161488303349

zigazav wrote: Alright. Now.......I don't know what 0L$ items to buy! I'm going for free items, so I won't lose money for when I'm saving-up my L$ to buy items to help me build my Sonic FC, namely the Sonic Avatar Base by Lobster Cat Designs. I wish I were able to ask my mom for L$, but I'm too scared to ask her. Well, it's more like too unsure to ask. if you still living at home and relying on your Mom to support your entertainment and i was your Mom and i found you using a collar i would ban you off SL.. even if you are over 18 sounds like you know your Mom will do it as well. you being unsure to ask her

Arkady Arkright wrote: 16 wrote: assertion: there is no God Assertion: there is a god. Assertion: there are many gods. Assertion, we live on a flat disc disc on the back of four elephants, who are in turn on the back of a giant turtle. Assertion: the tooth fairy exists. ... Anyone can play that game, it is meaningless. good they are not assertions are they as they say: assert(TRUE). when something is always TRUE then its an axiom axiom: there is a God axiom: there are many Gods axiom: there is a tooth fairy + the turtles is an assertion tho: it can be proofed. can fly up and view the planet. no turtles + edit: just add back to the original: assertion: there is no God assert(there is no God) what does it resolve to? result = assert(NEGATION); result = TRUE + edit more: to complete about the turtles there is an association in the assertion that can be proofed result = assert((world == flat) && (turtle)) result = FALSE why? bc the world is not flat there maybe a flat world somewhere somehow. but not the one we living on

thanks (: i already read a bit about what this man is saying. i will watch the vids and see if i can understand more about how he construct his arguments + for me i am way more interested in the how right now. i think if i can better understand how is put together then can make more sense of whatever is the answers/outcomes is like when i see stuff like: assert(TRUE) or assert(FALSE) and thats all. whats the use of that !!! i wants to scream sometimes. like wut wut wut wut wut wut wut wut !!! how is that helpful to me might as well just say assert(TRUE | FALSE) for all the use they are (:

nalates report that linden hire a new person called Baker Linden who been assigned to groups. \o/ more http://blog.nalates.net/2012/08/25/sl-group-edit-update-week-34/

Helm Anton wrote: I cant help you with Daz as i dont use it. use a viewer like phoenix or imprudence to view your animations inworld as you AV before uploading your animations. The SL 3 viewer wont allow this which is absolutely stupid, they should give the option how you view animations before upload because the model in that little box is a waste of time. If there is an option to switch to the inworld view in V3 i havent found it in debug yet. Good luck. linden encourage people to use the beta grid for testing purposes. can upload as many times as you want on there for no cost. can have mutiple versions rezzed inworld so can compare them side by side. then switch to main grid to upload your final

Theresa Tennyson wrote: 16 wrote: edit: can try the easy one first: assertion: there is no God There's no way we can have an intelligent discussion on that topic without determining what sort if God there may be or not be. The word "God" can be applied to everything from old-guy-on-a-cloud who created the Universe as a sort of craft project to something like the Hindu Brahman, which is a sort of creative force so huge and incomprehensible that according to some schools it can't even be THOUGH about by our little minds - as soon as you think you're thinking about Brahman, you're actually thinking about a sort of fake or decaffeinated shadow of Brahman because we can't handle the whole thing. It's like talking about a "door" - that sounds like an easy concept at first, but what's the nature of a door? Is the big thing on your garage a door? Very different than the one you first thought of, probably. How about a cat door? Or Ray Manzarek? Any religion can be shot down if take the teachings literally. Metaphorically? Harder to take down. And if you look at a lot of religions when you get past a literal interpretation of the words a lot of them seem to be reaching toward something that sounds pretty similar. when i think about God i used to start with questions like :is there a God. what is God? stuff like that. is no satisfactory answers for them. not to me personally when i think about God now then i start with: what is our/my purpose for God? how does this affect or influence us/me? i dont know what is the answers to these either really. it just makes it easier for me to think about it

