Medhue Simoni Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 irihapeti wrote: + edit add i dont mean to mean or nothing. but why dont you know the actual works that your beliefs are based on. Is a bit kinda like ffs sometimes when this happens in these kinds of convos edit add more seems to me based on the convo that you are not actually what you think you are. You are not a ancap (whatever you might think that means). You are a buddhist. In the way you think and in what you say. So why dont just be that. bc you are right on that part. Some of the Buddhism teachings do accord with your market pov and you can reconcile them as a personal belief foundation and life guide I have already explained why rational can't be defined. It is subjective. What is rational for 1 person, may not be rational for anyone else. If you think rational is an objective measure, then please explain to me how you can judge it. How can you test it objectively and say that an action is rational or not? Again, I have already explained this. Why you won't allow this to sink in, I can only assume you have a mental blockage, or your own ideology hangs on this rational factor, which it seems to be. Now, because rational is subjective, Mises can easily say that people do act rationally, and you can not prove otherwise, which you have not done in this whole thread. You just claim that people being rational is wrong. Me, I don't give a crap if people are rational or not. I do not think it is important at all. To even think that people are not rational, is to imply that someone else should make the decisions for people, because they are not rational. Again, you should check to make sure your ideology is not influencing your attitudes about the subject, instead of the actual facts. Oh really, I'm not an Ancap? Anarcho capitalists believe strictly that the economy does not need government intervention or influence. That is exactly what I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinRey Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Hmmm... didn't except anybody to reply to the rants of a new participant to this chaotic thread, guess I have to follow up now. :matte-motes-wink: Deltango Vale wrote: Good point about corporate culture: "It takes good leadership and lots of time and patience and hard work to fight the inertia caused by this and steer the organisation in a completely new direction." At the same time, there lurks on the Board at least one person who was directly responsible for SL's change of direction in 2007. Well, the board is part of the corporate culture of course. I have no idea which board member you have in mind but yes, a sinlge person in the wrong place can do a lot of harm. Not enough to bring an organisation to such a sad state that LL is i now though. I do believe LL is in a sad state and the responbibility for that can't be placed on a single person. It seems to me that for the most part the people working for LL are good workers and very well qualified for their jobs. The ones I've met have certainly been really nice guys and I always feel bad when I have to chew them out. (sorry, G and N and M and all you others. If you read this: I never wanted to play the Bitchy Builder Babe role but I had to to and it's all for your own good in the long run!) It's the jobs they don't do and don't have the qualifications to do that cause problems. That and some serious attitude issues. They lack marketing skills - that's been discussed earlier in this thread, no need to elaborate on that here They lack - what should I call it... pedagocial skills perhaps? The ability to make their product accessable and understandable to the general public. The UI is a mess, there's no other word for it. It may not seem like a big problem to us who are used to it but imagine how it is for somebody who's never been to SL before. And documentation - full of holes and what there is, is disorganised and so full fuzzy thinking and techy language only somebody familiar with programming and with lots of time on their hand are able to make much of it. They lack content creator qualifications. I'm not saying LL should start doing large scale in-house content creation again, I think we all agree that it's better they focus on making the tools for others to use. But a toolmaker have to know enough of the creative process to actually understand what kinds of tools are needed. LL don't and even worse, they believe they do and no amount of evidence seems to be enough to convince them they're wrong. A good example here is Meauxle Bureaux. It's a sim sized cesspit of mesh garbage so poorly made it'll make a brave builder cry but apparently in LL's eyes it's the pinnacle of Mesh In Second Life. Sometimes they seem to lack even the most basic grip on reality. If I remember correctly, Ebbe announced during his WVBPE key speech that 300 schools were participating in LL's new educational program. He thought that wasn't a bad result and in a way he's right. 300 isn't a bad result. 3000 would have been a bad result, 300 is total failure. They lack the ability to do long term strategic planning. Although that sems to have improved recently. They lack the ability to analyze and capitalize on their successes. The organisational inertia I mentioned isn't always a bad thing. Second Life wouldn't have existed today if it wasn't for the momentum it gained during its bright moments. But LL never understood when they had a good thing and never managed to build on it. Chasing the latest buzzword was always more fun. They lack customer awareness. Pussycat Catnap already mentioned how LL keep chasing their imaginary dream customer rather than try to keep the ones they actually have. That's a good and important point but only part of it. They don't seem to feel customers - any customers - are important to a business at all. That doesn't mean they aren't happy to have users. Not at all! Everybody are very welcome to SL as long as we don't interrupt the Gods in their important work! (This is why I have to play BItchy Builder Babe every now and then btw. Throw a tantrum at the right time and place and you'll get their attention. Then just keep making a lot of noise until they comply to your requests just to shut you up. I doesn't always work but sometimes it does and it's the only way that seems to have even a chance of success.) The lack - world awareness is perhaps a good word? CDN and html pipelining. Great ideas aren't they? Why didn't anybody think of it before. No matter what we may think of how they were implemented in SL, when they were introduced here, LL was really enthusiastic about these wonderful brand new ideas. They seemed to be compeletely ignorant of the fact that they've been the industial standard in IT for years. They lack the ability to finish. Experience keys - I'm not sure exactly when LL launched Pyri Peaks but it existed as early as 2010. Shortly after they launched Linden Realms based on an all but finished beta version of the program that powers Pyri Peaks. And then... nothing and after that, still nothing. Actually, they did pick that project up again evetually and launched the Magellan Hunt and eventually the "brand new" Experience Key but it took them an awful lot of time and it's not what they typically do anyway. The house control system for the Linden Homes is a better example: A fairly basic lsl script that is still in a fairly unstable beta stage after half a decade. They lack the ability to handle bugs effectively. Perhaps a special case of the previous point since a programmer's work is nver done until the last bug has been crushed but criticial enough it deserves to be mentioned separately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 Theresa Tennyson wrote: How can a dictator be stopped from using force? How can anyone be stopped from using force if they decide to, other than by using greater force? And what is "force" anyway? "Businesses don't use force." Is firing someone force? Is cornering a market force? (Incidentally, dogs can learn from their mistakes, and humans often don't.) And I've been reading everything you've written - over, under, sideways, down, backwards, forwards, square and round. It wasn't me that said over half of the people who vote are "morons" (if they vote for something you don't like.) Yet you trust the exact same people to make good choices in an unregulated free market? Why can't they be influenced to make a bad decision just as easily? Will a new "pure" economic system change people? That's basically the same thinking that the Bolsheviks used when they talked about the "New Soviet Man." