Anaiya Arnold

Sy Beck wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: How would embedded advertising that also happens to be part of the "shared experience" work exactly? Obviously it's not part of the log on screen or part of the UI since none of that is part of the shared experience. Will a 3 D mesh logo object rezz in world every time we rezz a new prim proclaiming "this prim provided by Pepsi" and give out partial credit to anyone who instantly shouts back "the voice of a new generation?" Oh I don't know, but how about all TPs screens will last a minimum of 20 secs with elevator music and ads while you wait or popups on your screen when you login with ads from today's sponsor that you have to click to clear. I could think of many more irritating ways, but I don't want to give them ideas they may not yet thought of. Which brings us back to PussyCat's point of claiming that this is like trying to claim an introduction of new mesh avatars is part of some plan to make people buy mainland only in 2048 size lots. TP screens are not part of the shared experience. When I tp you don't see my tp screen. Log in screens are not part of the shared experience (as I already pointed out in my earlier post). When I log in, you don't see my log in screen. Shared experience, that's the bits that happen in the 3D world where everyone can see it together, not the bits that happen discretely on a single user's screen indpendently of everyone else.

Baloo Uriza wrote: WhiteStar Magic wrote: " I think it's more likely to affect things like the Emerald-specific attachment points and other tricks that don't look right in viewers that don't implement that same hack. If I'm correct on this, then I'm thankful for that clause." Your on the right track there Baloo. It is all about not adding something to one viewer / viewer family that will affect how things are seen by other viewers without that particular "enhancement" and the attachment example is a perfect example of what is good for one but messes up another. OK, well, that just makes Pheonix' team's reaction all the more derpy and irresponsible. Would have been nice if they thought that response through before posting it. WhiteStar Magic wrote: Whether or not a viewer supports an extra function or capability that would have no negative effect on the users of another viewer, as an example, Imprudence supports the LightShare capabilities in OpenSim but supporting that capability has absolutely no impact on SL Grid or any other viewers in use on any grid. I guess one way to put that, is that is is a "neutral capability & function", meaning that it does not adversely affect any other. Well, perfect, then. I don't think anybody should have a problem if viewers extend functionality as long as it's not hosing the way everyone else is able to perceive virtual reality. Glad to hear I'm not the only one who thinks "Well just use $VIEWER-OF-THE-WEEK instead" is a legitimate answer to issues created by $VIEWER-OF-THE-WEEK. What's derpy about their response? What did they not think about? Just because you think that removing an entire sphere of innovation has no impact on innovation, it does not necessarily follow that someone else must be making derpy and irresponsible responses. Multiple attachments never bothered me. It's no skin off my nose if someone else looks bald with a wig floating around their belly button. If I had to choose between whatever inconvenience or issue that was supposed to be to me, and having multi attachment points, visible to all viewers, in the here and now, I prefer to have "suffered" the alleged issue. It never really was an issue to me and I surely do love multi attachment points being standard. I can see LL's point and I don't necessarily disagree, but it's purile, not to mention derpy, to pretend that this policy change has no negative implications for innovation, or to start accusing people who claim that it does have negative implications for innovation of being derpy and irresponsible for doing so. Was it you making those derpy, irresponsible and completely untrue claims about the Firestorm dev team not contributing anything back to the main LL code in some other thread?

There's more than one. Also many kit sellers put an example in their kits and their buyer's can choose to copy this prim by prim manually, or they can use a handy dandy script of some kind to do the work for them.

