Well, First Life just keeps getting to be more and more of an attention hog, so in an unexpected and frankly uncharacteristic spate of sanity, I'm going to be selling my store and land (which by the way are very pretty, cheap, and situated on a Linden Road with nearby land available for expansion).

My store is called Kate Tease. (Get it? ;) )

My store hasn't really been my focus for quite some time, so this is maybe even a bit overdue. :) Anyway, in celebration (or something) of selling the store, I've made everything in it free. This includes women's smart remark tops, like "In RL, I'm kissing your girlfriend right now" and "What part of YES don't you understand?"...




Color change fairie glow, wing mask, color change anti-halo, animated Black Angel bullwhip...



And so on. Come help yourself. If you have a store or a venue where you'd like to offer these as freebies, let me know (I may go with just one seller, though, so there is a chance I'll have to say no).

^^^\ Kate /^^^

In First Life, I'm a pretty sensible and restrained buyer of clothes. In Second Life...well, not so much. My wardrobe ranges from the conservative (which by Second Life standards means that you can't see the nipples), to the pugnacious, to the downright meretricious, and if you don't know what that means, you're in exactly the same boat I was in before a certain friend of mine drove me to the dictionary.

I don't get to spend nearly as much time as I'd like to in Second Life these days, but when the moist air of this overheated summer...

No, I can't do it. You see, there was a kind of challenge between my friend Lanna and me to use a given list of words in our next posts. I gave her words like "panacea", "absenteeism", and "marshmallow", and she gave me "meretricious" (which is a hilarious word), "pus", "moist", "pugnacious", and "flaccid". Now, I do have meretricious and pugnacious outfits, so I was fine at first, but the rest of the words were bringing the post somewhere that, to be honest, I just didn't want to go, so I'm not going to...oh, wait! I think I did just use them. Mission accomplished! And back to what's really important, which is to say...my wardrobe.


I really don't know how many outfits I have in my Second Life wardrobe, but my guess is about 300. I know that's not going to break any records, but honestly: that's a lot of outfits! And I bought virtually every one of those outfits specifically because I thought I would enjoy wearing it from time to time, and despite the level of organization I bring to my inventory from my professional life and natural inclination (see my post Who's in charge: you or your inventory?), there are some I've completely forgotten I had, and others I think I know about but don't remember how really elegant or sweet or sassy or interesting they are. So I hit on a plan to, over time, wear everything in my inventory, or close to it. It's a very simple plan, so I thought I'd share it with you. After going on and on for this whole post so far, it's just a single sentence: I created a "Worn recently" folder and move each outfit I wear into it as soon as I change into something else. (Actually, I have a "worn recently" folder in each of two clothing folders, but the idea is the same.) Then, when choosing something to wear, I almost always pick something that's not in the "worn recently" folder, which causes me to wander through my inventory and see what I have, making some wonderful discoveries on the way.

That's it! Clearly posting less often hasn't made the posts I write any deeper or more fascinating, but I hope this strategy will be useful to a few resis out there! :)

^^^\ Kate /^^^

Someone posted a question in a comment on my post from long ago about how to have sex in Second Life (http://kateamdahl.livejournal.com/927.html), and I thought the answer might be handy for some people who read this blog, although others will know all about this!

The question was how to show hidden pose balls in public areas. So: the exact command depends on the particular pose balls, but it's usually something like /1 show . /1 means that you're sending a command on "channel 1", because scripts in Second Life use channels, which can be practically any number, though 1 is very common.

If you want to find out whether there are any hidden pose balls around or not, you can press ctrl-alt-T on a Windows computer or choose Highlight Transparency from the View menu on any computer to see hidden items, which show up in a kind of ghostly red. :) Do the same thing to turn the feature back off...what with particles and hidden attachments and transparent textures and everything, there can be a lot of red on the screen even when there are no secrets!

