Phil Deakins

Dillon Levenque wrote: I just now checked, and I got to my dashboard without problems. OS Windows XP, browser IE8. From what I've seen a lot of dashboard issues are browser related—most people seem to think IE is not so hot and Mozilla is the best—but you might try some of the other solutions recommended in the thread. There is nothing wrong with IE - nothing at all. If webpages don't work properly in IE, it is because the author hasn't written them properly. It is entirely up to the author to make sure that his/her webpages work properly in every popular browser. If they don't, it is the fault of the author. (Just padding out this necro-thread )

AnnMarie Otoole wrote: We all rely on the basic built in functions of SL. In my case the problem is no-entry doesn't work all the time but that is no reason for me to abandon SL. If something else failed, like hair falling off avatars, would you tell everyone to stop wearing hair? It is only by having a lot of people file complaints that action will be initiated. If I keep removing stranded vehicles I'm covering the problem up and nothing will be done. It has to get worse before Lindens will recognize it is a problem. Who suggested you abandon SL to fix the problem? All you need to do it stop using other people's land for your own amusement. That will fix the problem. YOU are the problem - not a bug. Even if your unwanted vehicles never left the roads they are still a problem for road users because their directions are completely unreliable. You are simply not a good enough programmer to make them worth putting out there.

Porky Gorky wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: Here in the UK only the 4 BBC channels are free of advertising. They are funded by the public - we pay an annual TV license fee. All the other channels must have advertisements to fund them. Our ads come every 15 to 20 minutes. There are more than 4 national BBC channels on air in the UK. As well as BBC 1,2,3 and 4 there is also BBC News 24, BBC Parliament, CBBC and my favourite Ceebies. Even with these extra channels the License fee is still a rip off. I spent about 15 years feeling very smug with myself because I thought I had got away without paying the license fee. Then I found out my wife had been paying it in secret every year!! Those too But you forgot BBC HD which is also a different channel. And about your wife and the TV license... Ouch!

Here in the UK only the 4 BBC channels are free of advertising. They are funded by the public - we pay an annual TV license fee. All the other channels must have advertisements to fund them. Our ads come every 15 to 20 minutes.

2007. Streuth! My excuse for not knowing is that, by that time, I had turned my back on that side of things, even though I was still auto-making money from it, and I still am. I was immersed in Second Life in 2007, and ever since. Doubleclick used to use methods to track people over the web. They could only track people to sites that had their stuff on them, of course, but it was tracking just the same. So some anti-virus programmes flagged pages with Doubleclick stuff in them. One of the Google founders, either Brin or Page, was well into data mining, so maybe Doubleclick still does it.

The pre-TiVo catchup is good because the programmes are stored on VM's servers but the TiVo's catchup is poor because the programmes are stored on, say, the BBC's servers. The main channels have gone over to solely internet delivery (iPlayer) for everything except live programmes. Even the BBC's red button function is via iPlayer now. The TiVo has its own dedicated 10M BB, which shoukd be fine, but the delivery to it is not. There are a lot of complaints about it. But the TiVo is so good that I have no need of catchup.

Google bought Doubleclick? I didn't know that.

I use a TiVo for my TV, which is brilliant. Before that I used a different HD TV recorder, and I still have it, but it's the TiVo that I use (it records 3 channels simultaneously). Before those, I never used to think about TV ads in a particularly negative way but now I really dislike watching live TV because I can't skip through them. Once in a while they are ok - make a cuppa or sandwich, or go to the loo - but that's all. Actually, there is one set of ads that I do like to see when a new one comes out - the meerkats. UK people will know what I mean. If you see anyone writing 'simples' (with an s at the end) instead of 'simple', it's from the meerkats ads. If you're interested to know what I'm talking about, go to www.comparethemeerkat.com and browse the site. ETA: Related to the thread topic, a few UK TiVo users are against some ads that have recently started to appear when using the TiVo. When you press Pause on some channels (live or recorded) a banner ad comes up. It's unobtrusive and most people find it acceptable, but a few don't. I'm happy for it to be there if it helps Virgin Media make a bit more money. VM is the UK TV service provider that leases out the TiVos. Other providers, such as Sky, don't have anything even close to it.