Sy Beck wrote: Pserendipity Daniels makes an interesting claim/point in the feeds over what may be another purpose of the TPV changes. "pserendipity.daniels Oh, by the way, the reason for the change in policy about Third Party Viewers is not because of anything the TPVs are doing at the moment, but because LL are about to insert advertising into the user experience - and they don't want TPVs to be able to do what the netintelligentsia do with AdBlock on Firefox to eliminate adverts. Pep (Go on Viale/Rod, tell me I am wrong, and make yourself public liars!) PS Again. about 12 hours ago Comment" So far no advertiser would seriously consider it because most users use TPVs, who would/could block any advertising, and any such introduction of embedded advertising into the LL viewer would force the number of TPV users even higher. So what would LL have to do to secure that advertising dollar? Firstly, remove any information showing what TPVs other users might be using apart from the LL viewer, don't want advertisers seeing that LL doesn't control the monopoly on viewers or even a sizeable majority of the market and then secondly, dictate that all TPVs must adhere to the same viewer experience that will be rammed down the throats of V2/V3 users, namely advertising. Slap me on the ass and call me Susan if this isn't on the cards. How would embedded advertising that also happens to be part of the "shared experience" work exactly? Obviously it's not part of the log on screen or part of the UI since none of that is part of the shared experience. Will a 3 D mesh logo object rezz in world every time we rezz a new prim proclaiming "this prim provided by Pepsi" and give out partial credit to anyone who instantly shouts back "the voice of a new generation?"

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: Ah, the infamous fish-faced, wide-load, people. You just got to giggle. Coined. I cut out midget because I'm seeing them on the same old giant avatars even more than on small ones - it seems to be a face and bubble butt thing mostly - not related to scale choice. I've mostly seen it with exceptionally short avies. I came across someone calling them invisible-pony riders the other day which both reminded me of this thread and tickled my fancy.

It's unfortunate about the specific broken content, and discussions could be had about the lsl change's direct impact, but to me the policy turn-about is the biggest issue. If we're breaking existing content now and waving it aside by resorting airily to vague and misconstrued claims about "work arounds" then anything is fair game for future borkage. New avatars that break all existing texture based clothes could roll out next month for all we know and we'd not necessarily be told a thing until the week before. I've never known a company so good at generating FUD about itself.

I don't understand about buying viewer 1. Who would buy it and for what? They already opened up the source code which is how we have TPVs...

Yeah, if you cannot find something on google, chuck "SL" or "Secondlife" into the search terms you are using, unless it's a script you are after, in which case putting "lsl" in the search terms is usually better. The problem with getting the information for yourself is even when you find the information using google or the knowledge base, you will not necessarily know enough yet for it to make sense. Don't let the negative-nit-picker-bum-biters put you off asking in the forums. A sub-group of the natives are often restless in these parts but their spears tend to lack anything resembling a point, so harm no foul. Rolig's advice about the Ivory Tower is good. You might also want to google "serena secondlife" and go through some of the "Mermaid Diary" tutorials as well. There are a lot of tutorials and of course the knowledge base and what not, but many are written as though they assume the reader already understands everything about SL except the actual subject of the tutorial or article in question. Serena's tutorials seem to assume you don't know much if anything about SL, so while they are a little outdated, they are a really good place to start. Also they are accessible on the web; you don't have to go in-world to access and read them. @Alicia, if in Holland you expect people to research stuff that they cannot understand untill after they've understood a whole bunch of other stuff they'd have to first research but which they cannot understand until they've researched a whole bunch of other stuff that they also cannot understand until they've researched all this other stuff first, then it's amazing anyone makes it to learning to tie their shoes in Holland. Maybe it's not about Holland but a slight case of amnesia on your part when it comes to remembering how over-whelming and confusing learning all this stuff is when each thing you need to learn, obliges you to first understand a dozen or so other things you've not yet learned, and cannot learn without first learning about a dozen other things, that cannot be understood or learned about without first learning some other dozen things. Keep in mind that SL is not the same world it was when you joined. Some people did not even have to learn the difference between sculpts and ordinary prims when they started SL, much less bother to get their head around mesh, or avatar physics, multiple layers, multiple attachment points, alpha vs alpha prims, etc. Learning the basics becomes less basic every year. Adding a layer knowledge to a good understanding is a lot easier than trying to grasp all this complexity at once, but much of it makes no sense until you understand the rest. While there is plenty of information out there, most of it is useless to someone who does not already have a requisite level of SL-based knowledge to start with, and trying to get the information independently becomes a recursive search for ever more information needed to understand the information you just found. And that's without going into the plain fact that some people just learn a lot more easily by asking questions than by self directed research. Since answering or responding is not compulsory, it should be no skin off your nose in any case.

