more than once, and the "glare at" for people who talk above a whisper. It's all about the glasses and the eyes. And maybe a pearl necklace if she's a hottie. Yeah, it's all about the glasses, and the eyes, and the pearl necklace. ... goes off to fan herself. Oh yes. I forgot about those bits. Silly me.

A female librarian should wear a skirt that's well below the knee and preferably tweed, and a blouse that's buttoned either to the top or to one button down from the top. She must never wear high heels. Flat, or nearly flat shoes are a must, of course, and preferably brown or black. I hope that helps, Trinity

Qie Niangao wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Qie Niangao wrote: Contextual ads are brilliant for earning money from Except for the advertiser. No finer snake oil has ever been sold. On the contrary. If advertisers can place their ads on relevant webpages, then the person viewing the page is more likely to be interested in the ads. It's a win all round. You know, there's blessed little data to support that. It is the accepted truth, it sounds ever so reasonable, and it forms the very basis of 90% of Google's entire vast revenue stream (and many other business models), but the whole thing is based on so little empirical evidence that it's very possible it could all come crashing down one day. This doesn't stop me from owning Google stock, mind, but it's based more on the Greater Fool theory than on any real confidence in the value of targeted advertising on the web. It's based on very sound evidence, which is that, if I wanted to place my ad for, say, a bed and breakfast establishment, on a webpage, I'd rather place it on a webpage where people are looking for things like holidays, vacations, accommodation, b&b, guesthouses, etc. than on one that's about the price of gold or online gambling. Very sound evidence indeed You may be right that there is little data to support what I said, but you don't know. There may be very little generally known data but that doesn't mean that companies haven't done extensive testing. AND... I know of no data to support your 'snake oil' idea

Charli Infinity wrote: Female avatars: tanned skin, tacky revealing clothes (always with cleavage), dark eye makeup male avatars: muscular six pack, also very tan and sometimes greasy, and shirt unbuttoned too low. I quoted your descriptions of "tacky" from your first post, and I'm curious. What is it about those 'attributes' that you find tacky? Females: A tanned skin doesn't imply tacky to me, and neither does showing some cleavage. Dark eye makeup doesn't either. They are all absolutely common, so what makes them tacky in your eyes? Males: A muscular tummy is tacky? A sun tan is tacky? A sweaty body is tacky? And an unbuttoned shirt is tacky? Explain please. From what you've written, a bikini clad girl on a beach is tacky. And a guy who works out and spends time in the sun is tacky. I can't believe that you mean both of those things so what exactly do you mean by "tacky"?

Qie Niangao wrote: Contextual ads are brilliant for earning money from Except for the advertiser. No finer snake oil has ever been sold. On the contrary. If advertisers can place their ads on relevant webpages, then the person viewing the page is more likely to be interested in the ads. It's a win all round.

Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Leia36 wrote: Oh the irony :smileylol: They must have picked up on the tan skin discussion! There was mention of skin tan near the top of that page and there may have been more mentions of it lower down. The ad system that provides the ads provides contextual ads, so it's expected that the ads are 'relevant' to the page they are on. Contextual ads are brilliant for earning money from

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Phil, I think I know the version by Nina and Frederik, but can't find it online. :-( Steuth! I wouldn't have thought that all those people recorded that song. I only knew it by Nina and Frederick. It was popular by them back then. I think I said it was in the 50s but, on reflection, I now think it was the early 60s. I've just had a look at the Wikipedia page about them and Little Boxes isn't mentioned. I'm sure it was them though. The only one in your list that it could have been at that time is Pete Seeger, who I think was also around then. Little antique grey cells, that have been lying dormant for decades, are beginning to open their blurry eyes and I'm now thinking that Nina and Fred's Little Boxes was on an EP and probably not released as a single. I'm getting a vague memory of the EP's cover. So I'm now persuading myself that Pete Seeger probably did the main (original) version at that time, and that Nina and Fred did it on an EP (that I now think I remember) and, no doubt, on an LP as well. I'll add that I think that 'Listen To The Ocean' and 'Sucu Sucu' were on the same EP. I saw those songs listed in the Wikipedia page and I do remember them well enough, although, unlike 'Little Boxes', I can't sing the tunes in my head. ETA: 16's post, following yours, suggests that it may have been released as a single, but I feel sure now that my memory of it is on an EP. It's a long time ago and when the little grey cells lay dormant for so long, they can become corrupted

