1 second Orb timing, is it necessary

[Phil Deakins]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Right, so still only an option with llGetAgentList(), not with llSensor(). Right?

llSensor() only get agents within a radius or section of a radius. It doesn't recognise parcels.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Makes you wonder why people complain about getting bounced when trying to navigate various waters, etc.  Either a) the script used isn't written that way, or b) the parcel extends into the navigable water.

Unfortunately, parcels don't end where water begins. Not only that, but parcels can be all water. It's been a big objection of mine since 2007 when I bought a piece of waters edge, only to find that, soon afterwards, someone built on the water, and I then had no access to the sea. I've always thought that that was a big mistake by LL, and I still do.

[Love Zhaoying]

7 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Unfortunately, parcels don't end where water begins. Not only that, but parcels can be all water. It's been a big objection of mine since 2007 when I bought a piece of waters edge, only to find that, soon afterwards, someone built on the water, and I then had no access to the sea. I've always thought that that was a big mistake by LL, and I still do.

Right, but the assumption I am making is - when you get a parcel, is the water always navigable?  Or is "your" water not navigable?

That is what my question relates to, really.  If "your" water isn't really navigable, then if "your" orb extends to the navigable water - that's bad.

[Phil Deakins]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Another multiple of 256! Those whacky programmers! 

When the 768 was changed to 4096, someone explained something to me. Apparently, parcels have bounding boxes, just like objects, and 4096 high was always the z dimension. But a huge mistake was made, which left its usable z as 768m, even though the bounding box was still 4096m.

I know nothing at all about any of that, but that's what was explained to me at the time it changed.

[Phil Deakins]

20 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Right, but the assumption I am making is - when you get a parcel, is the water always navigable?  Or is "your" water not navigable?

That is what my question relates to, really.  If "your" water isn't really navigable, then if "your" orb extends to the navigable water - that's bad.

I agree that using a device to prevent navigable water from being navigated by everyone is a very bad way of using the device. But it may be that the device only deals in parcel-shaped areas and its owner has no choice if s/he wants to use it  on the ground. My LevelGuard is like that. It protects parcel-shaped levels in the parcel column. Using it on the ground where the parcel is partly navigable water would be a bad way of using it.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Phil Deakins

[Love Zhaoying]

25 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I agree that using a device to prevent navigable water from being navigated by everyone is a very bad way of using the device. But it may be that the device only deals in parcel-shaped areas and its owner has no choice if s/he wants to use it  on the ground. My LevelGuard is like that. It protects parcel-shaped levels in the parcel column. Using it on the ground where the parcel is partly navigable water would be a bad way of using it.

I'll ask a different way: On Linden Homes land, if your parcel is partly water, and that water appears to be connected to "Linden Public Works" navigable waterway: 1) Is your parcel's water navigable out to the connected public waterway? 2) Or, is your parcel's water just for show (and you have to move your boat manually out to the actual navigable water)?

[Phil Deakins]

I've no idea, but I've reread your question and I'm understanding it a different way:

43 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Right, but the assumption I am making is - when you get a parcel, is the water always navigable?  Or is "your" water not navigable?

That is what my question relates to, really.  If "your" water isn't really navigable, then if "your" orb extends to the navigable water - that's bad.

I can only imagine things and I imagine that if the water on your parcel connects to navigable water, then your water is part if the navigable waterway - sea, river, whatever. I can't imagine any barrier programmed between the two areas of water. Imo, it would bad practise to prevent people from navigating your part of the water - except, perhaps, where you own a whole large inlet or lagoon.

[Silent Mistwalker]

13 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

What I'm arguing for are compromises that acknowledge and accommodate, as best as possible, the rights of everyone.

Nothing is wrong with privacy, within the limits necessitated by ensuring that the rights of others are also protected. There are legal limits to what you can do on your own RL property now.

Both in RL and in SL if you set foot on my property and you are not welcome there, you are violating my rights. It is my property. You have no rights on my property other than what I grant you. Only difference between SL and RL is in RL if you are injured on my property, I can be held legally liable. Another insurance scam.