Pamela Galli wrote: I think they do mean it and they do listen to feedback -- remember the ill-fated attempt to provide us with a means to put our store in the order we chose? They scrapped that. I thought they ignored our displeasure until an unexpected bug came to light, then they took the feature away promising to return it when fixed to their specifications (not our's) and that we've never seen nor heard tell of this feature again since. Maybe I am misremembering or mixing that disaster up with some other disaster?

Ilyra Chardin wrote: As Linden Dollars have an exchange rate and can be converted into US dollars, it is legal tender. No, it's not.

Selene Gregoire wrote: I'm so angry right now I have no words to describe how angry I am. What is LL's goal with breaking temp image uploads? Are they trying to push those of us who are on fixed, limited or low/no incomes out of SL and leave it only for those who have money? They are not breaking temp image uploads. Someone jumped to this conclusion and it's surprising how many are swallowing it. The builder UI is not a shared experience. Temp uploads are not a shared experience. @kwakkelde: different or not, the script function is being changed server side.

Darrius Gothly wrote: or will all the items in the given folder get stripped out of the folder and placed in the Received Items folder? I had this thought for a moment, and I I know they keep doing the most astounding, odd, ill-conceived, frustrating and seemingly senseless kind of thing persistently, but surely there is a limit on how stupid someone can be and yet still get to work in the morning? Surely no one could be that daft?

B.A.N.A.N.A.S Wow, you folks just keep on surpassing yourselves. DD to its own folder; I thought we were all down with this. Big messy anything and everything goes folder: Do not want. Commerce Team, why must you keep pulling this nonsense?

Ho-hum. How very humble and not the least bit conceited, bossy and drama-provoking of you Bettty. The fact that you say you come in peace with your snide tone and disrespectful "shut ups" is of course much more important than the inflammatory nature of telling others to "shut up" on a forum they've every right to post on.

Imnotgoing Sideways wrote: I really wish the lab would just publish a list of "Moderate" and "Adult" words... (=_=) They certainly cannot do that since we are all cheating scum who will go to any lengths to "game" the system. Heaven forbid LL should treat scum like us as though we are customers or something. Do you want us all to the "game" the system? Will no one think of the system? @mo, of course "some" is obviously an adult word. Who did not know that? Don't try to pretend to be naive now.