yes. can know what you mean was chatting to Arkady about the rule of beliefs. Arkady wanted scientific evidence of God at the start. was just trying to show that this an inappropriate request. Arkady finally ended saying that if not believe then this allows us to change an axiom into an assertion we cant do this bc it breaks the rules of science and ends up with no meaningful outcome i put the next here. just so can complete what i was trying to say abou this part + what we believe has no place in science. i use a computer science method to try and show the difference between axiom and assertion. how to apply axiom and assertion to produce an observable result (a proof) axiom GOD = 0;axiom FINITY = 1000000; CheckForIntelligentDesigner(wut){ return assert(wut <= GOD);}MakeUniverse(wah){ if(CheckForIntelligentDesigner(wah)) MakeUniverseByDesign(); else MakeUniverseRandomly();}main(){ probability = Random(FINITY); MakeTheUniverse(probability); LiveInTheUniverse();} can test for various axiomatic inputs examples: (what happens if) axiom GOD = 0; axiom FINITY = 1; axiom GOD = 50; axiom FINITY = 100; and on and on. we dont have to believe in the axioms to do the assignations. we just do it and see what happens + when we believe or not, then end up with programs like this: // i believemain(){ MakeUniverseByDesign(); LiveInTheUniverse();}// i dont believemain(){ MakeUniverseRandomly(); LiveInTheUniverse();} from science pov (both hard and soft) they referred to as uninteresting. meaning they dont serve any useful purpose in discovering things

Arkady Arkright wrote: 16 wrote: try the Oxford dictionary + noun a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true: - the axiom that sport builds character - chiefly Mathematics a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based. + you mixing up your axioms and your assertions You pick your dictionary, I'll pick mine... If I don't believe your axiom to be true, then to me it isn't an axiom, merely an assertion. is not my dictionary. is the Oxford dictionary. the one that formalised the english language and the meaning of english words into the standard form as we know them today. if you disagree with the Oxford dictionary then you can take it up with the editors and scholars who maintain it + they arent my axioms either btw. i just used then to proof OPs assertion can you proof your assertion that these are not axioms but assertions as you claim? if your assertion is true then you will be able to proof it by the rule of construction. every assertion that is an actual assertion can be proofed in this way. if you cannot proof it then it is not an assertion. its nothing and therefore irrelevant. in formal debate anyways edit: can try the easy one first: assertion: there is no God

Arkady Arkright wrote: 16 wrote: Arkady Arkright wrote: 16 wrote: the nature of religious truths What is a 'religious truth' ? How does it differ from any other 'truth' ? Truth is simply a hypothesis supported by evidence. Anything else is mere supposition - how can there be a serious field of study of such a nebulous thing ? religious truths the word truths is used as a polite form by scholars and academics and scientists in all kinds of fields. has to do with the search for truth. in the search for truth any untruths discovered are a by-product of the search. some people like to concentrate solely on discovering untruths. is way more tho who prefer not to limit themselves in this way axiom/rule 1: there is a God axiom/rule 2: the Bible is the Word of God axiom/rule 1: there is a God axiom/rule 2: the Bible is not the Word of God (so is irrelevant to what we do know about what God knows. we know nothing) axiom/rule 1: there is a God axiom/rule 2: i have a direct phone to God that no one else can see or listen in on Axiom: A proposition assumed to be true {my bold} ref: ( http://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com) And that's where the whole religion thing fails - there is no logical reason to assume any of these axioms is correct, it's all a matter of opinion (and indoctrination). 16 wrote: personal like to think about these kinds of things and try to figure them out Me too. try the Oxford dictionary + noun a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true: - the axiom that sport builds character - chiefly Mathematics a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based. + you mixing up your axioms and your assertions

jjejejjeeeje (: am never ever evah now going to be able to look at a big bottle of coke at the petrol station ever never evah again without bursting out laughing or at some random guy holding a 2 liter and wearing a cross. have got a permanent image scarred on my brains now of the angel Moiselle swooping down out the sky to exact retribution jejejejjejejjejee (:

please to stop ending this post q; (:

try searching for nazi can even get the t-shirt off the marketplace for that

Arkady Arkright wrote: 16 wrote: looks like you maybe missed the point again. but is ok Nope - my point is : 16 wrote: the nature of religious truths What is a 'religious truth' ? How does it differ from any other 'truth' ? Truth is simply a hypothesis supported by evidence. Anything else is mere supposition - how can there be a serious field of study of such a nebulous thing ? religious truths the word truths is used as a polite form by scholars and academics and scientists in all kinds of fields. has to do with the search for truth. in the search for truth any untruths discovered are a by-product of the search. some people like to concentrate solely on discovering untruths. is way more tho who prefer not to limit themselves in this way + about the why do people bother with truths/untruths in nebulous fields: what is truth? the truth is that which is true some people have come out with whole other elaborate ways to define truth. but for me personally, Occam's Razor and all that + if is physical then we measure it. is how we do it in hard science. hard science is the study of physical things. because stuff is physical then is trivial to proof the truth of them by physical measurement + so next step up. how do we determine the truth of a non-physical thing and proof it either way? can use peano arithmetic and model it and then proof it 1 + 1 = 2. 2 = 1 + 1 the statements are true. why? bc of the axioms and the rules of peano arithmetic as they apply to the symbols 1 and 2 and the operator +. altogether with everything else peano this is a formal system is other forms of math as well tho. what they have in common with peano is that the axioms and rules are consistently applied so to provide consistent results within the constraints and limitations of a formal system it can be shown that because mathematics is a formal system then not everything can be proofed within it by its own axioms and rules. can read up on Godel, Markov and others for why this is the case + how can we know the truth of a non-physical something that cannot be proofed, either way, by physical measure or by mathematical model? said another way. how can we measure a thought that falls outside of these formal systems? + in school we taught to use logic. logic is a formal system that can be applied to measure thoughts. it has axioms and rules as well. break the rules in constructing an argument and the conclusion is invalid by the rules. dont even matter if the actual conclusion is actual true in itself all by itself. example using arithmetic 3 = true bc 3 = 3 1 = true bc 1 = 1. (1 + 1) = true bc (1 + 1) = (1 + 1) so here is 2 provably true statements by the rules where it goes wrong most times is making an invalid logic association between 2 true statements (true + true) = (true) is provably false this statement in many cases (1 + 1) = (3) is not true bc of the rules can make a semantic argument by some other rules that (1 = true bc 1 = 1) is invalid but that a whole other debate. Occam again. + ok so now more tl;dr about theology and why is important. theology is important. not the religions themselves this whole thread is about what OP assert. am just in here (same like in the other thread other day) to see if is any formal basis for his assertion. seems not so far + but anyways. consider logic applied to this: axiom/rule 1: there is a God axiom/rule 2: the Bible is the Word of God assert: we cannot choose what we believe using these axiom/rule alone then can proof the assertion to be false + axiom/rule 1: there is a God axiom/rule 2: the Bible is not the Word of God (so is irrelevant to what we do know about what God knows. we know nothing) leaving only axiom/rule 1 assert: we cannot choose what we believe the axiom/rule 1 is a invalid association to any conclusion, right or wrong, we might draw from this assertion. is invalid bc we now have no way of knowing what God knows maybe in the absence of the Word he somehow tells us directly. in this case tho is still invalid unless we add a new axiom/rule axiom/rule 1: there is a God axiom/rule 2: i have a direct phone to God that no one else can see or listen in on assert: we cannot choose what we believe God told me so on this phone + final one axiom/rule 1: there is no God axiom/rule 2: the Bible is not the Word of God assert: we cannot choose what we believe is now no theological basis for the assertion at all however we can proof the assertion in this final case, either way, by other axiom/rule + quite a few people jump straight to the final one and totally dismiss anything else automatically. is ok that they do this i personal like to think about these kinds of things and try to figure them out

