Anaiya Arnold

I sell a variety of items. There was no pattern to the items that were undetected by price (for instance both the freebie no mod and the modifiable 190 linden version of a particular product were undetected, as were a number of tattoo layer items at 55 lindens). In type they ranged from basic posing stand (for adjusting prims) to a tip jar, and included tattoo layers and a home decor item in between. My boxes are both on my little parcel on mainland, which is very low lag. Both boxes have less than 100 items and my sales volume is really very low (so I doubt the boxes were overwhelmed by a delivery que)

Automated take down for non compliance with what? Merchants do not control the code for the magic boxes, do not control the back end for the market's delivery mechanism and do not control the servers for land where the boxes are placed. If the market both recognizes the item exists in the magic box (and you cannot buy the item on market place otherwise) and fails to deliver the item while charging the customer for it, this is entirely caused by LL and has nothing to do with merchant compliance.

Finally the 9 items are showing up again. I reckon they were undetectable for abuot 24 hours. Luckily it was only 9 items.

The old forums were a sewer of drama. A lot of us did not feel comfortable even trying to post in such a vindictive atmosphere. The forums are not supported by LL as some kind of freebie drama venue. I have noticed that new users now post more, ask and get their questions answered politely and without belittlement, and to me this both better fufills LL's purpose in providing the forums, and is a much nicer state of affairs than all the nastieness that pervaded and was even cheered on before. The funny thing is, I am certain I remember reading the old "community" bemoaning the nasty state things had gotten into quite regularly. Whole threads were made to bemoan how mean and nasty the alleged community had gotten. Amusingly, much time was devoted to wishing the forums were like they were before the forums changed.

Freebie hunting can make a mess of inventories. I think some people use an alt for going around picking up and trying out freebies, but then might return with their main when it's time to actually buy something.

I have a similar problem. I synced my magic box last night after adding some items and a bunch of stuff became "unavailable". Resetting the box did not help, copying the box and deleting the original no help, so now half a dozen items that are all definately in the box and which were working fine before I tried to sync last night are now all undetected by the market place.

Obviously I do not get out much because I have to say I've never encountered a game or social environment as complex as SL at the entry end of things. The basic viewer constitutes a significant aggravation of this factor. I do not know anyone who has quit because freebies are ugly, but I know people have quit when I tried to explain merely how to get out of basic mode and into the "advanced" mode.

Ren Toxx wrote: Discrimination should not be accepted, but it does have one advantage: it works both ways. Those that reject you are those you know aren't worth your time anyway. While I'm sure that's all very post-modern self-esteem building, people are for the most part social creatures and so this is small consolation for someone who feels they are currently struggling to find people who are worth their time. I can appreciate the sentiment, but sometimes it's about as useful as telling a thirsty person that water not around to be drunk is not worth the time it takes to drink it. No one is less thirsty (or any less lonely) as a result. I think checking out ishtara's venue sounds more practical as advice for this situation.

Market place has always been borked. Market place has never been borked. Who are we at war with again?

I agree. This is very poor and ill thought out design.

You again? We have to stop meeting up like this.....

Well speaking in terms of pressure, none of this happened in a vacum (haha). The banks were profiting from the loans while onshifting the risk so they were rewarded for making the loans. Wall Street brokers were doing very well and were placing demand pressure on the banks (they wanted more and more of these loans made). I would be very surprised if there were not politicians on both sides of the political divide who had a conflict of interest and either through their direct investments or through their relationships to investors and/or corporate interests, were very motivated to encourage the loans. The problem is the free market radicalism that has taken over from Keynsian economic policy in the last few decades. You can tell someone is dishonest or clueless when they blame Keynsian policy for this particular mess. It was radical free marketeering all the way. The trickle down policy is an example of the tennets from this brand of psuedo-religious dogma. You'll see people who have brought into the free marketeer crap babble on about rewarding those who are successful, while ignoring the fact that the successful have never been more rewarded and everybody else has not been worse off since the last world war. Evidently, the economic recovery after WWII was achieved by following tried, tested, and proven Keynsian policies. The radical free marketeering has been persistently shown to deliver illusionary and nominal (rather than real) wealth, such as the "wealth" that disappeared when houses were revalued.

Pressured? No, they were rewarded. Basically the bank made the loans and sold them onto Wall Street. S&R's role was to give a nonsense credit rating to the resulting securities so that these junk bonds could be misrepresented as high value, low risk investments and on sold at inflated prices to your typical mom and pop investor through the kinds of low risk/managed risk investment funds that middle Americans' retirement savings tend to be invested in. By giving junk bonds the same security rating as US treasury bonds, companies like S&R enabled brokers to sell junk bonds they picked up at rock bottom prices from banks, to investment funds whose rules limit or prohibit exposure to the level of risk the bonds entailed, and at highly inflated prices.

Very badly. It's already too late. Keep in mind that in material terms and productivity (the only real measures of real wealth) the world is currently richer than it has ever been in human history. There is no wealth shortage problem. The problem is wealth distribution and the deal made to raise the debt limit in the US not only failed to address this very pressing concern (for instance by closing tax loop holes), it is likely to aggravate the problem.