Yes, a failure to respond because you are in hospital or on holiday can see you alienated from your property rights, just because it happens to be IP. Did you not claim that IP is entitled to the same protection as other property? What other property must you be constantly prepared to vigilently defend, dare nto leave unattended for a period of time, for fear of losing your rights to it legally? Not through theft, but to be deprived of undisturbed enjoyment of it with the full blessing of the law? The problem with good faith is that the lobbiests wanting these laws have already demonstrated bad faith and abuse of the processes already at their disposal. They cannot be trusted even with DMCA . The reason you find the PPCE bill to be so funny is because it is absurd that such a bill could be justifiable to conceive of seriously, but it's also a law that would be justified if we accepted your reasoning. So what you were laughing at was your own reasoning. Of course if you understand analogy as you claim, then you don't need me to explain to you who and what you were laughing at. As for what you now claim to advocate, that's what the DMCA already does... Meanwhile, oddly what you claim you don't want is exactly the difference between the current system and these bills. iTunes lets things slip through too. Just this week they've had to change the rules after it was found out that iTunes was allowing a glut of spyware to be peddled to unsuspecting users. If you think they've never had to remove illicitly distributed content after the fact, I think you'll find that's naivity on your part. Under current law, all providers are obliged to not deliberately publish infringing content, and to remove it when they become aware of it. If that's what you are advocating, then you do not need to advocate these other laws because you've already got what you claim to want. What you claim you are advocating is what we already have and I'm not aware of any particular, credible lobby group or advocates claiming that is too hard. Is this claim about claims of being too hard another of your inaccuracies? What is being cited by any industry insiders, such as Google, as being too much trouble, is preventing infringing content from being uploaded, and identifying any and all such content autonomously. This is because the most robust vetting simply cannot achieve this. There is no way for a website hosting third party content to know that user 9996432 is actually a teacher who is uploading the poems of her former primary school students from a decade ago. How can anyone but the copyright holders be expected to know that? Within the realm of what is technically possible, the most robust system of vetting would require real humans with a huge breadth of media content awareness, able to recognize even obscure indie bands for example, to go through every bit of content before it is published and even this cannot prevent infringing content from being uploaded but merely minimize it. Is it too much trouble to vet all content using human agents? Well it was when the boot was on the other foot. Mega-content corporate copy right holders/stake holders have interferred in the property rights of others on numerous ocassions, because it was too much trouble to have an actual human vet content before DMCA-ing it on the mere suspicion that it might be their content. So when it comes to other peoples' IP, what you want the whole world to be forced to do for the sake of this special interest group's IP rights, is more than they are prepared to do to protect their own rights or prevent themselves from attacking someone else's rights. Why on earth should anyone be prepared to go along with that? This talk about "over riding" property rights is just so much nonsense. Are we over riding property rights if we do not make a law that lets Wall Mart strip search anyone they find in their car park, on the spot, if Wall Mart happens to argue that not being allowed to do so prevents them from stopping shoplifting? According to the reasoning in your argument, not allowing Wall Mart the right to commit such arbitary and intrusive searches in their car parks, when this might help combat shop lifting, is overriding Wall Mart's property rights, and if you are laughing about this absurdity, once again it's your own reasoning you are laughing at. As to your claims about exemptions, if you are advocating for PIPA and SOPPA then you are not advocating for such exemptions but are in fact advocating for the absence of such exemptions. Google would be as vulnerable as SL, and you can be certain that SL would be on very very shaky ground and could be shut down at any moment if these bills were passed into law. The difference between these bills and the current situation is that Google is safe if it removes content when made aware of it, but would be persistently vulnerable for all content it linked to if the bills were passed into law. I honestly cannot understand your support. You give a list of what you want and that's what we currently have. The difference these bills will make is that suddenly, the backbone of the internet, like Google and domain name registration services would be vulnerable to take down and this is something you specifically claim to not want. So you want what we already have under current law and you do not want what these bills would introduce, and this is why you support them? Seriously?! I do not understand that. Your faith in the "judiciary" is extremely naive and dangerous and anit-democratic to be blunt. Representative democracy only works when the demos does its part to be vigilent, to act as a persistent check and balance, to limit the power of the government, and to essentially not blindly and gormlessly trust. That's lazy and negligent if you live in a representative democracy. Representative democracy is an aberration, very hard fought for, not to be taken for granted, and much more easily undermined than established and guarded. Your claim of trust demonstrates that you do not understand how rare and vulnerable representative democracy is, nor the role of the demos within such a system. In fact even with the best will in the world, the judiciary obviously gets it wrong often enough. Take the Dotcom bail application for instance. Just the other week, one judge ruled against his bail application, yet yesterday on the same set of facts it was granted by a peer of the same standing (a "district court judge). If the same set of facts can be ruled on contrarily by two different yet exactly equal and interchangible members of the judiciary, then trusting to this system for fair or even consistent results around iffy, bad or dubious law is naive to say the least. The fact is the judiciary and court system are far, far from perfect. In some circumstances they are better than nothing, but in many instances, their involvement results in outcomes no less arbitary and no less unjust than could have been achieved without them. To an extent, many legal cases are a lottery with a lot being determined by chance. How is chance something to put your faith in? As for better than all the others, what do you even mean by this? Your next lines of argument make no sense at all. For law to exist, we do not all need to kowtow to the absurd demands of a tiny minority special interest group. Neither of these bills are needed to make law in this area as can be proven by the fact that law existed in this area before either of these terrible bills were drafted and law can continue to be made in this area if they are both consigned to the trashbin of history. The judiciary does not determine what is "bad in law" but is bound to "follow" the law. Semantics aside, the fact is two members of the judiciary, equally empowered to give a ruling on a particular case, can and do arrive at contrary answers, and there is a large element of chance involved. You are essentially relying on "chance" to make bad law all work out ok. If you have a vital interest in SL then your support of these bills is even more difficult to understand. SL woud be a sitting duck under these laws and would be entirely at the mercy of the judicial lottery you have so much faith in if someone decided to target it. If these bills were law when that Serpintine chap sued LL, there's a strong chance SL would already not exist and even google which you claim to want an exemption for would be at risk if these bills became law.

