Derek Torvalar

Scylla Rhiadra wrote: Derek, I am too weary and too saddened by my memories of that night to get into this with you. Believe it or not, I'm actually not interested into turning this into a "teaching moment." I myself simply want to remember 14 young women who were brutally murdered. I will do so tomorrow, at the SL vigil, and tomorrow night at the RL one. You are most welcome not to attend either vigil, as their deaths clearly hold no meaning for you. We can have this discussion another day perhaps. But not now. That is awfully presumptuous of you isn't it? Just becaue I do not subscribe to the populist view of events doesn't mean that I am insensitive to what occurred. But that is typical isn't it in todays world, if you do not espouse the 'party line' you obviously aren't capable of comprehending or being 'empathetic' (just ask Drax) and must therefore be unfeeling and hateful, and not allowed to express your opinion for fear of shattering everone's illusions and ruining their contagion. If you care not to engage in a discussion that is fine. Another time then. Nice to see you again btw. Hope you are around more as Christmas break approaches.

Scylla Rhiadra wrote: On the evening of 6th December, 1989, a gunman entered Montreal's École Polytechnique, and murdered 14 female students and staff, wounding 14 others, all but four of them women. These women died because they had dared to study in a field -- engineering -- traditionally reserved for men. They died because their murderer, as he himself expressed it, hated "feminists." This Saturday, 6 December, 2014, at 9am SLT, you are invited to a brief vigil to commemorate, honour, and, above all, remember these young women and what they represented. Please join with us in celebrating their tragically shortened lives, and in vowing to continue to strive for equality for all. The vigil will be held, as noted above, at noon SLT, at the FIMS Virtual Collaboratorium. For more information about the Montreal Massacre, you can visit this site which features a documentary video: http://www.cbc.ca/montreal/features/remember-14/ Thank you. I hope to see you there. Now Scylla, have you forgotten that the members of the victim's families had requested that the memory of their loved ones be left in peace and not be used as a political foil? That was more than 5 years ago. Perhaps you should reconsider your characterization of the event perpetrated by a lone lunatic who was not necessarily interested in only singling out 'feminists' or women, as pointed out by Barb Kay here; "Most people assume Lepine's rage was entirely focused on women. In fact, the perpetually troubled misfit entertained serial and disparate revenge fantasies. An earlier ambition, noted in his suicide note as one of several "projects," was to join the Armed Forces as an officer cadet, gain access to the arsenal and embark on a shooting rampage. In that case, those murdered would have been males, and Marc Lepine, along with his victims -- their names inscribed on a commemorative plaque in the armory perhaps -- would by now have faded from our national memory. Something for Canadian "equality" buffs to ponder at the vigil tonight." http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=75e56e58-5238-4d65-82ff-e87f841303e3 I do believe I had to remind of you of this the last time to you tried to whip the LWL into a frenzied narcissistic sympathy.

Sonja Smedley wrote: looool no....USA will not win against Russia, my opinion but we will all see soon enough... I am not afraid, cause mankind anyway extinguish itself! God, I hope so! The sooner the better. The Earth would be a beautiful place if it were not for the humans.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/09/01/is_vladimir_putin_covering_up_the_deaths_of_russian_soldiers_in_ukraine http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/09/08/346735504/some-in-russia-admit-their-troops-volunteer-in-ukraine I would venture to guess that most Russians are completely unaware they are actually involved in any conflict whatsoever. And those that are most likely spew the same jingoist nonsense supplied by Russian controlled media outlets as you are doing here. I wonder if Ebbe has the balls to suspend service to SLer's in Russia? Probably not, as you have said, money rules no matter the human toll, which can always be 'spun' to your advantage, as Putin is doing now.

Sonja Smedley wrote: Guess you are a media brainwashed sheep lol .... and from USA where the main puppets operate. Come now Sonja, you really shouldn't make characterizations or be so presumptuous. I am not from the USA. And I am certainly not given to being manipulated by propagandists or the media. It is MY ideas that inform THEM! Russia is a major arms supplier to many countries in the world, making money off the blood of children murdered in the name of politics or religion depending on the theatre of war you are speaking about. So please do not try to foist your rainbows and unicorns about Putin off on me, ok. I would hate to have to give you a lesson on recent Russian history as regards to the 70-80 millions of people who have perished at the hands of its various leaders over the last 100 years. Mainly because I hate working for free. Это, как говорится, это всегда хорошо изучать новые языки, is't его.