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man The American Revolution is how you stop a dictator. To the people's credit, they tried to institute a system that was not based on using force. Defending yourself againt force is perfectly fine, and ethical. A business uses force by getting their politician to write regulations that everyone much follow. They will always use fear tactics to get those regulations passed. Those regulations are really to limit the market and make it harder for new businesses to compete. In a free market, without government intervention, you get real prices, because people aren't forced to buy things, or pay for things. They are free to choose what they want, not what some politician thinks they should have. People can be as moronic as they want, but only if they have the money to pay for it. They can be as irrational as they want, and the person who will pay the price, is them, not everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: In a free market, without government intervention, you get real prices, because people aren't forced to buy things, or pay for things. They are free to choose what they want, not what some politician thinks they should have. People can be as moronic as they want, but only if they have the money to pay for it. They can be as irrational as they want, and the person who will pay the price, is them, not everyone else. Okay, let's use a real-world example... In the early personal computer era there were a number of small, incompatible systems on the market - the closest to a standard was a language called CP/M. IBM, a company that was large and successful, decided to get into the computer market and introduced a machine that needed a new language. The maker of CP/M was originally contacted but they dragged their feet, so IBM decided to contract with Microsoft, who had bought the rights to a language that would work on the new machine. Because IBM was already a large company that had trust in the market, their PC's quickly took a large portion of the market. Other computer makers were free to make compatible machines, but they needed the Microsoft MS-DOS software to be guaranteed compatibility, and of course as it was private code they'd need to pay for it, because otherwise they'd be using it without permission and a contract - and that would be stealing. Microsoft, as part of their contract with PC-compatible makers, made it financially unrealistic for them to use it without 1) buying a license for every machine the maker made, regardless of whether or not the machine was loaded with MS-DOS and 2) include a Microsoft-built add on program called Windows. In other words, Microsoft used force to propagate MS-DOS and Windows and leveraged this to popularize their other software, effectively killing off their competition in the PC-compatible market. Now tell me, where exactly did the government come into this?Yes, of course Microsoft is no longer nearly the market behemoth they were before. Interestingly enough, this happened after the government forced them to change their contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: How can a dictator be stopped from using force? How can anyone be stopped from using force if they decide to, other than by using greater force? And what is "force" anyway? "Businesses don't use force." Is firing someone force? Is cornering a market force? (Incidentally, dogs can learn from their mistakes, and humans often don't.) And I've been reading everything you've written - over, under, sideways, down, backwards, forwards, square and round. It wasn't me that said over half of the people who vote are "morons" (if they vote for something you don't like.) Yet you trust the exact same people to make good choices in an unregulated free market? Why can't they be influenced to make a bad decision just as easily? Will a new "pure" economic system change people? That's basically the same thinking that the Bolsheviks used when they talked about the "New Soviet Man." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man The American Revolution is how you stop a dictator. To the people's credit, they tried to institute a system that was not based on using force. Defending yourself againt force is perfectly fine, and ethical. [my bolding] A business uses force by getting their politician to write regulations that everyone much follow. They will always use fear tactics to get those regulations passed. Those regulations are really to limit the market and make it harder for new businesses to compete. In a free market, without government intervention, you get real prices, because people aren't forced to buy things, or pay for things. They are free to choose what they want, not what some politician thinks they should have. People can be as moronic as they want, but only if they have the money to pay for it. They can be as irrational as they want, and the person who will pay the price, is them, not everyone else. "Defending yourself againt force is perfectly fine, and ethical." So when a police officer tries to handcuff me it's ok for me to resist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 Theresa Tennyson wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: In a free market, without government intervention, you get real prices, because people aren't forced to buy things, or pay for things. They are free to choose what they want, not what some politician thinks they should have. People can be as moronic as they want, but only if they have the money to pay for it. They can be as irrational as they want, and the person who will pay the price, is them, not everyone else. Okay, let's use a real-world example... In the early personal computer era there were a number of small, incompatible systems on the market - the closest to a standard was a language called CP/M. IBM, a company that was large and successful, decided to get into the computer market and introduced a machine that needed a new language. The maker of CP/M was originally contacted but they dragged their feet, so IBM decided to contract with Microsoft, who had bought the rights to a language that would work on the new machine. Because IBM was already a large company that had trust in the market, their PC's quickly took a large portion of the market. Other computer makers were free to make compatible machines, but they needed the Microsoft MS-DOS software to be guaranteed compatibility, and of course as it was private code they'd need to pay for it, because otherwise they'd be using it without permission and a contract - and that would be stealing. Microsoft, as part of their contract with PC-compatible makers, made it financially unrealistic for them to use it without 1) buying a license for every machine the maker made, regardless of whether or not the machine was loaded with MS-DOS and 2) include a Microsoft-built add on program called Windows. In other words, Microsoft used force to propagate MS-DOS and Windows and leveraged this to popularize their other software, effectively killing off their competition in the PC-compatible market. Now tell me, where exactly did the government come into this? Yes, of course Microsoft is no longer nearly the market behemoth they were before. Interestingly enough, this happened after the government forced them to change their contracts. Well, many libertarians would make arguments around Microsoft's patent. That patent is registered under the US government, and enforced by them. As I have mentioned earlier, many libertarians do not believe in patents, as they aren't really property, as they are not rivalruous. Although I agree that patents aren't property, there could be other ways to handle patents with contracts. Ultimately, other than the patent question, I don't see where MS did anything wrong at all. Imagine all the time and money spent on that lawsuit, and in the end, it really changed nothing at all. If that time wasn't wasted, it could have been spent creating a new system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 Perrie Juran wrote: "Defending yourself againt force is perfectly fine, and ethical." So when a police officer tries to handcuff me it's ok for me to resist? Ethically, yes. It's likely not very intelligent tho, as most police follow the law, whether the laws are ethical or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: In a free market, without government intervention, you get real prices, because people aren't forced to buy things, or pay for things. They are free to choose what they want, not what some politician thinks they should have. People can be as moronic as they want, but only if they have the money to pay for it. They can be as irrational as they want, and the person who will pay the price, is them, not everyone else. Okay, let's use a real-world example... In the early personal computer era there were a number of small, incompatible