Bouttime Whybrow wrote: paper, just out of curiosity, taking and extending your example, couldn't the tables be turned on microsoft? say you incorperate (if necessary) and claim some violation against MS, could you not get their sites shutdown just as spuriously? in other words what would protect these very same companies from being at the same mercy of the law? Fear and favour, aka inequality before the law. Do you think anyone would extradite someone from NZ for stealing your SL or Zazzle content?

You did quote my message, so it must be clear to you that I never said that you said that wrong only meant morally wrong, and I don't need to quote your message to know that you never said that I ever said that you ever said that wrong only meant morally wrong...

Wrong and morally wrong are not identical if you want to nitpick and obviously you do...

Is this to be a new weekly occurence? [POSTED] Second Life Marketplace offlinePosted by Status Desk on February 21st, 2012 at 04:58 pm PST[POSTED 5:00PM PST, 21 February 2012] We are aware that the Second Life Marketplace is currently offline and we are working to resolve the issue. Please watch this blog for further updates.

Your claims are again factually wrong. It's simply not true that the claimant is obliged to wait, possibly forever, for the respondant to respond formally with non-acceptance or refutation before they can take further action. Why on earth were domestic sites ever included, quite deliberately in a bill that was persistently claimed to be about and entirely aimed at foreign sites? Do you think that people are being honest and acting in good faith when they attempt to pass law they claim is aimed at foreign sites but which has been deliberately worded to include domestic sites? The fact remains that while you claim IP should have the same protections as any other property, you are advocating a law that ensures that it would not. Under SOPA and PIPA attempts to fully enjoy one's ownership of their IP property is subject to arbitary attack by third parties and obliges the responding party to be constantly vigilent in defending their property against such attacks, or risk being alienated from their undisturbed enjoyment of it. Does such a lack of protection of your property rights apply to your chairs? I'm sorry if simple use of analogy goes over your head. It's a very simple and easy to understand form of reasoning. You see logic is such that the subject matter is irrelevant to the quality of the reasoning being employed. You can plug anything in as subject matter and the quality of the logic remains entirely unchanged. If a line of logic when applied to one set of subject matter leads to one conclusion, then it equally applies to to other subject matter. So if "I do not see the debate", or "it's a good goal" is sufficient justification for a law, then its sufficient justification for any law. This allows us to examine the quality of reason presented in an argument by applying them to other subject matter to see if they lead to absurd conclusions that no one in their right mind would accept. If they do lead to such conclusions when applied to other subject matter, clearly the reasoning being employed is a load of bunkum. Try it for yourself. Think of a stupid law that would achieve a good goal and ask if a lack of debate about achieving that goal makes that stupid law suddenly not stupid. You should eventually get the hang of it.

Thanks.

