Jump to content

Drayke Newall

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

188 Excellent

About Drayke Newall

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Might not be their first, but it certainly is their largest to date. Usually it is a discount on the premium memberships. I could be wrong but its the first time I've seen them offering 3 years renewal. I stopped renting my land in SL late last year due to the change as well as all the fee increases just to test the waters a little. With the layoffs and issues with Sansar uptake, the timing of the renewal announcement was a little concerning. And no not a sky is falling post just an observation.
  2. Thanks and is basically as I thought it was. All those figures given by LL and others like that article are really irrelevant data and the more accurate better way of saying it is we have 50k-85k actual users that log in every month. Where almost every other company goes by unique accounts (not including alts etc) LL seem to put out huge figures to make them look better by using meaningless user data. Sad thing is, people seem to not catch onto this and take 600,000 users as being people and not accounts that include alts.
  3. I would dare say given LL disastrous effort (financially as well) in Sansar, they wont be looking at any new platform anytime soon.
  4. And how are these 'unique' users/accounts calculated? They always seem to not include those explanations in articles or statements like these so it can make it sound impressive. Is it calculated as individual accounts that log in i.e. that 600,000 includes alt accounts? If this is the case then if you put on average each person having 3 accounts (2 alts and a main) then that is only 200,000 true 'unique' users. That's not so impressive anymore. If these 'unique' users don't include alt accounts then how are they determined to be 'unique'? If it is by IP address's then there is a flaw in this calculation as well. I can get a new IP every time I restart my router which I could do once a week in the month. Does that mean in a month I am counted as 4 'unique' users? There needs to be clarification of how these figures are determined otherwise they are meaningless. Also based on that article, the figures are terrible and would send any other business out wondering why they have such a hole in user retention. The article states that since 2013 they have had 36 million accounts created. Even if you remove alts from the equation and take that to mean actual people using their touted 600,000 user number, they have lost a total of 35.4 million accounts (users) over just 6 years. That means on average both LL and Second Life have lost 5.9 million users/accounts every year over the past 6 years. That is astonishing and shows they still have a major issue with user retention.
  5. I agree and I find it interesting that almost everyone of the naysayers in this thread are saying fortnite this and fortnite that or no one company can build it due to restrictions blah blah. Epic Gaming (Tim Sweeny) have been looking into the metaverse for 3-4 years now and have even showcased what can be done with just one game, fortnite, with live music breaking records for that event as well and even making songs (sung at that event) number one on the RL music charts. In other words, for one event it took them less than a year to implement a system into a game not designed to host live music across multiple 'X people regions' (AKA just like second life has specifically being designed to do). Not only was it successful but, it out performed second life, had no issues and did what Second Life hasn't done since 2006 - generated hype and new users playing the game. Granted this is one game, however people are forgetting what Epic Gaming is. Epic IS NOT fortnite. Epic's core is its gaming engine that just happens to be still the best realistic gaming engine out (has been for years), that is easily scalable and allows games to be run in modern script languages. All they need is a VR hub with all games hosted by them, 5G and they would have close to a Ready Player One scenario. Even Steam has started this. By using their VR goggles you get your own little room/house which you can decorate and then all in VR, access multiple games through a teleport like interface albeit the games being on your PC. AKA Sansar except once again far better as they have AAA games and isn't just a static look at this museum type thing. The issue with second life is that it has missed its opportunity, is always slow to implement new systems and can not seem to get its revenue off of land rental. When there were calls for SL2 with updated scalable graphics and using a common script engine as opposed to LSL and rather than building on what SL already is, they made Sansar. A closed system that no one wanted, needed, or asked for and that has sub par graphics. If one looks at SL today and if all the issues as far as graphics and region crossings (i.e. just implement different sized land areas not just 256x256 which OpenSim do it easily with "Varregion") and rez time could be fixed (5G and load screens) you could get the following scenario: Mainland is converted into a metropolis of an optimised asset city which would be the landing/starting point of all avatars. Here would be the stores from many companies as well as rentals for the average joe (like the new linden home area). From this mainland metropolis you can then TP to various multi region places designed by either random people (using an inbuilt and updated optimised mesh creation system) or AAA companies (using 3rd party mesh created software). Experience tools (or something similar and better) would allow you to transport to these multiple gaming worlds seamlessly as your avatar etc. automatically change in seconds during the teleport so that you are in theme with those worlds. Standard currency that allows the purchase of items for any world/region or where you can convert them to that specific worlds currency. With even possible subscription fees applied to each gaming region/company if they so desire to keep a subscription model (e.g. update the group join fee system to allow for re-occurring fees/charges). A free region/home (just like steam does or sinespacce) that would allow anyone to start as LL would be getting income from other revenue streams such as the Mainland metropolis as well as from other gaming industries. The above is all possible even in the SL we have now however, there are a few issues with this. Region crossings, the fact that second life is run on LSL which hasn't seen a major update in years and the lack of LL putting restrictions on optimisation. The other major issue's are LL just not updating/implimenting quick enough with people having to request things like animesh and bento for years before LL listen compared to a system where THEY should be the ones thinking about these types of things. The last issue being refusing to add anything better from third party viewers such as better graphic options, in world animation creation etc. Is Second life going to die? No, as they have their core existing userbase. That said, with more and more of the newer generations not being interested in Second Life, LL will see a downturn in everything due to many more, more favourable systems being implemented.