It's worth doing it again here

I'll explain then.... There is a game called cricket. You probably know that. Like baseball, one side in is the field and bowls balls at the batsman - similar to a pitcher throwing balls in baseball. Many years ago England were playing the West Indies and the radio commentator said what may well be the funniest thing ever in a radio commentary. It wasn't intended to be funny at all - it was completely unintentional, which is why it was so funny. Getting the listeners up to date with what was going on on the field, he said... "The bowler's Holding, the batsman's Willey." The bowler was called Michael Holding and the batsman was called Peter Willey. It was mentioned in another thread and 16 combined the two names in reference to that.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Who is that? You must have skipped that thread

It's not surprising since the Crickets must be quite old by now. They were having hit singles back in the 50s with Buddy Holly.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Lit tle Boxes - Malvina Reynolds Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes made of ticky tacky, Little boxes on the hillside, Little boxes all the same. There's a green one and a pink one And a blue one and a yellow one, And they're all made out of ticky tacky And they all look just the same. And the people in the houses All went to the university, Where they were put in boxes And they came out all the same, And there's doctors and lawyers, And business executives, And they're all made out of ticky tacky And they all look just the same. And they all play on the golf course And drink their martinis dry, And they all have pretty children And the children go to school, And the children go to summer camp And then to the university, Where they are put in boxes And they come out all the same. And the boys go into business And marry and raise a family In boxes made of ticky tacky And they all look just the same. There's a green one and a pink one And a blue one and a yellow one, And they're all made out of ticky tacky And they all look just the same. Recorded by Nina and Frederik in the 60s:)

Charli Infinity wrote: I haven't heard any good news about SL in a while. Can you tell me some? this is a real question. I want to know some more positive things that are happening to SL. Is it as dead as what I've heard? I don't know any good news about SL. I don't know any bad news about it either. Virtual sex isn't news. The fact that it happens in SL isn't news either. The point is that, at any given time, there are tens of thousands of people logged into SL, and almost all of them are doing perfectly ordinary things that aren't newsworthy. You ought to go into SL and see for yourself what people do. If you rely only on stuff that people like to gossip about, you'll come to an extremely skewed conclusion - which is exactly what you've done.

Ok, so you managed to point to one source where SL has a reputation for virtual sex. At least a few posts between 2 or 3 people, anyway. I guess that means the whole world thinks of SL as a place that's all about virtual sex Actually, I think SL does have a bit of a reputation for that, but only a bit of one. What you are forgetting, and there's no excuse for forgetting it, is that negative news is far more popular than positive news. It's the 'bad' stuff that gets the headlines and gets talked about far more than 'good' stuff. SL does contain what some people think of as 'bad' stuff, but it mostly contains what everyone thinks of as 'good' stuff. Unfortunately, it's usually the bad stuff in life that gets talked about, and discussions about SL are no different.

Ceka Cianci wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Qie Niangao wrote: This is the kind of result one would get with Google if Page Rank were never invented. That's PageRank - all one word It was named after the guy who came up with it - Larry Page - one of the 2 founders of the Google engine. so it's larry page rank LOL look out here comes larry page..he's rank!! LOL Yep. People have often assumed that the 'page' in PageRank means ranking pages but, although PageRank does that, the 'page' bit is because Larry Page invented it. It also suits the ranking of pages.

Qie Niangao wrote: This is the kind of result one would get with Google if Page Rank were never invented. That's PageRank - all one word It was named after the guy who came up with it - Larry Page - one of the 2 founders of the Google engine.

Coby Foden wrote: Six years ago I saw an article about Second Life in a newspaper. It sounded amazing - a 3D virtual world. Wow! So I joined out of curiosity to see personally what this thing was all about. I was hooked at once. And it appears I still am. :matte-motes-big-grin: You were hooked? And you still are? So much for my planned fishing expedition to hook you for myself

Write it all in a notecard and send it to Rod Humble - the CEO. Tell him that you are paying LL for the land but you are not getting full use of it because the neighbour prevents it. Tell him that you ARed many times, etc. but the LL staff do nothing about it. Ask him to tell you whether or not LL wants you as a paying customer because if they do, you need to be able to have what you are paying for, and you're not getting it. Stuff like that.