NeoBokrug Elytis wrote: You're right -- It doesn't affect me. I use Adblock plus, ScriptSafe, and Do Not Track Me chrome extensions. However I was making valid points, and hypothetical cases on why this is a bad idea as a whole. I'm allowed to have an opinion. If no one voices their concerns then the issue won't be acknowledged. It's not whining. LL has done a great job at shutting down all avenues of communication with them, so the only thing left to do is make the issue known and discuss it on forums. So stop whining about them. They are not your concern. Your points may be valid in your mind, but the ads are nothing to do with you, so stop whining about them. I am already VERY disappointed in the service that SL provides, and I pay through the nose for it. If you had read and digested anything else I've posted in this thread, you'd see that as an invested and paying consumer of SL my concern rests in SLs future. I am typically optimistic to a fault about the future of SL, but this whole thing makes me really uncomfortable. So leave. Nobody forces you to use SL If you don't like something, don't use it. Simples. You are a customer - nothing more. You are free to be concerned about SL's future but it's future is LL's business and not yours. If you consider the money you've piad into SL an investment, then you seriously need to reconsider your ideas. Investing in SL, as a user, if very foolish indeed. It may close tomorrow and then where would your investment be? The only sensible way to think of the money you paid in, is to think of it as paying for your pleasure - now! Not in the future. If the w1hole thing makes you too uncomfortable, leave. It really is that simple. The ads are adsense ads, go look at the page source code. And yes there have been recorded incidents of malware being shipped with Adsense. Do your homework. All it takes is for one ad to squeeze by your anti-virus. As it is, enough residents have problems with "hacked" accounts and the like. I can't get any ads today, so I can't check the source code. I do know (from the URLs) that the ads are sent by Doubleclick, which is an affiliate broker - not Google. I had noticed that 'google' was part of the URLs and didn't understand that, but now that I've read your links, it does seem that Google is also marketing AdSense through 3rd parties and, presumably, Doubleclick is one of them. I'd never heard of malware being delivered via AdSense before (and I've been in the AdSense business for many years) so that's new to me. Nevertheless, you have no need to be concerned about it because you can avoid it completely by getting off the web. If you stay on the web, knowing what you know, you choose to take the risk. It's entirely your choice. So make your choice and stop whining about what website owners put on their websites. If you don't like websites with ads, get off the web. The SL site is nothing to do with you. You don't own it, you don't have a stake in it, and you don't get a say about it.

Dilbert Dilweg wrote: Pretty much why I dislike Television. Pay for cable channels and then get hit with redundant ads every 10 minutes. I dont watch Television anymore lol Only to catch up on news and weather. lol Every 10 minutes? You must be in the U.S. I've heard that it's bad over there. You need a hard drive TV recorder so that you can skip through the ads in seconds. I don't watch much live TV these days - just recorded TV.

They aren't AdSense ads

Why don't you stop whining about something that doesn't affect you and is no concern of yours? If you imagine that affiliate ads might be a security risk to you, stop using the web. Affiliate ads are on almost every website and have been for many years, and, believe it or not, they haven't managed to get a reputation as a security threat.

Zaphod Kotobide wrote: AnnMarie Otoole wrote: I have been spending an hour a day visiting trouble spots and removing stranded vehicles like this but NO MORE. Then stop putting your crappy vehicles out on the roads. Regardless of what problems may exist on the simulators, those are your objects, and they are 100% entirely YOUR responsibility, NOBODY else's. I won't be filing any trouble tickets, but I will continue to file abuse reports on every single vehicle I find. Seconded.

valerie Inshan wrote: Dang Phil, the Kudos button is never here when you need it. But Kudos anyway! :smileyhappy: Give me a hug instead, Valerie

Coby Foden wrote: It just popped into my mind, will the next step be that they start flashing ads on the viewer while we're logged in? *Your view to the world will be blocked for the duration of these commercial infos. Please stay tuned in.* Or they might put an army of Linden ad bots walking about the grid carrying ad signs. :smileytongue: If that happens our only hope is that somebody develops ad blocker for the viewer and automatic ad bot derenderer too. :smileywink: If they are thinking of doing anything like that, I'll volunteer my bots for it - for a fee, of course.

Hellespont Hoorenbeek wrote: Say that im overreacting, say that im wrong or say what ever you whant i RESPECT that it is simply your opinion. But i dont have to follow the Linden Fan boys and say: "everything LL is doing is the best" Those ads are a EYESORCE ON MY PERSONAL ACCOUNT INFO!! that is all im pointing out. I dont whant ads on my personal account info when logged in, When i logg in i am taking care of sim tiers taking care of my personal things, I dont whant to get distracted by weird ads from The S*ms and S*m C*ty or what so ever i play Second Life, And if LL things its a good thing to do ads then leave that to non logged-in areas! What you want doesn't matter. What any individual wants doesn't matter. The ads are not intrusive for anyone, including you. You have a choice not to see them, so take it and stop whining.

Your "HUNDREDS of dollars into Second Life" didn't go to Linden Lab. It went to other users. So it's not a reason for LL to give you any more than minimal support.

Hellespont Hoorenbeek wrote: [...] this is bad business specially for paying residents and long term reisdents of Second Life what will happen next we all know what LL did to our viewer it looks like they are screwing it up even more on theire website with this commercial crap. Im am worried about where this will lead to. Just my opinion but who seems care? The ads are not intrusive and they earn a bit of money for site owner (LL). Therefore, there is nothing wrong with them at all. Nothing.