systems on the market - the closest to a standard was a language called CP/M. IBM, a company that was large and successful, decided to get into the computer market and introduced a machine that needed a new language. The maker of CP/M was originally contacted but they dragged their feet, so IBM decided to contract with Microsoft, who had bought the rights to a language that would work on the new machine. Because IBM was already a large company that had trust in the market, their PC's quickly took a large portion of the market. Other computer makers were free to make compatible machines, but they needed the Microsoft MS-DOS software to be guaranteed compatibility, and of course as it was private code they'd need to pay for it, because otherwise they'd be using it without permission and a contract - and that would be stealing. Microsoft, as part of their contract with PC-compatible makers, made it financially unrealistic for them to use it without 1) buying a license for every machine the maker made, regardless of whether or not the machine was loaded with MS-DOS and 2) include a Microsoft-built add on program called Windows. In other words, Microsoft used force to propagate MS-DOS and Windows and leveraged this to popularize their other software, effectively killing off their competition in the PC-compatible market. Now tell me, where exactly did the government come into this? Yes, of course Microsoft is no longer nearly the market behemoth they were before. Interestingly enough, this happened after the government forced them to change their contracts. Well, many libertarians would make arguments around Microsoft's patent. That patent is registered under the US government, and enforced by them. As I have mentioned earlier, many libertarians do not believe in patents, as they aren't really property, as they are not rivalruous. Although I agree that patents aren't property, there could be other ways to handle patents with contracts. Ultimately, other than the patent question, I don't see where MS did anything wrong at all. Imagine all the time and money spent on that lawsuit, and in the end, it really changed nothing at all. If that time wasn't wasted, it could have been spent creating a new system. Patent? What patent? Microsoft didn't have any patent on MS-DOS that would have prevented a competitor to release a competing product, and in fact there was a competing PC compatible operating system that was capable of running almost all MS-DOS applications - DR-DOS from Digital Research, the company that developed CP/M. In fact, DR-DOS was superior in some ways (it's still running on my vintage gaming computer.) However, very few PC-compatible makers offered an option for DR-DOS because they would need to pay Microsoft the fee to install MS-DOS whether they did or not, making offering a choice an economic non-starter. Microsoft also put dubious "error messages" in early versions of WIndows if you tried running it on DR-DOS. Personally, I believe markets are fine things, but from what I've seen the end result of most "free" markets is one company (or a small group of companies working together) that eventually dominates the market to the point that any new competitors die aborning. How do you prevent that from happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: "Defending yourself againt force is perfectly fine, and ethical." So when a police officer tries to handcuff me it's ok for me to resist? Ethically, yes. It's likely not very intelligent tho, as most police follow the law, whether the laws are ethical or not. So then in the face of an ethical law I would have a duty to resist. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: irihapeti wrote: + edit add i dont mean to mean or nothing. but why dont you know the actual works that your beliefs are based on. Is a bit kinda like ffs sometimes when this happens in these kinds of convos edit add more seems to me based on the convo that you are not actually what you think you are. You are not a ancap (whatever you might think that means). You are a buddhist. In the way you think and in what you say. So why dont just be that. bc you are right on that part. Some of the Buddhism teachings do accord with your market pov and you can reconcile them as a personal belief foundation and life guide I have already explained why rational can't be defined. It is subjective. What is rational for 1 person, may not be rational for anyone else. If you think rational is an objective measure, then please explain to me how you can judge it. How can you test it objectively and say that an action is rational or not? Again, I have already explained this. Why you won't allow this to sink in, I can only assume you have a mental blockage, or your own ideology hangs on this rational factor, which it seems to be. Now, because rational is subjective, Mises can easily say that people do act rationally, and you can not prove otherwise, which you have not done in this whole thread. You just claim that people being rational is wrong. Me, I don't give a crap if people are rational or not. I do not think it is important at all. To even think that people are not rational, is to imply that someone else should make the decisions for people, because they are not rational. Again, you should check to make sure your ideology is not influencing your attitudes about the subject, instead of the actual facts. Oh really, I'm not an Ancap? Anarcho capitalists believe strictly that the economy does not need government intervention or influence. That is exactly what I believe. these are not my arguments. They are the arguments of Freidman, von Mises and Rand. I said at the start that I was putting these. That you dont actual know their works is the source of your confusion their entire works are based on the axiom that human beings are rational beings. That when they are rational then in Freidman's and Rand's arguments this is consonant with capitalism Rand takes this further and argues that bc human beings are rational then capitalism is morally justified on this fact alone. Rand argues that this is a fact bc it is in her opinion, self-evident von Mises has a different line. He argues that when human beings are capable of choice then everything they choose to do is rational. Further he argues that when people are incapable or unable or unwilling of choosing to act rationally then they have a psychological disorder. Disorders he says have no place in his study field - praxeology. Something he says is best left to psychologists to sort out. Is quite a trick this the way he argues it, sounds scientificey. Pare the argument down tho and we left with his opinion that anyone who does not conform to his view of rationality is in need of clinical treatment. Is why most academics and scientists find his works to be uninteresting from their pov + you (Medhue) have argued that human rationality is subjective and therefore it cannot be proofed. It follows from this that when something can not be proofed either self-evidently or thru observation and measurement then it is not a fact. Is only a belief if your argument is correct then it sweeps away the axioms of the works of Freidman, Rand, von Mises whose works are predicated on the axiom that human beings are rational. Further your conclusion names as somewhere between doubtful and rubbish, the methodologies used by these people to arrive at their own conclusions so when you say you are of the Austrian school then based on what you have argued then you are not of this school. You are not a Randist either. Nor are you a Freidmanite which you ruled out yourself earlier we have been here before Medhue. Another time you made a argument that individual wealth is a good measure of individual freedom. As was mentioned to you at the time, that argument is directly contrary to that of Locke - the architect of Classic Liberalism, and Libertarianism from which it springs. Unless you have reconsidered that argument then you not a libertarian or liberalist either Medhue you keep arguing against the works of some of the most prominent Right thinkers and philosophers. Is ok that you do. Whats not ok is for you to assert that your arguments are in accord with theirs. They are not + your arguments (Medhue) are those of many people similar to yourself. People who would like a world in which they can use their talents and skills to maximise the benefits for themselves. That if I can make it this way then so can everyone else similarly talented and skilled. That when those benefits dont actually come to me then is maybe the fault of the system. Or even more subtlely is their sometimes view that I actually do OK under the present system however the system works against me often and I am not able to