^^^\ Kate /^^^

If you're an old-timer like me, you might remember The Diversionarium, a venue Eris Fallon and I created oh, about two years ago. It was a different kind of venue, built around games, especially social games. I created five games for it that I've never put up for sale. At a certain point we didn't have the time to keep the Div going, so we had to give it up, and the heirs to it unfortunately had some struggles of their own. That means that the games are only available in one or two places in Second Life (like Grizzy's Cafe). If there are venue owners out there who might like me to give them a game or two to use, please IM me! Here's what they are:



Mystery Build is similar to some building games that resis play at events in Second Life. One player is the builder and the rest are guessers. The builder chooses how hard a challenge they want, and the game gives them something that they have to build. The guessers have a time limit in which to guess what the build is. Then the build is cleared away and a new round can start.

Avisleuth asks a group of avatars a personal question that they can answer creatively. Everyone puts in their answer, and then players try to guess which answer goes with which person. The winner is the one with the most right guesses.

Quoste is a game for everyone to play together as a team. The game gives a clue, and everyone tries to guess what word the clue is refers to. Once the word is guessed, there's another clue and another, all adding up to a quote. The team gets a higher score by guessing the clues quickly and by guessing the quote before it's done.

Limeruckus generates a random first line of a limerick, and then players take turns adding lines until the limerick is done.

The Improvistation offers a bunch of options for different scenes players can act out: it's basically a tool for amateur theater improvisation, and works best if someone's organizing it.

^^^\ Kate Amdahl /^^^

On Charlanna's blog (whoops! forgot to link this when I first posted it!), she talked recently about how her expectations for Second Life had kind of dropped a little over time. It's still amazing, I think many of us agree, but it doesn't seem to be turning out to be revolutionary, changing society around us.

So is it revolutionary? Yes! Is it revolutionary right *now*? Probably not.

A lot of us have had very high expectations for virtual worlds, but I think we're expecting them to meet those expectations in just a few years. Honestly, except for better reliability and refinements in building and aesthetics, Second Life as a technology doesn't seem to have changed much in the six years since it started. (That's not to say I don't appreciate all the amazing improvements that have been made within those boundaries!)

I don't think virtual worlds will really start changing society until they're much more advanced. For instance, imagine you could put on a headset and push a button and find yourself in a virtual world with a very realistic and accurate representation of you as an avatar. Then imagine that you could step into an enormous virtual clothing store, narrow down the racks around you by searching terms, and try on any number of things to see how well they really fit you and what they look like. If it were really that easy, that accurate, and that useful, you could get a realistic idea of products anywhere in the world: clothing, houses for sale ... visit locations with a realistic view of what they look like ... visit with a friend who lives a thousand miles away in a projection of her actual living room, seeing each other's actual facial expressions ...

The three real limitations I can think of right now to virtual worlds are realism, ease of use and ease of finding the things you really want. Right now Second Life is hard to get used to, and I think it scares off anyone who isn't good with technology, really committed, or both. When you do get to Second Life, while there are some amazing tools for building and creating, it really isn't like the real world in a lot of ways--think about opening a door, for instance, or dancing, or books. Also, it's very difficult sometimes to find what you want unless all you want is to spend time with friends who happen to be online. Many tools--Web sites, groups, the search feature--help you find things, but if I want to find a pencil skirt or a house with two bedrooms, I might have to search for a long time. That's to say nothing of what happens if I want to find a place where people who like literature are hanging out (unless there happens to be a successful event of that kind right then, and even then I might just want a hangout, not an event), or someone who can teach me how to make virtual clothing.

So I think the success of virtual worlds won't be something we can really measure until these three things--realism, ease of use, and very good searching and filtering of the world itself, including the objects in it--have all the kinks worked out! And the timeline for that, it seems to me these days, will probably be measured in decades.

^^^\ Kate /^^^

Video games are not my thing, but my interest was caught by an article about Microsoft because they're doing some pretty interesting motion capture to offer with their X Box game system. It involves (I think) a cloud of little laser points that (seem to) do a very good job of detecting exactly where all of the parts of your body are, and can do other fascinating things, like recognize individual faces. And if it can do all this, then surely it could recognize facial expressions?
I don't for a minute imagine that everyone would start using this technology for moving around and dancing and all that even if it were available, but if *eventually* it could be used for Second Life, maybe we could get much more realistic hugs, easy access to all kinds of facial expressions, and so on! (I won't go into the "so on.") What do you think? Would you have any use for it?

