Anaiya Arnold

Hi. When you are trying to upload the items, are you logged into the marketplace in your browser? Some users have reported that having their browser open and being logged into the marketplace can help with this problem. If that's not the case with you, then it's probably a known issue already reported on the JIRA. If you post your computer environment (PC or MAC and OS) it's more likely that someone will be able to post a link to the correct JIRA for your particular set up.

Josh Susanto wrote: OK... what am I missing? The authority to implement these standards and processes. Nothing else springs to mind.

That makes a lot of sense Cekai. I believe Wall Street, especially at the top end is disproportionately populated by people with narcisstic personality disorder, and similar issues entailing impulse control, dellusions of grandeur and a lack of any genuine understanding of the fact that everyone else is as real as they are. Working in an environment and imbibing in a culture dominated by narcisstic pathology would not be healthy.

Yeah, it's certainly screwed up. The Wall Streeters, at a group level, are scum in my view, and I'm also of the opinion that a bunch of them are also scum on a personal individual level.

That's nothing. After not migrating, I found I never had any beer to begin with! And I have a cat. No one warned me about this possibility.

Ceka Cianci wrote: they do it with gold and oil and everything on the market..futures..the market is one big game that changes daily.. i don't believe even if it was that there would be a true 104 billion invested in it.. just the way they keep saying what it is worth all the time to the media tells me it's being gamed.. They are not supposed to be allowed to speculate on oil in the US, but someone wrote some "exemption" letters.

We're well aware that LL have long touted DD as being designed to fix all the problems with the magic boxes, and possibly bring peace to the middle east as well. Or at least that is what they said before they deployed it. They even told us specific problems would be fixed by DD. Then when problems started and someone suggested it was a new problem to do with DD, CTL posted to tell us we should not assume it was not the very problem they told us would be impossible with DD. So while they told us it was designed to solve all manner of problem, it seems behind closed doors they had as much confidence all the problems they blamed on the boxes would be solved by DD as many of us did. I'd sold dozens of products with my magic box before I got my first failed delivery or borked transaction record. I have a new account I put some stuff on to learn this DD thing and although it's sold less than a dozen items in total, it already has one borked transaction history and one item that claims to be undelivered (although who knows) and claims to not have been paid for (although who knows) and which I'm certain I'll never see the lindens for. This is of course an isolated piece of data, but I've certainly no confidence that DD is any more reliable, even CTL immediately after deployment suddenly felt that old problems they said it would fix might not be fixed by it after all, and I'm certain it's much less transparent about what has been sent out.

Low response OZ? Did you remember to twit and faceache this information? Surely twittering and faceaching are the best ways to get information to SL users?

Dartagan Shepherd wrote: Case in point, Oz's latest idiocy in requesting mesh for the deformer project, then back peddling and saying that he was only trying to stir up trouble to get peoples attention. What an unbelievable nerve. LL are fortunate to get free, revenue generating labour from creators and users. It's not enough that users provide the content, free of charge to LL, that makes SL viable, and serve as free bug testing labour. It's not even enough when already paying customers pay an independent contractor to gift LL thousands of dollars worth of independently developed code. Now we also must provide them with test content, all while they nickle and dime us to the point of removing a forum section just to make sure no one gets to let anyone know about a new product, a product whose sales will generate revenue for LL, unless they pay for that first. This company expects any and every kind of freebie from their end users while nickle and diming them at every point, and then has the nerve to turn around and threaten to not deploy a gift from its customers, a gift that cost thousands of dollars to produce and give LL, because the freebies from paying customers do not flood in quickly enough. LL: are you for real?

My point which you are responding to is that the TOS is unclear, not that such items are against the rules, so in you are the one arguing about matters besides the point that I was making. What would happen to such an item proves nothing whatsoever about the clarify of the TOS which was my only point. I've no idea where in the multiple documents that constitute the TOS that I read about the permissions system. @Qie: I've never known simply discussing the clarity of a document to be described as hysteria before, but if you wish to get all over excited and way over react to a mere suggestion that something might be ambiguous, it's your heart pressure level, not mine. PS, PeachJubilee is my other account.