realise the full benefits which I believe is my due. Therefore the system should be changed so that I do get what I believe is my due is nothing wrong with this view. bc is aspirational, even when not always practical. The practicality is that we dont all want the same things as our due, we are diverse in thought, desire and action. So we need a system that can accomodate this diversity. Something we have already. Is called democracy. In a democracy it is the will of the people, both individually and collectively, that we do have law so that there is a framework within which we can resolve our diversities and differences peacefully and civilly. The arguments then become about what should those laws be and how far should they extend. Is already agreed that there is a legal framework, for practical reasons thru all of human history when there has not been a legal framework then the direct rule of might and power is applied. As my ancestor Hongi Hika once said: taonga (those things which are precious to us) is that which is held by spears. Is not quite true in every meaning of taonga this, but it was to him. He being a warrior, a man of might and power. Is true today this as well in some parts of the world. Where is no civil law then might and power rules. Something that Alfred Wessex recognised way back when and spent his lifetime working out how civil law could be applied in practice + if we do as you suggest, abolish law in the marketplace then there will be a spearman at your door. Either in your employ to guard you from other spearmen. Or the spearman is there to ensure that some (if not all) of your output goes to them, the spearman or we can have one great big spearman to guard everybodys doors. Which is what we actual have now. The great big spearman ensures that we all uphold and abide the law. To ensure that our stuff is our stuff to do with as we please provided that we dont break the law (whatever that law might be.A law that can be changed thru the democratic processes available to do so). This spearman is the justice system. Itself a creation of law, created and supported by the people, both individually and collectively, in the community to which the law applies lots of little spearmen (where each guards his own) is the actual desired outcome should society reform itself on Anarchism. Something that any reader of the works of the prominent Anarchism thinkers and philosophers would know maybe you do know this and are happy to take up the spear yourself. If so then is one thing we can defo disgree on for sure. I am not going to take up the spear. I already got a great big spearman which I am happy to pay for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 Theresa Tennyson wrote: Personally, I believe markets are fine things, but from what I've seen the end result of most "free" markets is one company (or a small group of companies working together) that eventually dominates the market to the point that any new competitors die aborning. How do you prevent that from happening? You haven't established why we should prevent that. If a company made the best product, and gave the best prices, and that lead them to be the #1 supplier, then what is wrong with that? Now, as far as numerous companies colluding together to somehow abuse the public, that really doesn't happen in a free market, because if it is truly a free market, then there would be many competitors, not just a few. This does happen in highly regulated markets tho, all the time. The healthcare market is the biggest abuser of this, as well as insurance companies, banks, cable companies, and wireless communications companies. These are all highly regulated, which limits the market, and allows them all to collude together. The FCC just took over the internet, because there were so few ISPs, which is totally controlled by the FCC. So, because it regulates it, it needs to regulated it more. Notice the circular logic. Notice also, that these are all services that have increased in costs, despite most of them massively benefiting from technology. In all other areas, especially in the free market, that are related to technology, we have seen massive decreases in costs. Plus, in any free market, prices tend to decrease, not just because of technology, but also because each 1 of us gets up everyday and find new, better, and faster ways to do things. It is governments regulations, taxes, and money printing that causes prices to increase. If you don't want monopolies that abuse their customers, then don't allow your politician to get in bed with the corporations, cause that is the main cause of monopolies. As I said, if a company gets a monopolies because they are doing everything right for their customers, then why would you ever want to prevent that. When companies unfairly use the government to create their monopolies, that's when the people don't benefit. Look in every large city. You need a license to cut hair. You need a license to be a plumber. You need a license to be a landscaper. You need a license to start a taxicab company. In New York, it is over a million dollar for a taxicab license. These all limit those markets so that the licensed companies can charge more for their services. Maybe there does need to be a way to certify people, but that could easily be done voluntarily. Instead, the government makes it illegal to do those things without a license, resulting in more unemployment, and the only jobs available will be are large corporations, which got all those restrictions put in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 irihapeti wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: irihapeti wrote: + edit add i dont mean to mean or nothing. but why dont you know the actual works that your beliefs are based on. Is a bit kinda like ffs sometimes when this happens in these kinds of convos edit add more seems to me based on the convo that you are not actually what you think you are. You are not a ancap (whatever you might think that means). You are a buddhist. In the way you think and in what you say. So why dont just be that. bc you are right on that part. Some of the Buddhism teachings do accord with your market pov and you can reconcile them as a personal belief foundation and life guide I have already explained why rational can't be defined. It is subjective. What is rational for 1 person, may not be rational for anyone else. If you think rational is an objective measure, then please explain to me how you can judge it. How can you test it objectively and say that an action is rational or not? Again, I have already explained this. Why you won't allow this to sink in, I can only assume you have a mental blockage, or your own ideology hangs on this rational factor, which it seems to be. Now, because rational is subjective, Mises can easily say that people do act rationally, and you can not prove otherwise, which you have not done in this whole thread. You just claim that people being rational is wrong. Me, I don't give a crap if people are rational or not. I do not think it is important at all. To even think that people are not rational, is to imply that someone else should make the decisions for people, because they are not rational. Again, you should check to make sure your ideology is not influencing your attitudes about the subject, instead of the actual facts. Oh really, I'm not an Ancap? Anarcho capitalists believe strictly that the economy does not need government intervention or influence. That is exactly what I believe. these are not my arguments. They are the arguments of Freidman, von Mises and Rand. I said at the start that I was putting these. That you dont actual know their works is the source of your confusion their entire works are based on the axiom that human beings are rational beings. That when they are rational then in Freidman's and Rand's arguments this is consonant with capitalism Rand takes this further and argues that bc human beings are rational then capitalism is morally justified on this fact alone. Rand argues that this is a fact bc it is in her opinion, self-evident von Mises has a different line. He argues that when human beings are capable of choice then everything they choose to do is rational. Further he argues that when people are incapable or unable or unwilling of choosing to act rationally then they have a psychological disorder. Disorders he says have no place in his study field - praxeology. Something he says is best left to psychologists to sort out. Is quite a trick this the way he argues it, sounds scientificey. Pare the argument down tho and we left with his opinion that anyone who does not conform to his view of rationality is in need of clinical treatment. Is why most academics and scientists find