This is a general reply, and not specifically to you, Hellespont. When I first read about the ads, I couldn't get them and I thought that they may be geo-targetted. But today I got them. The screenshots i saw of them showed that they were so badly placed that people wondered if some hacking was going on. I suggested that it was LL trying to find the right spot in the HTML to place the ad code. I think my suggestion was right, because both top and side ads are now positioned very well. They are affiliate ads, and LL gets money for either every time one is clicked on or every time a sale results from a click on one. It's an extremely standard way of earning money on the web and nobody can find genuine fault with LL seeking to earn a little extra money. The ads are not intrusive (they don't get in the way of anything) and they don't look ugly. There is nothing wrong with them. And now some imagination: Suppose LL decided to plug SL on websites all over the world. And suppose LL decided that some of the cost of it could be recouped by plugging other websites on their own. And suppose LL had decided to ask the users if they wanted them to advertise LL all over the web and recover some of the cost through affiliate ads on the SL site. What would the users have answered? I am sure the general answer would have been, "Go ahead - and do it quickly". Back to non-imagination: I see nothing wrojg with the ads. Does anyone actually find fault with them? If so, why? (Note: don't answer that question if you are person who doesn't want to be advertised to on principle. I have no time for that kind of self-centred attitude.)

Porky Gorky wrote: Why don't you use shadows Phil. Afraid of the dark? Shadows can only be turned on if the graphics level as high enough - halfway between Mid and High. I've recently gone down from 100Mb BB to 30Mb and, at 30Mb, with the lowest graphics level that can use shadows, movement becomes slightly less smooth with shadows on. Besides, I don't move around much in SL so there's no point in having shadows on for me.

Tonya Souther wrote: Peggy and Teagan, you do know that there are major features under development for the LL viewer that are being written by TPV developers, don't you? That may be true, but it's not a problem at all. LL would only include uncompiled third party code, so they can see what it does. The nasty code that the guy inserted into Emerald was compiled so none of the Emerald team could readily see what it did.

BeaNine wrote: I'm sorry but I'm new here and to SL but I've been using the Friestorm Viewer, what exactly was the issue with Emerald that sours people from wanting to allow Firestorm on their computer? What happened was that at least one person of those who produced the Emerald viewer, included code that caused the viewer to use a competitor's website during the login process. The code itself was compiled so that the other Emerald people couldn't see what it was doing. So every time someone logged into SL with Emerald, their computer would also go to the competitor's site. It was a tactic against the competitior. LL described it as a 'distrubuted denial of service' (DDoS) attack against the competitor's site that all Emerald users were unwittingly a part of. It wasn't that, of course, because a DoS attack requires a massive number of computers simultaneously making requests of a site, and logins to SL don't produce that. But all Emerald users were unwittingly a part of doing something against the competitor's site. The Emerald team had agreed that nothing would be hidden from the rest of the team so, when the hidden code was found, the person who did it was told to stop doing it, and he did. Later he inserted the code again behind the backs of the others. It was spotted by one of the team and he blew the whistle. Emerald was banned from being used with SL. The guy who inserted the malicious code was one of the main people in the team - I think he was the main one. That team was not allowed to have a viewer that connected to SL unless that person was not a part of it. Then they gave assurances that he was nothing to do with the new Phoenix viewer, which was Emerald without the mailcious code, and it was allowed to be used. The thing is, the unscrupulous person was friends with some of the main Emerald people so he may have become part of it again. We only have the word of the Phoenix/Firestorm team that he hasn't been allowed back in. Also, that person had previously done anti-SL things in the past, and been banned for them. Somebody can correct me if my memory is awry but I believe he also produced a copybotting viewer. His switch from the dark side to doing something good (producing the Emerald viewer) was claimed by him to be turning his back on doing bad. Nobody should be running programmes on their computers that an unscrupulous person like that has anything to do with. On the plus side, the person who blew the whistle rejoined the Phoenix team after a while, because it was clean, so, if he's still part of it, he can be seen as a sort of watchdog.

I watched over half of it. I enjoyed seeing the guy who made a lot of money by selling someone else's work, after stealing the work, and then lost it all in lawyers costs by suing LL and failing to win. It was nice to put a face on that person.

Porky Gorky wrote: We've not had a survey for a while and I know you all luuuuurve a good survey. Today I want to know what you think about shadows. Answer the following questions please, or feel free to moan about surveys. Either is good with me. 1. Do you have shadows turned on in your viewer? No. If so what do you think of the shadows that your viewer displays in SL? 2. If you were to buy a tree or chair today, would you want or expect a ground shadow texture (on a prim/mesh) to be included? 3. What is your opinion about textured shadowing inside buildings? For example should the shadows from the window frames be built into the floor texture or do you think the viewer should be rendering all shadows nowadays? 4 Any other opinions or issues you have with shadowing on textures or shadows rendered by your viewer?

Peggy Paperdoll wrote: Emerald was also the most popular viewer in it's hayday and look what happened to that viewer. It's basically the same people.......think about it. But it was only the odd Emerald person who was bad, not all of them.