Ya, ready to hang the butcher from his own meathook.

https://twitter.com/CaitlinTobias/status/510240524754628608 Buh Bye B

Is it that time of year when the loons begin falling from the sky? And if so, why do they always land here?

I am trying to import a jacket texture created in Gimp for a mesh Jackt. When I export it and the bring it into SL and apply the texture to the jacket it shows up completely diffuse. Of course when I scale it in the Edit box the shadows are all askew. But I have determined that scaling to 6 restores the crispness of the weave of the fabric. Can I adjust the resolution via scaling in Gimp to account for this? By increasing resolution of the texture (prior to layering and shadow maps application) by 6 fold do the trick or is there a different formula involved in doing this? The original texture is 1024x1024. If I do what I am thinking in Gimp the texture meory goes from 3 MB up to about 9 I believe. Is that too high? Any help appreciated. Thank you.

The real question here is, why has no one directed this imbecile to the 'Answers' Forum. Every thread he has started should have been moved to that section. Look at the top of the page and you will see 4 tabs, one of them named 'Answers', start asking your questions in there and stop wasting bandwidth in here.

Lame Syo. You are in over your head and a long way from shore. (Notice I didn't refer to you as Emerald. See if you can guess why.)

You wouldn't McMasters. You are that arrogant. You malign and make a derogatory, and condescending remark concerning Pam's character and YOU don't see that an apology is necessary? Hardly one that should be making judgements on the comportment of others. But then you said it yourself, you are a fool. Personally, I think you are being too easy on yourself as I and others are aware of your duplicitous and back stabbing tendencies.

Now why don't you apologise to Pam, McMasters.

Google 'online therapy'. Be careful. http://www.online-therapy.com/ http://www.therapyonline.ca/

Nicely done Cait!!

Pamela Galli wrote: What is depressing is thinking of all the things that could give Premium real value -- and they come up with this. Yes, like increasing sqm to 4096 instead of the paltry 512m.

"If all users move rather quickly from SL to our next gen then I assume things went very well. If few are, then I think we'd have more work to do and SL will keep on tickin until only the new one makes sense to operate..." Ebbe Linden ‎06-23-2014 09:15 PM https://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Linden-Lab-is-building-a-NEW-virtual-world/td-p/2753476/page/20 Everything said after this point on the 23rd has been spin. While there may be no "immediate plans", the bottom line is that Ebbe has said that at some point the old one will go. Question answered.

Perrie Juran wrote: Mony Lindman wrote: The discussion with Oz and Peter Linden has been posted here: http://www.slartist.com/inworld-special-the-future-of-second-life_e24669d7f.html I wish i could comment on what they said but since they said nothing except "keep calm and carry on".. i cant. I will therefore comment on an apparently minor aspect but that says a lot more than words: their appearance So you have there 2 directors , LL Technical Director and LL Global Communications Director, both coming in front of the camera to represent the leadership of LL and to make important statements in a very important moment, knowing that their avatars will be seen by a lot of SL users. Aaaand.. they both wear noob skins and clothes , probably from the library and the Communication Director of LL .. has no shoes.. Did i say i will comment on this ? Well.. in fact i should say only .. no comment. But just to make sure my "no comment" is understood , I will explain.. If these LL officials don't even spend as much time in SL as it is needed to create a "not noob" avatar, how will they ever be able to understand whats going on here ? And if these LL officials dont even feel the NEED of having an at least normal look when they move in the virtual world that they lead.. how can we ever hope that they will ever love this world the way we do.. I know .. they are in fact "coders" and we all know that this kind of people look like noobs or dont care how they look even in RL (see Bill Gates or Zukerberg) but what we have here are 2 DIRECTORS of a VIRTUAL WORLD in which everybody can and does look a lot better than in RL. And if these 2 directors dont have the artistic skills to make a normal avatar , at least , out of respect for their users , they could have bought a ready made one.. even the (usual for scripters) mouse or dog or fox .. and even the same for both if they are so bad paid that they cant afford a different one for each ... but to come in front of the camera in just socks without shoes .. as a Director of Communications.. really no comment .. I listened to the first few minutes and really need to go back and finish it. But it made me so ill I had to stop. Is Jessica that naive? In no way shape or form does Peter put his professional reputation on the chopping block by answering that question, "Are there plans to shut SL down?" What a moot point. There may be no plans to shut it down to today but if tomorrow the Board decided to shut SL down he can stand there with complete integrity, announce it, and if anything it enhances his corporate reputation and value because said what the Board told him to. What a bunch of unadulterated mooing. I appreciate that she is trying to bring some calm to people but we are not that dumb. Jessica, we aren't all children out here. Damn right Perrie! They didn't ask my question about what Ebbe said on page 20 of this thread either. But at the after talk Jessica had to admit that it might be possible they close it regardless if it were making a profit, understanding that it is about cost benefit analysis and profit margin. Don't believe the 'spin'.