his works to be uninteresting from their pov + you (Medhue) have argued that human rationality is subjective and therefore it cannot be proofed. It follows from this that when something can not be proofed either self-evidently or thru observation and measurement then it is not a fact. Is only a belief if your argument is correct then it sweeps away the axioms of the works of Freidman, Rand, von Mises whose works are predicated on the axiom that human beings are rational. Further your conclusion names as somewhere between doubtful and rubbish, the methodologies used by these people to arrive at their own conclusions so when you say you are of the Austrian school then based on what you have argued then you are not of this school. You are not a Randist either. Nor are you a Freidmanite which you ruled out yourself earlier we have been here before Medhue. Another time you made a argument that individual wealth is a good measure of individual freedom. As was mentioned to you at the time, that argument is directly contrary to that of Locke - the architect of Classic Liberalism, and Libertarianism from which it springs. Unless you have reconsidered that argument then you not a libertarian or liberalist either Medhue you keep arguing against the works of some of the most prominent Right thinkers and philosophers. Is ok that you do. Whats not ok is for you to assert that your arguments are in accord with theirs. They are not + your arguments (Medhue) are those of many people similar to yourself. People who would like a world in which they can use their talents and skills to maximise the benefits for themselves. That if I can make it this way then so can everyone else similarly talented and skilled. That when those benefits dont actually come to me then is maybe the fault of the system. Or even more subtlely is their sometimes view that I actually do OK under the present system however the system works against me often and I am not able to realise the full benefits which I believe is my due. Therefore the system should be changed so that I do get what I believe is my due is nothing wrong with this view. bc is aspirational, even when not always practical. The practicality is that we dont all want the same things as our due, we are diverse in thought, desire and action. So we need a system that can accomodate this diversity. Something we have already. Is called democracy. In a democracy it is the will of the people, both individually and collectively, that we do have law so that there is a framework within which we can resolve our diversities and differences peacefully and civilly. The arguments then become about what should those laws be and how far should they extend. Is already agreed that there is a legal framework, for practical reasons thru all of human history when there has not been a legal framework then the direct rule of might and power is applied. As my ancestor Hongi Hika once said: taonga (those things which are precious to us) is that which is held by spears. Is not quite true in every meaning of taonga this, but it was to him. He being a warrior, a man of might and power. Is true today this as well in some parts of the world. Where is no civil law then might and power rules. Something that Alfred Wessex recognised way back when and spent his lifetime working out how civil law could be applied in practice + if we do as you suggest, abolish law in the marketplace then there will be a spearman at your door. Either in your employ to guard you from other spearmen. Or the spearman is there to ensure that some (if not all) of your output goes to them, the spearman or we can have one great big spearman to guard everybodys doors. Which is what we actual have now. The great big spearman ensures that we all uphold and abide the law. To ensure that our stuff is our stuff to do with as we please provided that we dont break the law (whatever that law might be.A law that can be changed thru the democratic processes available to do so). This spearman is the justice system. Itself a creation of law, created and supported by the people, both individually and collectively, in the community to which the law applies lots of little spearmen (where each guards his own) is the actual desired outcome should society reform itself on Anarchism. Something that any reader of the works of the prominent Anarchism thinkers and philosophers would know maybe you do know this and are happy to take up the spear yourself. If so then is one thing we can defo disgree on for sure. I am not going to take up the spear. I already got a great big spearman which I am happy to pay for This is some of the most convoluted arguing, I have yet to see, yet smartly convoluted. The Austrian school is not determined by Mises, nor even Hayek. It's a combinations of similar theories by many Austrians, not just 1 or 2. The Austrian school is not predicated on whether people are rational at all. The only people that say that it is, or the Chicago school of thought is, are the keyensians, cause it really is 1 of their few arguments. It really is a brilliant red herring tho. That's 1 thing the left does very well, and that is constructing good logical fallacies. The reason Mises, and Friedman, and Rand all said that people are rational, is because, in their minds, it is logically obvious. Me, personally, I don't care if it is or is not. The reasons why free markets are better than controlled markets, are numerous, and doesn't hinge on whether people are rational. Now, you can say, that I'm not this or that. Go for it. Do you really think it matters to me whether you think I am, based on your misinterpretations? I am an Austrian. I'm also an Ancap. And a libertarian. And a buddhist. Not 1 of them has any logical conflict with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 Perrie Juran wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: "Defending yourself againt force is perfectly fine, and ethical." So when a police officer tries to handcuff me it's ok for me to resist? Ethically, yes. It's likely not very intelligent tho, as most police follow the law, whether the laws are ethical or not. So then in the face of an ethical law I would have a duty to resist. Interesting. I'm assuming you mean in the face of an unethical law, and yes I would agree. How else could an unethical law be changed if people do not resist it in some way. I'd say tho, that the best and 1st way to stop unethical laws is for juries to never convict people of them. If the people petition a government, and the government refuses to change anything, then the people should start a compaign to never convict in a jury trial, and this should be known by everyone. So, people could actually flaunt this said "illegal" action in the face of the politicians. Nullification is the word for it. This is going on around the country, as we speak, as state after state defies the federal government on unethical pot laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perrie Juran Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: "Defending yourself againt force is perfectly fine, and ethical." So when a police officer tries to handcuff me it's ok for me to resist? Ethically, yes. It's likely not very intelligent tho, as most police follow the law, whether the laws are ethical or not. So then in the face of an ethical law I would have a duty to resist. Interesting. I'm assuming you mean in the face of an unethical law, and yes I would agree. How else could an unethical law be changed if people do not resist it in some way. I'd say tho, that the best and 1st way to stop unethical laws is for juries to never convict people of them. If the people petition a government, and the government refuses to change anything, then the people should start a compaign to never convict in a jury trial, and this should be known by everyone. So, people could actually flaunt this said "illegal" action in the face of the politicians. Nullification is the word for it. This is going on around the country, as we speak, as state after state defies the federal government on unethical pot laws. I did mean "ethical," because you did not make a distinction in the post I responded to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deltango Vale Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Excellent post. I agree with all of it. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. CCP Games suffered some of the problems on your list. The result was a full-scale riot by the players. Here is the (roughly 03:30-13:30). Note both the honesty of the executives/managers and their openness with the players. CCP has continued to make mistakes, but having learned its lesson, it's much quicker to fix them.Sadly, Linden Lab ignored massive protests by the residents at some of its policy changes. The company retreated into its ivory tower and locked the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vivienne Schell Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Openness and honesty from Linden Lab? I think that they quit that lately in 2007. Since then it´s only bla bla bla and "It will be superfantasticorgasmic, people!!". Not even a decent "Sorry, **bleep** happens" if the superfantasticorgasmic new shiny ends in the user garbage can. Same for the so called "new platform" or whatever it is or is not meant to be or meant to be or will be or not will be...ugh. Hot air, gazillions of hot air. Nothing specifical, except that this CEO Yahoo exilant and his followship on the board seem to expect from us that we throw away our inventories for following him into his shiny brave new world (run by the same people with the same ideas and the same deficits as the old one was run by). Rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamela Galli Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 ChinRey wrote: Hmmm... didn't except anybody to reply to the rants of a new participant to this chaotic thread, guess I have to follow up now. :matte-motes-wink: Deltango Vale wrote: Good point about corporate culture: "It takes good leadership and lots of time and patience and hard work to fight the inertia caused by this and steer the organisation in a completely new direction." At the same time, there lurks on the Board at least one person who was directly responsible for SL's change of direction in 2007. Well, the board is part of the corporate culture of course. I have no idea which board member you have in mind but yes, a sinlge person in the wrong place can do a lot of harm. Not enough to bring an organisation to such a sad state that LL is i now though. I do believe LL is in a sad state and the responbibility for that can't be placed on a single person. It seems to me that for the most part the people working for LL are good workers and very well qualified for their jobs. The ones I've met have certainly been really nice guys and I always feel bad when I have to chew them out. (sorry, G and N and M and all you others. If you read this: I never wanted to play the Bitchy Builder Babe role but I had to to and it's all for your own good in the long run!) It's the jobs they don't do and don't have the qualifications to do that cause problems. That and some serious attitude issues. They lack marketing skills - that's been discussed earlier in this thread, no need to elaborate on that here They lack - what should I call it... pedagocial skills perhaps? The ability to make their product accessable and understandable to the general public. The UI is a mess, there's no other word for it. It may not seem like a big problem to us who are used to it but imagine how it is for somebody who's never been to SL before. And documentation - full of holes and what there is, is disorganised and so full fuzzy thinking and techy language only somebody familiar with programming and with lots of time on their hand are able to make much of it. They lack content creator qualifications. I'm not saying LL should start doing large scale in-house content creation again, I think we all agree that it's better they focus on making the tools for others to use. But a toolmaker have to know enough of the creative process to actually understand what kinds of tools are needed. LL don't and even worse, they believe they do and no amount of evidence seems to be enough to convince them they're wrong. A good example here is Meauxle Bureaux. It's a sim sized cesspit of mesh garbage so poorly made it'll make a brave builder cry but apparently in LL's eyes it's the pinnacle of Mesh In Second Life. Sometimes they seem to lack even the most basic grip on reality. If I remember correctly, Ebbe announced during his WVBPE key speech that 300 schools were participating in LL's new educational program. He thought that wasn't a bad result and in a way he's right. 300 isn't a bad result. 3000 would have been a bad result, 300 is total failure. They lack the ability to do long term strategic planning. Although that sems to have improved recently. They lack the ability to analyze and capitalize on their successes. The organisational inertia I mentioned isn't always a bad thing. Second Life wouldn't have existed today if it wasn't for the momentum it gained during its bright moments. But LL never understood when they had a good thing and never managed to build on it. Chasing the latest buzzword was always more fun. They lack customer awareness. Pussycat Catnap already mentioned how LL keep chasing their imaginary dream customer rather than try to keep the ones they actually have. That's a good and important point but only part of it. They don't seem to feel customers - any customers - are important to a business at all. That doesn't mean they aren't happy to have users. Not at all! Everybody are very welcome to SL as long as we don't interrupt the Gods in their important work! (This is why I have to play BItchy Builder Babe every now and then btw. Throw a tantrum at the right time and place and you'll get their attention. Then just keep making a lot of noise until they comply to your requests just to shut you up. I doesn't always work but sometimes it does and it's the only way that seems to have even a chance of success.) The lack - world awareness is perhaps a good word? CDN and html pipelining. Great ideas aren't they? Why didn't anybody think of it before. No matter what we may think of how they were implemented in SL, when they were introduced here, LL was really enthusiastic about these wonderful brand new ideas. They seemed to be compeletely ignorant of the fact that they've been the industial standard in IT for years. They lack the ability to finish. Experience keys - I'm not sure exactly when LL launched Pyri Peaks but it existed as early as 2010. Shortly after they launched Linden Realms based on an all but finished beta version of the program that powers Pyri Peaks. And then... nothing and after that, still nothing. Actually, they did pick that project up again evetually and launched the Magellan Hunt and eventually the "brand new" Experience Key but it took them an awful lot of time and it's not what they typically do anyway. The house control system for the Linden Homes is a better example: A fairly basic lsl script that is still in a fairly unstable beta stage after half a decade. They lack the ability to handle bugs effectively. Perhaps a special case of the previous point since a programmer's work is nver done until the last bug has been crushed but criticial enough it deserves to be mentioned separately This post should be required reading for every Linden, beginning with Ebbe. It hits so many nails on the head, and expresses exactly the concerns of many of us heavily invested in SL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: The Austrian school is not determined by Mises, nor even Hayek. It's a combinations of similar theories by many Austrians, not just 1 or 2. The Austrian school is not predicated on whether people are rational at all. The only people that say that it is, or the Chicago school of thought is, are the keyensians, cause it really is 1 of their few arguments. was Mises who did actually say this. Not Keynes also. The argument that Mises methodology is suspect is your argument. Not mine + whats interesting about disciples is how they re-invent their ideology when is shown that one of their leading lights is just making stuff up if you do want clever then this is clever. Is a re-invention by a disciple of what Mises actually said http://mises.org/library/what-do-austrians-mean-rational Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irihapeti Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: How else could an unethical law be changed if people do not resist it in some way. how else? they could run for Parliament/Congress. If not themself then they could support the candidates who would change/remove a unethical law from the books + ps. In my country is legal to buy and consume what we call legal highs. It never used to be this way. Was no great march in the streets about it. Was just a recognition by the Parliament that if stuff doesnt actually harm you then is no reason why it would be illegal edit t[yp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: Personally, I believe markets are fine things, but from what I've seen the end result of most "free" markets is one company (or a small group of companies working together) that eventually dominates the market to the point that any new competitors die aborning. How do you prevent that from happening? You haven't established why