Talia Davidov wrote: Why would they post more information when every time they post something the pitch forks are raised and the theories begin to fly. Because they are a business, not some high schooler's extra credit project, and managing communication, even despite "difficult" customers, is just an ordinary part of running a business effectively. All the other businesses out there manage despite not all their customers being 100% thrilled with them 100% of the time. As to why this particular business not only has so much trouble doing ordinary business tasks like effectively managing communication and PR generally, and why it seems to have so many customers who have a beef with it, since this is not the only ordinary day to day task of a business of this kind that LL just cannot get right, I suggest you have the causal relationship entirely backwards. LL does not have difficult customers, because the really difficult customers are the kinds that just stop using your product when the quality level is below ordinary accepted standards. I do not put up with the kind of muck around I get from LL when I want to go see a movie, hire a DVD, go to the theatre, go gambling at the casino, or take a picnic at the beach. No entertainment offering competing for my time and dollar mucks me around, nor is run by a business that conducts itself so unprofessionally, so frankly stupidly, as this one. Any customers that still give it the time of day, no matter how much they moan about it, are not difficult but exceptionally tolerant. There's no other company in my life I put up with this kind of nonsense from. Much less an entertainment company. This is not an essential utility provider or the only food vendor in town. It's an entirely dispensible entertainment offering. The madstyle crap is just a whole other level of stupidity. You realize they told us to list products if they evoke the 60's, then delisted us for key word spam for doing exactly that, because secretly they did not mean the 60s but some tv show? I do not care how difficult you think X number of customers are. Why should countless rule abiding merchants, many of who have never posted on these forums, be punished, have products delisted, and be called spam word cheats, for following their instructions? That's not an acceptable and fair way to treat anyone, much less paying customers. If you think the fact that some customers are exasperated with previous antics and express as much, somehow entitles or justifies such purile, incompetent, unprofessional, unethical, disrespectful, and discourteous treatment, then I only hope you do not work in customer service. Nothing justifies this conduct. Nothing.

Hiya. Support is not that slow to respond, although the usefulness of the response is far from sure. I think you have the problem described here. Scroll down a bit to the response from Whirley Fizz and see if you can fix it by following the steps described. Good luck.

nikita Jefferson wrote: Well i'm confused. i saw the grid status about inworld search not working and the posts here so i check search inworld, works fine, i checked where my shop was and it's still where it was. I use phoenix so i don't know whats going on, i checked the grid status and it has'nt been updated. But search works for me Yes, search always works in Pheonix in my experience. We're referring to LL's search here so far as I know. I've never, ever, not even once, found search to not work in Pheonix. Try it in LL's viewer. I find about 20% of the time it works at a reasonable speed, about 40% of the time it is annoyingly slow, about 20% of the time it is unacceptably, ridiculously slow, and about 20% of the time, it just does not work at all.

I remain just astonished at search. It was a working thing, reliable and fast at one time. Now it's potluck whether it will work at all and when it does work, it's clunky at its fastest, and sometimes it takes seconds for a single typed character to display. It's absurd that to change ratings or kind of thing searched for you have to load their garbage spam for each and every change or parameter you set. As if it's not slow enough. As for having to have java scripts and cookies active to use in-world search, talk about going out of their way to create entirely unnecessary barriers and potential for glitches while degrading performance, ease of use and end user convenience. All this would be bad enough if at least when you could get it to "work" from the search side, the results included everything it should, but they cannot even get this most basic function right. I hesitate to call it a fail at launch that turned into a long term fail, least anyone mistakenly believe I am accusing it of waste and ruin, and having no redeeming qualities, whereas in reality, there are probably people who have not seen wasted potential and certainly many businesses have not been ruined by search borkage, and surely the fact that it does kind of sort of almost work, very slowly, some of the time, if you sacrifice just the right number of sion chickens, is a redeeming quality?

WADE1 Jya wrote: ***redacted i'll save it for later*** :catvery-happy: I miss all the good stuff.

You should definately put a ticket in about that. So far as I know lifetime accounts are supposed to have an indefinate tier and stipend entitlement. From http://secondlife.wikia.com/wiki/Lifetime_Account "Lifetime accounts were a special account type that were available from the close of beta until December 22, 2003. A user could buy a lifetime account for $159.95 (later raised to $225) and would be able to enjoy Second Life without paying any monthly fees. When 1.2 came about and brought with it land tiers, lifetime accounts were dropped. However those who purchased a lifetime account were allowed to continue on and were given 4096 sqm of "free land" allocation as well as a L$500 weekly stipend. Lifetime accounts can buy up to 4096 sqm without having to pay Linden Lab fees on that land, but once they go over that allotment they enter into a new tier and then must pay the fees."

Many people cannot use Ll's viewer at any one time. Without TPVs and open sourcing of the viewer, it's still possible to steal. With open sourcing, it's too late to stop stealing by stopping TPVs because any current copybot enabled viewer will undoubtably have viewer-spoofing capabilities and would sneak in despite the banning. So the copybotters would keep using their copybotter viewer, a bunch of folks would find their experience degraded and many others would be unable to use SL at all. So I'm going with "no".