^^^\ Kate /^^^

Well, I've had every intention of keeping up with Second Life friends and continuing to post here on the Winged Girl blog, but First Life has been trumping Second Life pretty much every waking moment for me lately, so while I might put in an occasional post just to be unpredictable (well, actually just because sometimes I feel an undeniable need to trumpet my opinion on something), for the moment I think we had better consider me to be on hiatus as a blogger, and to be a rare visitor to Second Life. Very nice things are happening in my First Life, though it's disappointing not to have a chance to share that (or other topics of conversation) with my Second Life friends!

^^^\ Kate /^^^

A note! I already got the fixes for two out of three things I complain about below. :)

Yes, I know: what a ridiculous amount of time to go between posts! The holidays began the distractions, and First Life has become even more engrossing. I know it's probably not healthy to spend all my time in First Life to the detriment of my Second Life, but you know how it is...you start playing First Life and you just get caught up in it.

And worse, when I come back to blogging, all I do is complain! Here goes:

Much of the time when I go back into Second Life these days, I seem to have a problem that the textures on me keep reloading and reloading, so I keep going out of focus and looking like a creepy melted waxwork (at least to myself!) - and even when I come back in focus, there are problems, usually a strange line of lightness around my eyes.

The other problem I've been seeing, which I hope is a temporary Second Life glitch that will be fixed soon, is that some clothing textures are repeating and extending in ways they were never meant to repeat or extend! For instance, in this picture I'm not wearing socks or pants, just glitch pants that go with the skirt...yet the glitch pants seem to want to go right down over my toes! It's ridiculous, really. If it weren't a glitch, it would be very handy for making tights that could be worn with just one item or stockings that go a little higher up on the thigh, but as it is, it's just creating havoc with certain outfits, including a few of my briefer things from Armidi. Surely the Lindens That Be will make this right?

By the way, the dress in the picture is a freebie, in fact, from a store with all kinds of cute things in it, Sin & Secret. It has a bit of a BareRose feel to it, though I think BareRose has a level of imagination I've hardly seen anywhere else.

Oh, and as long as I'm complaining, I'll certainly have to see whether there's anything I can do about the not-so-gorgeous quality level of the JPEGs Second Life will now kindly save screen shots to. This picture is a good example...why present pictures of Second Life if they're not clear and unmuddled?

Wish me luck, and the same to you with your glitches, whether they're in First Life or Second.

^^^\ Kate /^^^

Here's an update: First, I had my JPEG quality set to 75 (in the snapshot window), so when I cranked that up, I got the picture below.

Plus, I got this very helpful note (with the sender's name left off for privacy). Joshooah also nailed it, in comments. :)

Kate,

Read your blog about the glitch where pants cover feet, shirt covers hands, etc.

As an SL mentor, I get questions about this fairly often.

It's an nVidia card problem. Although this problem has been reported with other graphic cards, it does not happen as often.

Solution:

Go into Advanced (Ctrl + Alt + D)/ Rendering/Features/Palletized Textures (uncheck palletized textures).

Then, Rebake (Ctrl + Alt + R)

This usually clears up the problem. Hope it works for you, as well.

Have a good day.

On New World Notes today, Hamlet Au throws out this challenge: can anyone come up with a convincing reason that immersive virtual environments will replace the web? He said,

"Over the next few years, virtual worlds of all kinds will become an integral part of the Net; I have no doubt about that. User-created, realistic 3D worlds like Second Life will become an important niche platform; I have no doubt about that either. But where's the evidence that they're on track to become even more than that, eventually replacing the web itself? So far as I can tell, there is none."

Well, I don't think that virtual environments will replace the web, any more than the web has replaced books or television has replaced radio. I do think, though, that eventually virtual worlds will become very important in business, entertainment, and daily life - maybe more important than the web. And I can prove it! Sort of. Here I go:

We all know that virtual worlds are very young and rough right now. Second Life, the cream of the virtual world crop, is difficult to learn, confusing, often unrewarding (think of those ghost town malls scattered throughout the world), sometimes glitchy, and limited. But most people seem to agree that over time, virtual worlds will get better: it will be easier to use them, and they'll be able to do more things. When someone can sit down at a computer, put on a helmet, and find themselves in the middle of a good historical recreation of the Battle of the Bulge or a live football game or an acting class, without spending hours upon hours or even days upon days learning the ropes and getting outfitted, then virtual worlds will have arrived, and their benefits will far outweigh their inconveniences. Not that we don't have a long, long way to go!