we should prevent that. If a company made the best product, and gave the best prices, and that lead them to be the #1 supplier, then what is wrong with that? Now, as far as numerous companies colluding together to somehow abuse the public, that really doesn't happen in a free market, because if it is truly a free market, then there would be many competitors, not just a few. This does happen in highly regulated markets tho, all the time. The healthcare market is the biggest abuser of this, as well as insurance companies, banks, cable companies, and wireless communications companies. These are all highly regulated, which limits the market, and allows them all to collude together. The FCC just took over the internet, because there were so few ISPs, which is totally controlled by the FCC. So, because it regulates it, it needs to regulated it more. Notice the circular logic. Notice also, that these are all services that have increased in costs, despite most of them massively benefiting from technology. In all other areas, especially in the free market, that are related to technology, we have seen massive decreases in costs. Plus, in any free market, prices tend to decrease, not just because of technology, but also because each 1 of us gets up everyday and find new, better, and faster ways to do things. It is governments regulations, taxes, and money printing that causes prices to increase. If you don't want monopolies that abuse their customers, then don't allow your politician to get in bed with the corporations, cause that is the main cause of monopolies. As I said, if a company gets a monopolies because they are doing everything right for their customers, then why would you ever want to prevent that. When companies unfairly use the government to create their monopolies, that's when the people don't benefit. Look in every large city. You need a license to cut hair. You need a license to be a plumber. You need a license to be a landscaper. You need a license to start a taxicab company. In New York, it is over a million dollar for a taxicab license. These all limit those markets so that the licensed companies can charge more for their services. Maybe there does need to be a way to certify people, but that could easily be done voluntarily. Instead, the government makes it illegal to do those things without a license, resulting in more unemployment, and the only jobs available will be are large corporations, which got all those restrictions put in. I tried to find examples of market collusion but was stymied by the fact that I haven't found any recorded markets that you'd consider "unregulated." This raises a question - how do you stop the people participating in a market from forming something that you'd consider a government and then instituting something you'd consider regulations if that's what they decide to do? ETA - remembered a classic case of collusion and closing a market: Major League Baseball. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_League Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Medhue Simoni wrote: You haven't established why we should prevent that. If a company made the best product, and gave the best prices, and that lead them to be the #1 supplier, then what is wrong with that? Not necessarily. There's plenty of research on the effects large out-of-town stores have on town centres. Essentially, if you start with a situation in which several separate small retailers are trading quite profitably and in competition with each other, and then a large hypermarket or superstore opens outside town and takes 10%--15% of all the town centre stores' business, that's almost certainly going to mean the town centre stores' margins take such a large hit that they cease to be profitable, even though 85 to 90% of their customers have never shopped at the new hypermarket. The effect will be exacerbated, of course, by the fact that someone who drives out to the hypermarket because -- for example -- he wants to buy a new TV set and the hypermarket is offering very good prices, while he's there he'll probably do that week's supermarket shop, too, even though he'd normally go to the town centre stores because they're cheaper and offer a better range and quality. That's because he's now at the hypermarket and doesn't want to spend the extra time driving all the way back to the town centre to do his supermarket shop when he can do it all while he's at the hypermarket. Before too long, the hypermarket effectively has a local monopoly even though most of its customers never wanted to shop there, and would rather shop somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phadrus Karu Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 I generally have great respect for content creators, particularly animators as they have a very tough job. However, when critics dabble outside their field of knowledge (i.e. Maya software), hubris can sometimes strike in a big way and wisdom becomes nothing but the championing of willful ignorance. Unfortunately, both the first two posts in this thread fall firmly in that camp. Medhue Simoni wrote: First let me talk about the Maya centric attitude in silicon valley. Why? Why? Why? I swear, they never learn. Every single platform that started out Maya or 3ds Max centric in their tools, ended up failing or having to redo their whole mindset around it. Why? Because they could not get enough feed back. This is incorrect. Cloud Party did not fail to attract content creators or suffered from a lack of feedback; it had plenty of both. What it lacked throughout was consumers. Two primary reasons led to its developers selling off their IP to Yahoo: The underlying dilemma facing any virtual world startup seeking to attract in-world users is precisely the fact that they are new players in a very small niche. Second Life has had an immense head start for a number of years, allowing it to garner a base of hardcore residents. Human nature to resist change; particularly if it entails dividing their time between what they’ve left behind and their newly adopted virtual world was what ultimately betrayed Cloud Party’s potential as an alternative to SL. In short, serious in-world consumers who had the patience to learn the intricacies of a virtual world were already deeply rooted in Second Life and unwilling to abandon their social and economic investment. The Facebook users, by and large, required considerably more time than Cloud Party had available to acclimate themselves into the concept of a virtual space where any one location had yet to fully mature. New American banking regulations on virtual currency proved too large an impediment to overcome. Content Creators were unable to cash out their earnings (Cloud Cloins) for months on end which removed any economic incentive for them to establish a presence. The result was a massive hemorrhage of developers. Both Blue Mars and Cloud Party fell short of their goal to reach critical mass but the underlining causes had nothing to do with being biased towards pro 3D animation tools. Medhue Simoni wrote: Blender, in which 90+% of SL creators use. The Blender community has ALWAYS supported the SL creators, and actually built extensive tools around SL. It is ridiculous that LL doesn't have a dedicate set of Blender users on their team that is creating this new world. Again, RIDICULOUS! Heck, what they should be doing, is working with the Blender devs to make sure there are dedicated tools for the new world in Blender. That would be thinking ahead. In actuality, commercial products such as Maya, 3dsmax, Modo, Cinema4D, 3DCoat, Zbrush, etc. are what remain the primary tools of choice for professional developers across various platforms. This is especially true for a good portion of the upper echelons of content creators in Second Life. I also know some very talented and successful creators who use Blender exclusively too, but their numbers do not predominate at the top tier. The Blender user base is significant with its large foothold in Second Life, I suspect the adoption rate of Blender may soon see it overtake 3dsmax/Maya completely within the aforementioned subset of users. Be that as it may, large swaths of Blender users, much akin to Gimp users in Second Life, are not serious merchants whose income is derived solely off Second Life - not because Blender is incapable, but because the artists who established many of SL’s iconic brands since the early years were already workforce veterans who cut their teeth on professional tools. These individuals were educated in accordance with market realities which are not aligned with knowing just Blender; you have to be familiar with industry standards if you wanted a job. Medhue Simoni wrote: 2nd, Ebbe is totally wrong