Consider this. At one time if some guy was caught peeping through your window while you were dressing (naked) he went to jail. In more recent years laws have been passed so that if you are naked in your own home and someone looks in through a window and sees you, YOU go to jail! Not the creep looking into the privacy of your home!

Edited June 6, 2022 by Silent Mistwalker

[Arielle Popstar]

19 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I'll ask a different way: On Linden Homes land, if your parcel is partly water, and that water appears to be connected to "Linden Public Works" navigable waterway: 1) Is your parcel's water navigable out to the connected public waterway? 2) Or, is your parcel's water just for show (and you have to move your boat manually out to the actual navigable water)?

In a real life waterway like the Great Lakes, a landowner can own the land that goes partly into the lake but his rights only extend to the high water mark. In the same way, many roads will have a 20 foot road allowance that extends onto one's property and limits what the owner can put on that part. These limits are to guarantee a right of way to the public.

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Consider this. At one time if some guy was caught peeping through your window while you were dressing (naked) he went to jail. In more recent years laws have been passed so that if you are naked in your own home and someone looks in through a window and sees you, YOU go to jail! Not the creep looking into the privacy of your home!

Kind of takes the fun out of being a nudist!

[Codex Alpha]

A lot of pages and a lot of things said, when the most simplest of solutions could solve the issue, protect the privacy of those who need it the most, and to allow us 'explorers' to Explore and Discover as Second Life promises it's customers by;

- setting orb delays to minimum 15 seconds from within the API,  overriding any countering scripts.

Not one solid argument has been made as to why 15 seconds or more is not enough to attain their privacy or to secure their belongings, or stop someone sitting on their sofa.

Other solutions have been presented, I've presented my own, but in the end, sometimes the simplest solution is best - and the rest as clever as they might be - are just over-complicating things.

The state of things as it is for myself, is that I have no desire to 'explore' anymore, and the land that I rented and another that I purchased from 'exploring' I now only teleport to and from. I'm surrounded on all sides by ban lines, with only one side that is open to mobility and only because it is partially abandoned land and a small strange strip for sale beside it.

I repeat, for those who create and sell things, there have been many sales, rentals and purchases from 'exploring' mainland regions - artists,scripters, builders, renters, land sellers got a lot of business from me that way just coming across them (and as well as my network that used to be on SL).

The irony is that now I am forced to live as if I was in a private parcel, without needing one, because that's the experience. Teleporting in,teleporting out. Others teleporting in, teleporting out... There is absolutely NO point having an open world or for LL to maintain the logistics and resources to process it - if the majority of usage is teleporting in and teleporting out - along with practical usage/research/observation that people are leaning towards wanting privacy.

Although I am a person who is very much open and accepting of being open in a publicly accessible region, and others may want to get 100% privacy without paying for it - the result and practical experience would be better served by methods adopted by many other platforms at this point - serving up on-demand, single instanced 'experiences'.

This would take the privacy landowners issues and solve them by granting them what they wish - at whatever affordable price LL would offer - remove the compartmentalized parcel from the Mainland, opening it up to other users who are more open to a community experience, - thus removing the need for disrupting security measures - that will affect the positive experience of other users.

EDIT: LOL sad that I have to do this LOL but still kinda funny.

Words used in this post and their context
A 'solid' argument: of good substantial quality or kind, made firmly and well, prudent, serious in purpose or character

Edited June 6, 2022 by Codex Alpha
Even words will be argued apparently.

[Codex Alpha]

. sorry better to stay on topic if possible

Edited June 6, 2022 by Codex Alpha

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Not one solid argument has been made as to why 15 seconds or more is not enough to attain their privacy or to secure their belongings, or stop someone sitting on their sofa.

This sounds an awful lot like an opinion!

Also: 15 second seems like a new specific request vs. the previous discussions.  Unless I missed it, of course.

[Arielle Popstar]

6 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

This sounds an awful lot like an opinion!

Also: 15 second seems like a new specific request vs. the previous discussions.  Unless I missed it, of course.

It is all opinion, question is can it be backed up with a good rationale.

[Rolig Loon]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It is all opinion, question is can it be backed up with a good rationale.

And, aside from the fun of hearing each other talk, is the conversation doing anything more than chasing the same tired horse around the barnyard?