16 wrote: you're missing the point is two laws. DMCA and the existing criminal code. there is no inbetween. slap on the wrist or the bighammer people arent debating this. where is the debate to overhaul the existing code? thats what bills are for. you debate them and you change them and you keep debating and keep making changes until you get good law or you just campaign to get bills chucked out. thats actually way easier to do than try to make good law so anyways whats your solution? i know what your objections are now. or are you happy to leave things as they are? There is no point. Upping the ante on the heavy handedness is not a middle ground. It's just favouring one extreme over the other. "People arent' debating this" and "where is the debate" is just nonsense. Aside from being factually untrue, so what? Remember my example of a good goal and a really stupid law to achieve that very good goal? You agree that children being interferred with is awful and definately merits prevention? Well killing every child in the world would achieve that. Now what lack of discussion would ever make such a stupid solution ok or acceptable? Do you think any lack of debate would ever make such a stupid solution a good law? Can you now see why babbling on about the goal and about any lack of achieving that goal, or a lack of disccusion about what is wrong with how we currently seek to achieve that goal, is not an argument in favour of a bad law? Bad law is bad law no matter how few other solutions have been discussed (and it's actually not true that other solutions have not been discussed in this case any way). Bad law is bad law and PIPA and SOPPA are bad law. Where is the debate? Where have you looked for it? You could try google. Type in PIPA and I expect you should find the Wikipedia page pretty quickly. That alone will give you what you need to track down not only discussion but other solutions being proposed and lobbied for. I'm not convinced that the discussion you claim a lack of is obscure. I've certainly encountered information about such discussion (including direct mention and discussion of alternative solutioins being lobbied for) every single time I've done even the most cursory research on PIPA and SOPPA. I've no idea how you missed it all to be honest. TThe point you are missing is that these two bills cannot be reformed. They are as reform friendly as my PPCE (Pedo Protection through Child Extermination) bill. I notice you've not bothered to answer any of the questions put to you. Why do you think a judge must be involved before people are effectively alienated from their property rights, with the full blessing of the law, on the basis of actions taken by another private party? What is your reason for supporting this law, bearing in mind that if you support a law based on its goal rather than its content and implications, you'd have to be a supporter of my PPCE bill? As to solutions, it's actually not my problem to solve anymore than Walmart's stock shrinkage is. If Walmart want their staff to be allowed to conduct strip searches of anyone they find within 200 metres of one of their stores, I do not feel obliged to put up with such a measure being passed into law or come up with some other solution to Walmart's problem. All this is not missing the point so much as dodging about trying to pretend there is one. If the logical basis of something you are attempting to argue could be applied to prove that PPCE would be a good law, then it's a weasel, not an argument. For instance, if you have objections to the Pedo Protection through Child Elimination Bill, then what are your solutions, or are you happy to just leave the children to be fiddled with? Think of the children!

16 wrote: i dont think any of these bills says that anyone can walk into someone elses place and shut them down. only a judge can make that order. ppl can petition the court to do that tho. same way you can petition the court to get back any other kind of stuff that you own, held by someone else illegally. you have to satisfy the court that it is your property before the judge will issue any order of any kind. if you cant do that then you wont get the order Why did you think a judge must be involved? Is it because the alternative is that outrageous, dangerous, and that much of an attack on the rights of everyone else that it's something you'd never have imagined and have trouble believing anyone would even try to pass into law? Actually this bill does not do what you seem to think it does. It would not remove any of the prosecutory frame work being directed at megauploads but instead expands criminal culpability and makes more acts criminal than previously were. It looks almost as though you don't know what this bill does but you like what you were told it would achieve. If I told you a bill would stop creepers fiddling with children, would you just gormlessly say "yay" and advocate for it without bothering to read that it does so by exterminating all people under the age of 18 and killing all subsequent children at birth?

So this commission thing is not for the weekend we just had but the one at the end of this week?