Whatever your reasons for asking the question, I'll post the second normal answer to it I was having an email chat with a family member, who said that she uses Second Life a lot. I asked what it is and she described it. In the late 80s and early 90s I'd been hooked by a scrolling text MUG and SL sounded right up my street, so I registered. That was in 2006 and I've been in SL, without any breaks, ever since.

Perrie Juran wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: I didn't know that. I don't follow such things. That only thing that I heard was that LL disallowed TPVs from providing the user with any information that the LL viewer doesn't give them. I didn't know that LL had stopped sending that information to the viewer. So now I'm wondering if a programme can 'query' an avatar and get client-specific responses. Even if it could, it could still only make a reasoned deduction that an avatar is a bot. It couldn't know that it's one. I know this happens when you use Firestorm Report Support Group. When you post in group it states which version of FS you are using. My memory is furry right now, but I think the first time I posted in the group I was queried by a pop up if it was OK to send that info. People posting using other viewers would not show any info. So the in-range avatar's client information is still sent to the user. If that's the case, then it's only possible for a bot detector to make an 'educated' guess as to whether or not an avatar is a bot. It would be right many times but it can't be right with any certainty because of reasons mentioned earlier. There are bot programmes on sale and buyers will no doubt just use them as is, so, with those, a bot detector could be right pretty much all of the time. But there are also a lot of bots using other clients. For instance, I used to run dozens of bots simultaneously, all using my own client.

You're quite a card, aren't you? When you have the programming abilities that I have (i.e. that which you call 'smart'), come back and we'll discuss how smart you are You've already had one of your posts in this thread deleted. You need to learn how to discuss things rationally instead of pretending that you're smarter than everyone else, and insulting anyone who you perceive as thinking otherwise.

If a JIRA falls in the forest, and there is no-one there to see it, does it make a difference? It's the same as 'if a tree falls in a forest, and there's no-one there to hear it, does it make a sound?' In both cases, the answer is no. In the case of the falling tree, sound only occurs in the ear - when parts of the ear are activated by waves of air. Before the activation, there are only waves of air, and they are silent. Of course, any ears will covert the waves to sound. They don't need to be human ears. In the case of the falling JIRA, someone looking at it is needed before it can make a difference. If nobody looks at it, it cannot make a difference.

I didn't know that. I don't follow such things. That only thing that I heard was that LL disallowed TPVs from providing the user with any information that the LL viewer doesn't give them. I didn't know that LL had stopped sending that information to the viewer. So now I'm wondering if a programme can 'query' an avatar and get client-specific responses. Even if it could, it could still only make a reasoned deduction that an avatar is a bot. It couldn't know that it's one.

OpenMV comes with a fully working bot programme, called "Test Client". That programme is configured to tell the server what it is, although the information can be changed. I'd put money on that almost all bots use the Test Client but modified to suit a purpose. It's been quite a while since I modified the Test Client for my bots but, if my memory is correct, the client is expected to send some information about itself when logging in (what client it is), along with the user name and password. That client information about an in-range avatar is passed to the user's client, which is why viewers like Emerald at al were able to display it. You are right, of course, that a client could monitor various things about an in-range avatar and make a reasoned deduction about its client, but I seriously doubt that any bot-spotter goes to those lengths. I'd put more money on that they merely go by the in-range avatar's client data, which is passed from the server, and which is why I've said that the bot-spotter mentioned in this thread can't detect bots and can only have a go at detecting them. Of course, if a bot is logged in with the Test Client, and the user or creator of the finished test Client hasn't changed the client data that's sent to the server when logging in, or has changed it to a name that is known as a bot programme, then a bot-spotter can easily see that the in-range avatar is likely to be a bot. But, even then, it's not necessarily a bot because the Test Client programme can be manned and used by someone at the keyboard - just like a viewer is manned and used by someone at the keyboard. For instance, I had 4 castle character bots that moved around the castle and sim. They weren't programmed to do anything other than log in to particular locations. Once logged in, they moved and did things on instructions from me personally. I didn't manually command them, of course, but I could have been at the keyboard doing it. Instead they received instructions from rezzed objects that I owned, which the programme treats as being me. Because of their client data that they passed to the server on login, a bot-spotter would have decided that they were bots even if I'd been at the keyboard commanding them by hand. In a nutshell, a bot-spotter programme can make a reasoned deduction that an avatar is a bot but it can't know that it's a bot.