I still cannot get my head around the failure to provide an option that lets us texture each arm individually.

Wings is a lot simpler than Blender. You cannot use Wings for animations or poses unless there have been substantial changes since the last time I downloaded it. Blender is more difficult to learn, but there are tutorials out there (on the internet) specific to making poses and sculpties for Secondlife intended for beginners who are new to blender.

I have no idea what kind of monkey juice the search order works on. If I go to view my store and try any filter, the results never make any kind of uniform sense. Case in point, today a product that has never sold a single item is on the first page of my store when the store order is filtered by best selling. A couple of my best sellers are on the last page. By the same token items with no sales are also on the last page and some of the results on the first page are indeed best sellers (the highest selling item made it to the front page for instance but the second highest selling item is on the last page). There appears to be little to no sense to the results. They should just rename all the filter options "pot luck".

I only update when I have a specific reason to (such as problems with a current client, a new feature I want to access, or LL forces me to update to be able to connect). I would suggest that if you do want to update regularly, make a habit of waiting 24 hours and checking the forums first. Most of the worst bugs will have been discovered and probably posted about on the forums by then, so you can make a more informed decision about whether or not a particular update is worth its bugs and glitches before you download it.

Yes, ignore the neighbours. In any event, they'll be the first with their backs against the wall when the aliens come.

Mayalily wrote: According to whom as to where are these laws? Just about anyone can publish an internet website? Not to mention they do -- with many false statements, and it's been going on for years with the internet. So much propaganda on the internet, it's unfreaking believable. According to the relevant statutes and (where applicable) common law.

I'd have to vote with "something else" but what on earth it could be to make the resource costs (of getting here) worth the return, I cannot even begin to imagine. Or in other words, don't ask me to fathom the mind of an alien. At any rate, being highly unlikely, this is an event we should prepare for. My advice is that we all learn to stand about mooing while facing the same direction. The aliens will mistake us for cows and leave us alone once they get bored "tipping" us. Unlike cows, humans like being tipped so it's win-win all the way.

Regulates the news on the internet? No one in particular. China (as an example) censor both the publishing and accessing of content locally. Google filters your search results for you. Various countries around the world have local laws about what may be published and about what content may be accessed.

Ishtara Rothschild wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: hope Antonelli wrote: Wht do you think so many companies have closed up shop and moved manufacuturing to places like Mexico and India? Cheap labour. Yep. No matter how low the taxes, they will still be trying to maximize their profits in any way possible. It is the responsibility of the government to make sure that those who earn insane amounts of revenue in the USA give something back by creating jobs with reasonable wages and working conditions. Absolutely. Corporations are morally and legally obliged to maximize profits no matter how destructive the means are to a country or society. Governments are morally and pragmatically obliged to regulate this activity so that it benefits everyone and does not cause unnecessary, undesirable outcomes. No one else but governments can do this, and given the nature of corporations, if no one does it then corporations will inevitably become increasingly destructive in a myriad of unnecessary ways.

hope Antonelli wrote: Wht do you think so many companies have closed up shop and moved manufacuturing to places like Mexico and India? Cheap labour.

The problem is wealth distribution. America is much wealthier now than in the 1970s. Since the 1980s, despite significant productivity gains, median incomes have not increased. When you adjust for inflation, this means that the median wage has dropped while productivity has increased. Productivity is wealth evidently. You hear a lot about "trickle down" theory, but this is only one side of the equation. It's true that if there is insufficient wealth concentration, there will be insufficient investment to grow the economy at a good pace. However it is equally true that if there is insufficient wealth and income controlled and owned by the consumer-block (as opposed to the investment-block) that consumption and spending will fall below the rate necessary to render reliable and worthwhile returns on investments and to continue to support the investments already made. In other words, without sufficient spending the economy fails. If the spending had stopped earlier, then the economy would have crashed earlier. The problem is not the spending, but rather that the level of spending that is necessary to keep the economy growing at a rate that allows debt repayment has become unsustainable due to how wealth and income is distributed. If the benefits of productivity had been shared more equally with the consumer-block, then they'd have been able to afford the necessary spending without going into unsustainable levels of debt. That spending is a necessity for a functioning economy as much as investment. It's not the spending that is the problem because the spending is an absolute necessity for economic health. The necessary level of spending could not have happened over the last decade or so without the debt, so the debt is a symptom rather than a cause of the problem. The US is richer than it was in the 1970s, but in the 1970s, wealth distribution was not so slanted in favour of such a vanishingly small minority. Unless and until the consumer-block can afford to spend enough to fuel the economy without incurring unsustainable levels of debt, the economy is screwed either in the immediacy as we see now, or in the long run as we have building up to ever since the median income stalled in the 1980's despite significant productivity gains. So fixing the economy requires redistribution of wealth to the consumer-block and that is highly unlikely to happen. The spending did not cause this and the debt simply forestalled it (rather than causing it).