But virtual worlds won't replace the web. Why? Because some things are just as good - or better! - on a flat screen than in 3-D. For instance, let's say you want to look at pictures of a friend's vacation with your husband or wife. Is there any real advantage to doing that in a virtual world? Not really. If you do it in First Life, you can sit down together in front of a screen - or when electric paper comes along, just sit on your couch with that! - and look at it. The same goes for reading blogs, look up reference information, viewing calendars, composing letters, and anything else that works perfectly well in 2-D.

But some things are definitely better in 3-D! If you want to look at a hotel before you book a room, 3-D is much better. The same if you want to view a sports game or a dance performance, have a virtual meeting, recreate a historical event, socialize with friends, discuss a new design, act, explore...I won't go on. These things are better in 3-D, just like movies, plays, documentaries, painting demonstrations, and those kinds of things are better on televisions than on the radio.


Which leads to the proving part. People don't think of virtual worlds as having any precedent in history, but they do for *this* purpose, and that precedent is television. When television came on, it offered a more immersive form of broadcast sharing than radio. Radio offered just sound, television offered sight and sound. An immersive, virtual broadcast would offer sight and sound too, but in a 3-D environment where you could look around. People will adopt more immersive environments when they're better suited to the task (like telling a story through a movie rather than a radio play) even if they're more expensive (like television) and less convenient (like having to sit down in front of the television rather than move around freely while listening to the radio).


We're not there yet, and I don't know when we'll get there, but sooner or later, the things that virtual environments are good at will start happening more and more on virtual environments. Like radio, books, and other simpler technologies, the web isn't going anywhere, but it's going to decline in importance compared to virtual worlds, just as radio did compared to television.

How'd I do, Hamlet?

^^^\ Kate /^^^

Well, I've tried being "actual size" (which is to say, I tried shrinking my avatar to more closely match my First Life height) and I don't really think there's much in it for me. Here are some reasons for that.

First of all, Dale Innis pointed out that even people who have measured themselves may well not know what size they are! joshooahlove kindly sent me a height detector (thank you, Joshooah!), and although it tried very hard, it told me I was a good bit shorter than I thought I was. Here's the picture:


So the chance of other people being properly scaled to my height is not very good at all, even if more people were to become interested in matching their First Life height.

Second, as I shrunk myself down, things started fitting worse. The one hug I tried at that height worked all right, but there have been other animations that shortchange me even at my usual, taller height. When I was small, my jewelry floated above by skin, and my hair began to look like an ill-fitting wig.

And third, there were some excellent points made in comments to my last size post that convinced me that a "normal size" in Second Life is not the same thing as a "normal size" in First Life. It's not much use trying to recreate First Life exactly in Second Life, not only because Second Life isn't capable of it, but also because a lot of other people in Second Life are going out of their way to make it a place that *isn't* like First Life. But then, I probably fall into that camp, what with the wings and all. :)

One thing I really did like about being shorter, though, was that my body felt more real to me, a little less stretched or skinny. For a long time my Second Life self has felt comfortably proportioned, but in the last month or two for some reason I've been feeling too skinny. I don't mean that I've felt like I needed to add pounds to be more realistic, because I'm pretty slim in First Life too...it's just that I felt stretched out. So when I moved my height slider from 40 back up to 57, I also moved the next slider, "body thickness," from 0 up to 10 (after experimenting with 15 and 20, which looked too blocky and heavy to me). The difference seems barely noticeable in these pictures, below, but it feels nicer somehow. :)


OK, who else is experimenting with their body these days? My friend Eveline made a beautiful transformation from a form she'd had for quite some time (that was also quite pretty). Any chance of a guest post, hon?

^^^\ Kate /^^^