  6. Your implication of God knowing all possibilities and then we choose from those possibilities is not true free well. That is a cop out and nothing more. Considering he knows these possibilities before we even decide on them suggests that he has already outlined those possibilities and they cant be changed. You are putting faith in that those are the only possibilities. Suggesting something like that is the equivalent of reading a choose your own adventure novel, whereby the author (God) has written what paths are possible and I then make a choice from those. Sorry, not buying that. This is precisely why the topic as I mentioned has been argued by what I would assume (not trying to be mean) far more knowledgeable people than you or I over 3000 years. Just read what was posted in the links provided already in this thread by others as one of the philosophers even states what you state. As they put it he is outside of the timeline and can view all possibilities, but as mentioned by those very same links and the contradictions of the other philosophers, this has its problems due to you still having to make a choice of those pre-determined possibilities. I see. So, if someone has a degree in theology, has learned all meanings implied in the Greek or Hebrew texts (which in some cases are actually different to what is implied in the English version), read all the philosophical discussions of the church fathers and also knows the cross referencing of the Talmud, they preach it wrong? Interesting. I don't know your qualifications but to imply those with higher degrees and knowledge as saying things are wrong, says it all and only implies that you believe one thing yet many others believe it means something else. That is not knowledge or an answer, that is called interpretation. I'll copy a few of the church fathers understanding of the situation to show even they believed God knows the future and your choices. "For Adam did not sin because God knew that he would do so; but God inasmuch as He is God, foreknew what Adam would do of his own free choice." Jerome (circa 347 – 420) "For it was not foreknowledge which justified people, but God knew what would happen to them, because he is God." Theodoret of Cyrus (circa 393 – 457) "It is not because God knows that something is going to be that that thing is going to be, but rather it is because it is going to be that it is known by God before it comes to be. For even if we imagine for the sake of argument that God does not foreknow anything it was without a doubt going to happen that, say Judas became a traitor, and this is just the way the prophets foretold it would happen. Therefore, it was not because the prophets foretold it that Judas became a traitor, but rather it was because he was going to be a traitor..." Origen (circa 185–254) All those in their own way state that God knew what was going to be as far as their decisions. The Judas one implies this especially as it shows that centuries before, God stated in prophecy, that he WAS going to betray Christ. In other words his sin was going to be absolute, irreversible and already made for him.
  7. Actually there are many instances where it shows god as omniscient. To many for me to list and all can easily be found. They also don't come with a qualified circumstance. Additionally prophecy that it said comes from God implies he knows the future. That said I agree mainly with what Alwin said. The bible is part history of a civilisation as well as their ideologies of trying to explain the unknown at the time.
  8. Lol. Don't even get me started of how the book of Job details how Satan has to ask Gods permission to tempt Job, thereby leading to the thought or reasoning that does this mean that Satan also asked permission to tempt Eve in the first place. Whilst the book of Job puts forth this reasoning and every other person would state that seeing as it is written it is evidence and fact (as well as him asking the same permission in Peter), people still say 'oh that was a unique case'. Given this arguable evidence then, despite even the free will issue, God would have known what was going to befall mankind and even worse possibly gave permission for it to happen.