When you say an accredited doctor to interpret it, I read "an accredited doctor to do the thinking for the viewers". This is why as I pointed out earlier, those who prefer to do their own thinking, are not unlikely to prefer source material rather than a UTube. Most such people are aware that going to sources and doing their own thinking can take more time, but no one promised thinking for ourselves would be as free of effort as letting someone else do it for us. Do you honestly think it's compelling to state "if they were arguing something fraudently they'd have had their licenses revoked". Do you think revoking peoples' license is some kind of arbitary free for all? Someone does not like what a doctor says on UTube, in a book, at some privately organized and funded conference, so they just arbitarily revoke their license? No due process, no standards, no right to free speech? "They" (that infamously ubiquitous group of villians) just revoke licenses willy nilly when someone says something that "frightens" them? I'm not interested in watching your UTube video. I'd rather do my own reading and thinking than have whichever random doctor read and think for me. It costs me money for every bit of data I download. I've viewed and ocassionally taken part in conversations that both predate and are more recent than this video and it's highly unlikely that if compelling information were available that not a single one of these conversations, including this one involving you, would entail any mention of the actually compelling data, but would instead focus almost entirely on the kind of reasoning described in the OP. Someone who has demonstrated much better reasoning skills than youself has already viewed and given a description of the problems with enough of the video that their review indicates it's genuinely not worth my time or money to watch it. Why on earth would I spend my time and money on watching this video given all the other things competing for those resources? Because you'll call me names/sling insults at me (like lazy, brainwashed, and frightened) if I don't? Honestly, I can live with the name calling/insults. People have limited time in their lives Medhue. Though we do not know the number, the minutes of all our lives are finite. Time is a precious resource and we all must choose how to spend our's. Based on Madeline's description, and your advocacy, your video is not competitive amongst the market place of "things I could do with my limited time on this planet". I find that I doubt your interpretation, based on your demonstration of the quality of your reasoning skills in this thread. I also find it odd that anyone would structure a video so that they introduce multiple reasons to not believe them, by around half way through, and only at around the point the average person's "fallacy over load" point is reached and the video is switched off, then suddenly turn around and explain away the apparent fallacies. That makes no sense if the point is to get a message out there. On the balance of things at this point there is just not sufficient good reason to spend my limited time on this UTube of your's.

Medhue Simoni wrote: I'm gonna make a general statement, and if this does not apply to you, ignore it. To me, this autism arguement is done. Why? Cause I'm arguing with people that do not show me the same courtesy that I show them, by actually reading/watching what is posted. Almost every person that is making any comment at all against what I'm saying hasn't watch any of the videos, nor have they read my responses. You people are going in circles, cause you refuse to give the same respect that you get back. I have read every post and every link posted and commented on them. Can any1 else make the same claim? No, you can't because that is obvious in your responses. Why do you even engage in a debate if you aren't going to read or watch what the other side posts? Seriously, are you afraid, cause that is what I see. Oh, and I really hope this is not how you do your job or how you educated yourself, cause that would truely be sad. Again, this is amusing. It's you who is being rude, coming to a conversation and expecting to dump videos on others and demand they watch them, so you don't have to bother to argue your own point, and as if this is not discourteous enough, you then call those who wish to do their own reading and arguing, lazy and launch attack after attack, calling others brain washed and asserting others cannot think for themselves and are "afraid, all the while, you wish to rest on the laurels of some video, refuse to argue reasonably without persistent childish and snarky name calling and insults. Where do you get off thinking that the discourtesy is on someone else's part? If you've read Madeline's posts, as you claim, then how can you still be claiming that everyone in this thread has not watched your videos? It's very, very obvious that Madeline did watch your video. But the fact remains, you've no more right to turn up to a conversation here demanding people watch your video, than you have anywhere else. This is a conversation, not a video review convention. Do your own arguing or don't complain if no one gets your point. We're not here to watch videos, and if someone chooses to let you let a video do your arguing or conversing for you, that's a bonus, not an entitlement.

Medhue Simoni wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Celestiall Nightfire wrote: I don't own a television, nor do I know what a LIfetime drama is. Nor do I. I'm beginning to spot a pattern here, Celestiall. ;-) You had the opportunity to debunk all the stuff in the videos, yet you have given not 1 arguement other than crazy, in a thread about logical fallacies? Every single so called credible study that the CDC uses to defend the non link to vaccines has been discredited in this thread, and you have given no response but crazy. That's not a valid response. This is deeply, deeply funny although perhaps not in a way you'd appreciate. Can you quote the text/s you imagine discredited every "so called credible study that the CDC uses to defend the non link to vaccines"? I don't believe you've understood the contents of the OP, and I'm nearly at a loss for words reading your posts. If your 18 years of research was conducted using the same quality of reasoning your posts in this thread show, it's not all that unlikely that you've spent 18 years getting it wrong to be honest with you.

In my experience, people who like to do their own thinking, routinely prefer to read studies and think about those for themselves, rather than watch a video to see what someone else thinks about relevent research.

Yes, I thought meroos were only invented this century. Silly me, I should have realized they were an icon of the 60s. I probably overlooked them because they were nesting in Liz Taylor's beehive hair-do. ***I'm confused as to why people are mentioning makeup as dubious. I've designated a few makeup items that I believe are appropriate to the keyword. But more than one person has commented in this thread about makeup as being dubious for this "promotion", so I'm a bit confused now. Why not makeup?

Unhealthy? Riding a pony is very good exercise and excellent for the constitution, the pony's visibility not withstanding.

This kind of thing is why it is impossible to satirize LL.

Potentially. If they sell you lindens that were acquired illegitimately, LL can freeze your account and will take the lindens back from you. If you've spent some, LL will want them back.