about content, or he needs to catch up. Ebbie Altberg is the Chief Executive Officer. The fact that he knows next to nothing about 3D production tools is a forgone conclusion – such things are merely details outside his immediate concern as it would be for any other company bureaucrat. His engineers, whom I presume do know a thing or two about the production process, most likely advised him to start with Maya for a number of reasons. Alias originally developed Maya to cater to the needs of large studios working on visual effects and film. As such, priority was given towards facilitating the animation process, simulation effects and team collaboration. Its animation, graphing and rigging functionality are the industry standard to which all others are compared. Animators in a studio environment often choose Maya (and to a lesser degree, 3dsmax) because its tools have proven themselves to be fully mature and robust after more than 20 years. Maya is what they know – it was utilized by Linden Lab back in 2003 to create the original Second Life avatar. When you consider that the same developers will also be creating avatars for the next generation platform which we, the content creators, will be working with - possibly for the next several years – it makes sense to use the tool they know best. Given that animators are especially at the mercy of edge loop placements for proper deformations on a human mesh body, would you really want Linden Lab dropping Maya and learning Blender on the go at this critical phase? The ideal way to troubleshoot problems is to limit the number of potential variables in a testing environment. The difficulty of determining the culprit during the debugging phase would be exponentially increased if LL had to sort through FBX files that have been exported from several packages. What’s causing the problem? Is it Maya? Blender? Modo? Daz3D? Is it our own software? Narrowing it down to two vectors streamlines the process. Once Linden Lab have localized all problems originating from their own platform, they can focus on testing individual software packages. As you said, FBX is the standard. But who controls the FBX file format? Autodesk. Blender’s support of FBX has often been shoddy at best. If there are immediate changes to the FBX format, Autodesk will propagate those changes in their own programs first. This means Linden Lab will have access to the latest version, for whatever that’s worth. Maya was designed for extensibility. Integrating proprietary solutions is what Maya does best. It includes the easy to use MEL scripting which is an interpreted language that has everything that can be done in Maya pre-defined. Essentially, every action has an equivalent command in MEL that shows up in the script editor, which facilitates rapid prototyping. You may recall in 2007 when Qarl Linden wrote his sculpty exporter via Mel. There is also a higher end API if you need C++ and I suspect the engineering team at Linden Lab may very well leverage this to add additional functionality specific to its game engine. With Blender, you can use Python (the whole UI is built via Python) but its scope is less defined compared with MEL. You can resort to re-writing sections of the software if need be given its opensource nature, but that workflow is painfully slow when you need to re-compile it. Maya is thoroughly documented. Part of the reason for the program's legendary price tag is because everything from workflow specifics down to individual nodes is exhaustively referenced and easy to find. Unlike most software documentation, Maya’s help is ACTUALLY helpful. For Linden Lab’s engineering team, that’s essential. The one notable advantage of using professional software over opensource solutions is the level of support provided. If the engineering team behind NexGen Life becomes stumped, top level support is a phone call away, “I see your problem now. Have you tried this workaround? It didn’t work you, say? Alright, we’ll inform our crack team of programmers about this bug right away and have a patch sent out ASAP.” Meanwhile, in Blender land, you’ve hit a snag but there’s no number to call. When you have a looming deadline to implement a feature demanded by your user base, hedging your hopes on the Blender forums having an answer at hand within the next few hours is just not good enough. This one is speculation on my part. Linden Lab may have likely surveyed those whom they have had business relationships with in the past and concluded based on the results that Maya was the common denominator among them. This would be especially true among brands which had their start in the pre-mesh era when Maya’s NURBS made it considerably easier to model sculpted organic forms with curvature. If this is indeed the case, then supporting the people who have been producing the grid’s best quality content for several years would avail Linden Lab equally quality feedback from partners they already know. With that said, the majority of modern 3D software adhere to the same principals and feature similar functionality to such an extent that it is now mostly a matter of preference. Fundamental skills learned in one application can be transferred to another; although workflows may differ between individual software. The point is that high quality results can be achieved in virtually any package. At the end of the day, it all comes down to one’s artistic abilities rather which program is chosen to showcase those abilities. In the case of Nexgen Life however, Linden Lab is faced not with artistic dilemmas, but rather a series of mounting engineering problems. As Maya was written for software engineers in mind, this makes it the best tool for the job at this particular stage. Pussycat Catnap wrote: For now I will say I agree with you that Maya is the wrong path for anything that is meant to be community developed. Sure, a LOT of people have Maya out there, a lot of people also have 3DS. But... Maya is a huge expensive platform. This means the only people with Maya either are companies, or people with pirated software, or people who cannot tell the difference in price between a latte at Starbucks (~$3-6) and the new Apple LIMITED Watch ($10,000). Pasted below is my response to a similar statement made in another forum: In addition to the full featured version of Maya, Autodesk also offers MayaLT, a product targeted towards independent game developers. MayaLT has everything a content creator will need for both Second Life and Nexgen Life. It supports all recognizable industry standard formats and retains support for popular auxiliary tools like Substance Designer. A perpetual license costs $795, a quarter of the price of the studio variant of Maya. A subscription is also available for $30 a month or $240 a year; which is $20 a month - less than what many paying consumers spend in Second Life within the same time frame. There may be a multitude of other reasons why some individuals choose not to use Maya, but cost is no longer one of them. Pussycat Catnap wrote: Just about every time you mispell a search result for something 3D related you're going to land on a website offering Maya or 3DS for free, with half the page written in Russian and the other half in Chinese... The last thing they want to do here is start approving of the use of illegally made content (we already know SL is full of pirated goods... putting a stamp of approval on that - is a bad move). I'm afraid there is little useful to be said in the face of such ignorance other than to suggest you visit http://www.autodesk.com/store/maya-lt and then reflect on the error of your ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlewLlwyd Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 IT is astonishing what can happen when the PR people from LL and Autodesk get together, isn't it? ***What is REALLY astonishing is that Peter Gray felt the need to prompt his Autodesk equivalent to respond here; he must be extremely worried*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deltango Vale Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Excellent post. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LlewLlwyd Posted April 1, 2015 Share Posted April 1, 2015 Phadrus Karu wrote: A perpetual license costs $795 more than Blender, a quarter of the price of the studio variant of Maya, [which is therefore $3,180 more than Blender] . A subscription is also available for $30 a month more than Blender costs, or $240 a year more than Blender; which is $20 a month more than Blender There may be a multitude of other reasons why some individuals choose not to use Maya, and cost is certainly one of them. FIFY! ***Thank you for the anti-advertisement*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now