  9. Of cause they languished, they were at war for 3 years already when America entered and even when taking into account their occupied territories the USA still had a population of almost double Germany. Also the bombing of Dresden was a huge blow to Germany as it was their manufacturing and industrial capital where many of the resources for continued war effort and development were produced. Utter rubbish. Germany was far more advanced in nuclear technology than America by miles and much of their research etc was all done within the war years and before America had even thought about it. It is why America started their Manhattan project, to compete with the already well advanced Nazi's. Germany had proven four ways of separation of Uranium Isotopes compared to America's effort. By 1942 Germany was using low yield sub-kiloton nuclear warheads at the Russian front as evidenced by intercepted Japanese signal documents and these nuclear warheads where all created without uranium enrichment. Germany also by wars end had developed the Zentner-76 nuclear bomb of which British troops found evidence of in 1945 (this however is refuted by British and American governments despite the very soldiers that found it stating the bomb, centrifuges and reactor are real) and was capable of creating nuclear bombs that used less fission material than the ones created by America. The Betatron enrichment facility beat the Manhattan project by 1 year in nuclear enrichment and by 1944 rumoured to generate enough to make 1 Hiroshima sized bomb every 2 months. Their ultracentrifuge's were also very advanced compared to others with Britain after the war capturing and operating one for quite a while. Additionally, Germany tested their Atomic bombs (albeit dirty) almost a full year prior to America at Rugen Island (only one picture has surfaced of this taken by a German scientist present), whereby decades after the war Caesium 137 was still present and bulldozed into the sea to remove it (even though this is disputed). Such tests were reported by eyewitnesses such as Elisabeth Mestlin on 12 October, 1944. They conducted similar tests in other areas and were looking at methods of creating 2nd and 3rd generation detonation devices. Nazi Germany's 2 top nuclear scientists patented 40 nuclear weapon designs all within the WW2 period that were used after the war by American and French scientists to develop tactical nuclear warheads. Wartime nuclear physicist Prof Diebner was also in the 50's recruited by the American and French to show them how to make warhead devices. All while making these advancements in Nuclear warfare they were also looking into uranium powered engines for their vehicles as well as developing many more devices that are used today in modern technology. The ONLY thing that stopped Hitler utilizing atomic bombs on England was the destruction of a ferry by Norway's resistance which carried heavy water that was needed for their completion. This was even stated by those involved in Germany's nuclear program after the war as the contributing reason why their reactor project stopped in its tracks. So yes, as you say, Nazi Germany only kept 'some uranium cubes in the basement'. 🙄 As to the rest of your post, not going to bother. EDIT: The main issue with all of Germany's war time nuclear program is it was seized by the ally governments and many are still classified. It is well known however many of the Nazi scientist have been employed over the years to advance or show America etc how to do things due to their knowledge gained during WW2 Nazi scientific programs. There is a picture of the explosion test as well as the Japanese signal documents however very little has been released or shown. Even the ferry of Heavy Water was only recently discovered. The other issue is that the ally governments refute all of this despite eyewitness accounts of seeing these things all around. Sure, granted, it could be made up, but with stories and people actually finding things like the ferry and heavy water under the north sea that was talked about by Nazi scientists one has to wonder... EDIT2: Just for reference and source, here are some declassified US documents tell of US pilots visually seeing what would later be observed as the classic a-bomb mushroom cloud. Was also seen by an Italian reporter sent by Italy's dictator to view the "new weapon". https://www.express.co.uk/news/history/771096/nazi-germany-nuclear-bomb-testing-blitz-world-war-ii-secret-intelligence-documents
  10. No, I meant Omniscient. Omniscient is the term used for being all knowing. Omnipotent is the term used to describe a being as all powerful. Unrelated, is Omnipresent where God is everywhere at the same time. These are the 3 Omni words to describe what encompasses Gods entire power. This issue with Omniscience is that with God being all knowing, that is to say; knowing the past, present and future and all things, Free Will becomes an issue. It has been argued for millennia as to how Omniscience and Free Will can exist together. This is why the article linked by Scylla incorporates philosophers theories dating back to before the 13th century. The foremost reason why it is argued, is because if god is all knowing (Omniscient) he then knew that before the fall or creating the universe; Eve would eat the apple, pass it to Adam, mankind would fall, sin would enter, mankind would be punished and that suffering and gracelessness would exist until he would sacrifice his only son. To put it another way if he is all knowing he could have stopped it all at the beginning but didn't.
  11. Where on earth did you come to the conclusion I have grievances against women and queer folks? You asked which movement I meant and I specifically told you the feminist movement and explained the history of gender pronouns. All of what I posted is fact and can be researched by yourself. To imply through what I wrote that I am a misogynist or against LGBT (despite not even knowing my gender or my lifestyle), reinforces my previous point I made that some people do exactly what I wrote, that is "don't force (or abuse/hate) people to change when they have been taught a certain way all their life."