Medhue Simoni wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: madjim wrote: Hey, you just reinvented Microsoft's Bob! And that went well, didn't it...? Father "Ebbe would probably go for that - again" Jim Even if 'fleshed out' this one needs to be flushed out. Notice how the negative people do not give any other ideas. I find this kind of strange. So, you think you have thought deeply about my proposal, yet this didn't lead to your own ideas. More likely, is that you aren't thinking deeply about it at all, and just want to put other people's idea down. Notice also, that no real arguments, as to why my idea will not work, has been given. Why? Why would I do that Medhue? What's in it for me? Some brain exercising.....maybe, or a better virtual world? Some mental tennis? You are going to have to do a lot better than that Medhue. lol And I am not talking about some paltry incentive programme instituted by the Lab offering 10K L$ to help them improve their product or clean up their buggy software. Or some sponsorship like that given to that ass licker Drax. I do not aspire to be one of Ebbe's b*tch bois. You may start at $500 USD per hour with a 25K retainer. Alternatively, a three month contract at 250K.

Ebbe sez "Yes, we are thinking that there will be free accounts but that's a while out as Beta next year may not be completely open. " http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Forums-Feedback/Chat-with-us-masters-Lindens/m-p/2762604/highlight/false#M4343

Medhue Simoni wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: madjim wrote: Hey, you just reinvented Microsoft's Bob! And that went well, didn't it...? Father "Ebbe would probably go for that - again" Jim Even if 'fleshed out' this one needs to be flushed out. Notice how the negative people do not give any other ideas. I find this kind of strange. So, you think you have thought deeply about my proposal, yet this didn't lead to your own ideas. More likely, is that you aren't thinking deeply about it at all, and just want to put other people's idea down. Notice also, that no real arguments, as to why my idea will not work, has been given. Why? Why would I do that Medhue? What's in it for me?

madjim wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: The Drax files show got me thinking about user retention. I've thought about this before, and mentioned it, but I wasn't sure how feasable it would be. With a new SL in the works, what is truly possible is far more wide open. That said, it might be good to talk about this now, as it might be something that needs to be designed into this new SL. I'll give my "big" idea, but I also hope others might come up with their own versions, or totally different ideas on how to retain more users. Please post your ideas, even if they are not totally flushed out, as this is the perfect place to flush it out. Ok, so this is my "big" idea. It's obvious that SL is complex. It's also obvious that user's need to have some kind of guidance and instructions. The question is, how do you do this in an engaging and fun way? How can we get the average person to connect with this world early on, so that they eventually see parts of SL that we all love? How can we get them to emotionally connect with SL? Do we know of any highly successful businesses that took off in SL, and gave users a solid emotional connection? Well, we do, and this is the breedables and pets in SL. This is where the light bulb clicked on for me, when I thought about the retention problem. In RL, everyone loves their pets. Besides pictures of kids, pets are probably the second most posted images on Facebook. In any good MMO, you get pets that do all kinds of things, including riding them. So, my idea is for LL to give users in this new SL a LINDEN PET. This pet will give them all the information they need to get around in the new SL. It would also follow them everywhere they went, being right there to help, when needed. It could have some functions for playing around, and basic tricks, but their main purpose would be to help the owner. These pets would be fully functioning NPCs, with their own skeletons and all. Like I said, they would also follow them everywhere, until told not to. This means that LL would have to design that into the new SL, NPCs being able to teleport with you. This would also be a huge boom for the pet and breedable communities, plus give them functionalities that would improve all pets, like being able to ride them. I would also suggest that every single Linden pet be unique in some way, or seemingly. LL could also allow users to take the code for the Linden Pets, and make their own. Like maybe, as a merchant, I take that code and change it to give information about my store. My pet could stay online in my store, while I'm away, and give information to customers that need it. So, now, my pet is actually working for me and earning his own keep, lol. To me, a Pet is exactly the solution to retention. Who can't resist a cute little fuzzy animal? Hey, you just reinvented Microsoft's Bob! And that went well, didn't it...? Father "Ebbe would probably go for that - again" Jim Even if 'fleshed out' this one needs to be flushed out.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: LaskyaClaren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: I presume Facebook and Google are doing PHd and cringe worthy research internally, 24/7. I wonder how much the academics were bringing to the table. Just because you've not seen this degree of social engineering before doesn't mean it hasn't been happening. Regarding your ETA: The privatization of research has been happening for a long time. Once the world went online and data could be gathered remotely, the corporate world leaped well ahead of the academic world in research capability. There are those who want the government to keep it's fingers out of our stuff, and given the stereotype of government ineptitude, you can't brush off their argument. But there are times I'm not sure I want things in the hands of the efficient and focused. ;-). Even the Editor of Facebook's Mood Study Thought It Was Creepy Indeed, I'm sure this kind of thing isn't new. But that just makes it all the more alarming. What makes the corporate involvement in this particularly sinister is that the Facebook ToS was taken, for all intents and purposes, to supercede the normal research ethics requirements. In other words, where research ethics would normally require informed consent, that was deemed unnecessary because the FB terms of service don't require it. So, corporate "morality" replaces academic ethics. That's just plain wrong. I'd say this was more a case of academic involvement in something corporations have been doing forever. Microsoft employs game psychologists to help tune Windows and Office to ping our pleasure centers to encourage increased use of their products, not increase our desire or ability to get work done. I think that's pretty creepy. What might be making these things seem so sinister is the involvement of computer intelligence and the distancing of human involvement. When persuasion and deception were the handiwork of nefarious individuals, we could always tell ourselves that good people outnumbered bad, and there were only so many places to hide. But when nefarious algorithms can propagate like invisible gremlins? Research was once part of the product/service development workflow. Now, it's the product/service. Speaking of tripe. Christ! ROFL