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

And, aside from the fun of hearing each other talk, is the conversation doing anything more than chasing the same tired horse around the barnyard?

Being that since the mod duties have been relegated to the Moles, Lindens no longer seem to follow, comment or take any actions on conversations in the forums anymore. So probably not except for venting.

[Phil Deakins]

35 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Such measures are kind of overkill as protecting individual items, touch events and sit events can easily be set to owneronly()/grouponly/etc using unsits or simply not even operating the item. Easily added to scripts, and if demand for a toggle for that, also easily added.

1. "Easily added scripts" aren't so easy to add to no-mod things.

2. Adding a group-only script to a mod item isn't anywhere near as practical as the security device I described, because the device needs just 1 click (not even a menu) to turn it off, but inviting someone over to use an item with you, would require you to send them a group invite, and them to join the group - if they have any group spaces left, that is.

3. and so on ...

So I think any possible "overkill" would be the methods you described

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Phil Deakins

[Love Zhaoying]

19 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

And, aside from the fun of hearing each other talk, is the conversation doing anything more than chasing the same tired horse around the barnyard?

If the horse dies, one can always beat it to make sure it is good and dead!

[AnthonyJoanne]

36 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Not one solid argument has been made as to why 15 seconds or more is not enough to attain their privacy or to secure their belongings, or stop someone sitting on their sofa.

Several people have offered the rationale:

"It's my land and I don't want anyone I didn't invite on it".

You clearly don't think that's valid. Obviously others DO think it's valid.

And that's where it ends.

As Rolig said:

20 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

And, aside from the fun of hearing each other talk, is the conversation doing anything more than chasing the same tired horse around the barnyard?

No - there's no point.

There is no chance that LL would force everyone who doesn't want their parcel to be open onto private-infrastructure ... the cost would be prohibitive and the backlash would be heavy.

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by AnthonyJoanne
typo

[Love Zhaoying]

23 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

30 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

This sounds an awful lot like an opinion!

Also: 15 second seems like a new specific request vs. the previous discussions.  Unless I missed it, of course.

It is all opinion, question is can it be backed up with a good rationale.

Following up on previous conversations, it will be interesting to see if it is clearly an opinion, and/or also a "pretext" (which is a good word for stuff around here)!

[Phil Deakins]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

If the horse dies, one can always beat it to make sure it is good and dead!

I did something similar with my cat a few years ago. I gently kicked it a few times to make sure she was dead. Next morning I gently kicked the cardboard box I'd put her in a couple of times, to make sure she was really dead.

[Luna Bliss]

37 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Not one solid argument has been made as to why 15 seconds or more is not enough to attain their privacy or to secure their belongings, or stop someone sitting on their sofa.

Not one argument has been made as to why anyone should automatically be forced to encounter a stranger, even for 15 seconds, so that others are free to "explore" or pass through their land.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

There is no chance that LL would force everyone who doesn't want their parcel to be open onto private-infrastructure ... the cost would be prohibitive and the backlash would be heavy.

 

Being that the Lab has set precedence with banning or limiting security time limits elsewhere, it stands to reason they could be convinced that it would be advantageous to do so for the Mainland too.

[Luna Bliss]

24 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

And, aside from the fun of hearing each other talk, is the conversation doing anything more than chasing the same tired horse around the barnyard?

Oh but I enjoy seeing the wannabe lawyers finagling away in an attempt to make their side the right one, and feeling justified because they view their method of getting their way as not using force and so superior. Posing as caring about the community. Usually people who always had a "room of one's own", and so unable to clearly evaluate the needs others might have. Very enlightening. I have a newfound appreciation for those who criticize the fakers of progressivism.

[Love Zhaoying]

9 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

2. Adding a group-only script to a mod item isn't anywhere near as practical as the security device I described, because the device needs just 1 click (not even a menu) to turn it off, but inviting someone over to use an item with you, would require you sending them a group invite, and them joining the group - if they have any group spaces left.

Can you please clarify if group-only scripts require one to actually make it your "active" group / wear the group tag, in order for the script to work? 

Or, is it enough to merely be a member of the group, and no need to make that your "active" group for the script to work?