  12. Feminist movement. This was the main time period of actual looking into it. There were some people (mainly women) that proposed it in the 1880's to use 'they' as gender neutral however, was never accepted as grammatically correct as the prominent grammarians of the time stated exactly what I wrote in my post that it was to awkward in conjunction with its use with they/them/their etc., as plural and its accepted singular form referring to specifically an unknown gender. When that fell flat it wasn't until the 1970-80's that another push for gender neutrality and pronouns were looked into as I mentioned before and 'they' was once again proposed to a far larger audience. It is also from this period that I would say is the reason there is today a huge backlash against gender pronouns today as during that period over 80 were suggested and many of these 80 are used as scare tactics for them not to be accepted. For example when gender pronouns were suggested a few years ago there were many debates and articles about how it means learning over 100 pronouns etc. Gender neutrality even began to enter into politics and writings by certain influential feminist writers. That said, even from then it was only used in small circles until the 2010's when there was a large push for LGBT rights. It was during this period that more and more people pushed for gender neutrality and pronouns and work began to establish which ones to use. The problem that is still present however, is that a clear definition of what pronouns to use hasn't been made or approved as people keep making up new ones. Due to this I would dare say it will be still debated for quite a while until the LGBT group can specify a single pronoun set to encompass all. If you want to go back even further around the mid 1700's there was a desire from a few prominent persons (even some men) to have 'he' as gender neutral, however, when the 14th amendment was established there was a realisation that this was not going to be the case as to counteract this for the first time the word male was specifically used in the document rather than the usual he. The problem that has always been with the pronoun movement is that no specific single set of pronouns can be agreed upon. One singular set would be far easier to implement into English and remember than the 3 or 4 that keep being thrown about, changed etc., or the change of use of pre-existing words like 'they' that have grammatical complications as I posted about. As an aside if your interested in what pronouns have been suggested and why one set can never be agreed upon refer to this archived website. https://web.archive.org/web/20120215101445/http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/epicene.htm
  13. 😩 That form of 'they' is not how you are implying it. Did you actually read what singular they means in my post above? If I have seen a person and know he is male I would say he. If I hadn't met the person and didn't know their gender I would use they. Why do people think that this isn't how it has always been. They in the use of identifying a person as a gender was majorly first proposed in the 80's as part of a certain movement and it is only since around 5 years that it is being proposed again as a pronoun to identify a specific gender. So no it isn't brand new, however the meaning implied or wanting to be implied now is. Just because someone 'colloquially' (read as grammatically incorrect) says it doesn't mean it is correct. Just as, many Americans use 'then' instead of 'than' doesn't mean they are correct or doing it 'colloquially'.
  14. I have no issue with the evolution of language or even if there is an evolution of language to insert new words, it happens all the time, every year. I do object however, to the evolution of a word that has been and is used in a different pretence. This is where it would be confusing. As far as your thesis was concerned to refer to an unknown gender you would use the singular they. It is the correct way and always has been. I mentioned in my post that 'the' is the encompass all gender within the English language. When the four words 'they', 'them', 'their' and 'there' are broken down to their primary form the word 'the' is apparent as bolded. Any change introduced to accommodate these new ideals of gender pronouns must also apply to these as this is how language works. Presently those words can be used singularly to show an unknown gender in the English language as 'the' is the encompass all pronoun created centuries ago i.e. "do they have a dog?", "is it them?", "perhaps its their dog?" and "there is a body". This is not gender neutrality of any sort in modern pretence, never has been. It is the equivalent of someone coming to me and saying "Francis did that" and given Francis/es verbally has the same sound of the female or male name varient I would reply "did they?" seeing as I don't know Francis and have never seen them to visualise their gender. That is singular they/them/their in its true definition. It is not 'gender neutrality' as implied by advocates but 'gender unknown' If one was to link those four words to a specific gender as gender neutrality/pronouns implies then the use of they would become confusing. With regards to your thesis as an example the reader would have to interpret whether you are talking about an unknown gender hypothetically or as in the Francis analogy before mentioned or, are you implying that Francis has decided to have no/both gender as modern gender pronouns advocates desire. In certain circumstances depending what your thesis was about either of these interpretations could alter the reasoning or conclusion of your thesis' meaning. I am perfectly fine with people make up pronouns, go for it, but don't change the meaning of a word to then make it mean 2 things that are interpreted entirely different depending on how they are read and don't force (or abuse/hate) people to change when they have been taught a certain way all their life. EDIT: Also apologies I made a mistake in my previous post (the line you quoted) the gender neutral pronoun we have in English is 'it' not 'the'. But 'it' as a general neutral pronoun is apparently demeaning despite it specifically meaning of something that has no gender. "go read it (implying a book)" the book having no gender. This is the difference between singular 'they' meaning unknown and 'it' meaning no gender. But even here there would lie a problem how do you interpret "it read it". Or "they read him like a book" instead of "She read him like a book". The first would imply plural they but if changed to modern gender neutrality could also imply a single person. I'm also not trying to be demeaning or mean no offence when I wrote this just trying to explain the complexities of such a change.
  15. Fully agree and is why in my first post I said the more interesting question is: What would have happened if Japan never bombed Pearl Harbor. Hitler knew full well not to awaken what was called the sleeping giant and went to immense effort to ensure this didn't happen. What he failed to foresee is one of his allies that wasn't part of the EU war was stupid enough to try and poke the sleeping bear.
  • Create New...