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Ebbe said "SL will be here for years to come." "we have no plans to shut down SL." "And they will continue to work in SL, which, again, we have no plans to close down." Where do you get "until it becomes unprofitable" from? LL makes over million USD a month on tier alone. NOW. Even if half the users left that number wouldn't change. Land barons would have to start leaving. and they aren't losing any money. "If all users move rather quickly from SL to our next gen then I assume things went very well. If few are, then I think we'd have more work to do and SL will keep on tickin until only the new one makes sense to operate..." http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Linden-Lab-is-building-a-NEW-virtual-world/td-p/2753476/page/20 That was from page 20 Drake. I was sure I had seen the word 'unprofitable' in one of his posts in that big thread but perhaps it was in the SLU thread. Nevertheless, after making the above remark he went out of his way in every subsequent post on the subject over the next 100 pages to 'reassure' everyone that they would not be shutting it down. My gut and business sense tell me to believe what he said the first time rather than the 'spin' of the damage control.

LaskyaClaren wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: I presume Facebook and Google are doing PHd and cringe worthy research internally, 24/7. I wonder how much the academics were bringing to the table. Just because you've not seen this degree of social engineering before doesn't mean it hasn't been happening. Regarding your ETA: The privatization of research has been happening for a long time. Once the world went online and data could be gathered remotely, the corporate world leaped well ahead of the academic world in research capability. There are those who want the government to keep it's fingers out of our stuff, and given the stereotype of government ineptitude, you can't brush off their argument. But there are times I'm not sure I want things in the hands of the efficient and focused. ;-). Even the Editor of Facebook's Mood Study Thought It Was Creepy Indeed, I'm sure this kind of thing isn't new. But that just makes it all the more alarming. What makes the corporate involvement in this particularly sinister is that the Facebook ToS was taken, for all intents and purposes, to supercede the normal research ethics requirements. In other words, where research ethics would normally require informed consent, that was deemed unnecessary because the FB terms of service don't require it. So, corporate "morality" replaces academic ethics. That's just plain wrong. Just a second Lasky. It is unclear what is meant by Fiske's role as 'editor'. Was she the referee for the research for peer review or merely an editor checking punctuation? Either way, she has sullied her reputation by becoming associated with this nonsense. "...until I queried the authors and they said their local institutional review board had approved it" Research ethics are not a universal. Each publication has varying standards. Each association as well. The corporate world, to my knowledge are not bound by 'research ethics' per se, hence the discussion around whether the research was 'legal'. The lead author was an employee of FaceBorg and not affiliated with an academic or professional institution. The FaceBorg ToS incoporates informed consent when you sign up. The question is one of time. How long does the informed consent apply? In most cases, as was pointed out in regards to the use of deception, the participants have an expectation to be informed within a reasonable time frame at some point during or near the completion of the research. In this case it is so open ended to warrant ethical eyebrow raising. The characterization made in one of the articles that it had been published by "the prestigious" journal PNAS now calls their reputation into question. Yes, corporate morality rules in this case. Their money, their rules.