Picks in Profiles.

[Selene Gregoire]

9 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

First you wrongly suggested that I was calling you a liar, and now you wrongly suggest that I might have forgotten something about you. I don't know you from Eve. Your name is not one that I am familiar with, and I had no idea about your involvement with the Emerald, etc. setup, so I can hardly have forgotten it. But it does indicate why you are so defensive about the Emerald etc. viewers.

I can accept that what you quoted was true in 2012. Things have changed since 9 years ago. I also think that unscrupulous things, such as what happened with Emerald, can still happen with any 3rd party viewer. It's not just that I think it. It's that I know it. We all know it. So it's up to each person to decide for themselves whether or not they want to trust unknown people running programmes in their computers, where all sorts of private stuff is, including usernames and passwords, and often where their online banking is done. "Unknown people" because they are known only by their avatar names. In the real world, where unscrupulous things can happen, they are totally anonymous.

 

One person makes a claim about something. Another person doesn't accept that the claim is correct. If the first person wants the claim to be believed, it is up to him/her to show it, and not up to the second person to research it for him/herself. So I don't want you to do any research for me. I am perfectly happy not knowing one way or the other. It's up to the one(s) who made the claim to prove what they claimed is actually true.

 

No. I never suggested anything. I asked a question. If you misconstrued that, it's not on me. Since you are obviously trying to turn it all  back on me and blame me for any misunderstanding on your part, I'm done. I don't need to prove anything. It's already been proven.

[Pussycat Catnap]

This thread seems to have WAY MORE drama than makes sense given the subject matter.

 

Looks like I was wrong about Firestorm. Could have sworn it was otherwise but I even opened some images up and messed around with looking at them in different ratios them to verify that I'd had it wrong.

 

I do wish that the ratio for all three of 'about land', 'picks', and the '1L / 2L' profile images was the same BOTH across each of them with each other AND across all viewers. It would make image choices a lot easier if there was universal consistency. I could care less what actual ratio was chosen - I just wish it was a universal standard.

Edited April 3, 2021 by Pussycat Catnap

[Theresa Tennyson]

On 4/3/2021 at 2:25 AM, Phil Deakins said:

 So it's up to each person to decide for themselves whether or not they want to trust unknown people running programmes in their computers, where all sorts of private stuff is, including usernames and passwords, and often where their online banking is done. "Unknown people" because they are known only by their avatar names. In the real world, where unscrupulous things can happen, they are totally anonymous

 

In order to be listed on the TPV page, the developer of a third-party viewer has to disclose their real-world information to Linden Lab: (Policy on Third Party Viewers: 6/a/ii

https://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php

Now tell us the names of the people who wrote the web browser you're using.

[Phil Deakins]

On 4/3/2021 at 5:23 PM, Selene Gregoire said:

I don't need to prove anything. It's already been proven.

Not in this thread it hasn't. Nobody has made even the slightest attempt at showing evidence to back up the claims. If you have any, please show it. Or, if it's already been proven, as you say, please tell us where to look.

 

21 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

In order to be listed on the TPV page, the developer of a third-party viewer has to disclose their real-world information to Linden Lab: (Policy on Third Party Viewers: 6/a/ii

https://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php

That's fine, although RL info merely has to be submitted to LL. It doesn't mean that it's correct info or that it's checked out. I doubt that any checks, other than maybe email, are made by LL. But, as far as we are concerned, the ones who put out TPVs are totally anonymous.

21 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Now tell us the names of the people who wrote the web browser you're using.

Why? I can't give you the names of the people who wrote the standard viewer either, but it doesn't matter because we'd already established that it is easier to trust a company than a few totally anonymous individuals.

There are occasions when I do choose to trust unknown-to-me people who are not within a company, but that's my choice, and it's a choice that everyone has. For instance, I have the OpenSim system installed in my computer.

I haven't suggested not trusting people we don't know. I've acknowledged that TPVs have unscrupulous behaviour in their history, and I make my viewer choices with that in mind. I haven't suggested that others should make the same choices that I make, so I can see no reason why anyone would want to oppose my thinking - except that one of them admitted to being involved with Emerald at the time it did it's 'thing', so presumably feels a bit defensive, since most of the people who were involved with Emerald had nothing to do with what it did, and didn't know that it was doing it.

The idea of not trusting anonymous people to run programmes in our computers cannot be faulted.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Phil Deakins

[Gabriele Graves]

Looks like The Phoenix Firestorm Project at least is in fact a non-profit, incorporated organisation.  That makes them a company.

 

Edited April 5, 2021 by Gabriele Graves
Replaced image with one not obscured by cursor.

[Phil Deakins]

But it doesn't mean that it's trustable. It is easier to trust a company than an unknown individual. That's all.

As a company, compare it with Linden Lab, which has many paid full-time employees, and therefore is seen to be more trustworthy than Firestorm. Don't you agree?

Also, it may now be an incorporated company but  it doesn't have any paid employees, so being incorporated is an irrelevancy from this point of view. It's still a group of anonymous individuals, and it still has its unscrupulous past.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Phil Deakins

[Gabriele Graves]

In short, No I don't agree with any thing you have said.

[Phil Deakins]

9 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

In short, No I don't agree with any thing you have said.

So you don't agree with my statement that "The idea of not trusting anonymous people to run programmes in our computers cannot be faulted"? I think you'll find that you're on your own with that

 

 

Edited April 5, 2021 by Phil Deakins

[Gabriele Graves]