Arkady Arkright wrote: 16 wrote: why is it on the interwebz that whenever there is a debate about theology someone comes along and wants scientific evidence of a theological statement Because without real provable evidence it's just your opinion - no more or less valid than anyone else's baseless assumptions. 16 wrote: i take it that you do know the difference between theology and science. Yes - theology is a set of fables designed to enslave otherwise free minds, whereas science is an attempt to describe the world as it is, not as whoever indoctrinated the 'believer' wishes it to be. looks like you maybe missed the point again. but is ok when you say what you have then you seems to be mixing theology and religion. they not the same thing theology is the systematic and rational study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truths as they influence and impact on human society. is a discipline of soft science falling within the broader school of philosophy can find out more about it here on wikipedia if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology

Deja Letov wrote: 16 wrote: yes. can accept what you saying Deja + is just a bit frustrating really when science people wants to bring science into theology. can understand why some people of faith who not have much in the way of theological schooling try to bring science in. like somehow automagically the rules of hard science can be applied in this field other place in this thread Maddy and VProf have good discussion about the separate roles of the respective disciplines so if you read this far Arkady then am sorry i vent on you I can understand that. Theology is a great topic and fun to discuss, I am a huge fan of greek theology in fact and love to discuss it. It's funny though, because in discussing greek theology I've never really had anyone debate it as fact versus fiction, I'm assuming because most people don't live their day to day lives believing in a greek God. Most people typically just read the information out there and consider it a fantasy based system and discuss it based on that. I think the reason you will see so much "prove this" or "show me scientific evidence", is because when it is a part of every day life and people are treating as a part of their reality, it's no more so much the study of theology as a fact of life. Once it reaches that point, a lot of people want that proof because we are growing and evolving humans and we thrive on science and always want proof to be sure we are making good decisions. is interesting what you say about the ancient greek gods. back in the day some/most of the ancient greeks did believe in them and acted on them as well. same like other peoples and their deities. same like today today in western countries it just happens to be biblical Jesus and God. is possible in 2000 years from now will be another deity. 2000 more years then maybe another one. and on and on what hard science there was wayback then didnt actual apply. same like now. same in the future + if this is true then we have to use other constructs. is why i think we ended up with philosophy as a discipline (like a soft discipline compared to the discipline of hard science) is mental exercise and for it to work we ended up formalising how we have to think about stuff like theology which falls within this field

yes. can accept what you saying Deja + is just a bit frustrating really when science people wants to bring science into theology. can understand why some people of faith who not have much in the way of theological schooling try to bring science in. like somehow automagically the rules of hard science can be applied in this field other place in this thread Maddy and VProf have good discussion about the separate roles of the respective disciplines so if you read this far Arkady then am sorry i vent on you

depends on where you hang out mostly also sometimes for some people it depends on their state of mind in RL. they sometimes end up reading things into an offer of help that arent actual there

Arkady Arkright wrote: 16 wrote: Genesis 3:22 : "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil." this the fundamental tenet of 3 of the greatest religions ever. don't know why when people who are followers of these seems to wants to make other reasons for why we might do the things we do. God didnt. he put the question to Man and Man choose to accept I take it you can prove that claim, with scientific evidence ? otherwise it's just another hypothesis... why is it on the interwebz that whenever there is a debate about theology someone comes along and wants scientific evidence of a theological statement the theological statement i give is the theological counter argument to the supposition put forward by the OP. that there is some other reasons for why people believe what they do and sometimes act on those beliefs. this supposition put forward by the OP is theologically provably false by Genesis 3:22 + Genesis 3:22 is the confirmation of the test put to Man by the theological deity (God) in Genesis 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." that was the question. the test put by the theological deity. and Man decide to choose knowledge even when he was told that in doing so that death would be the price the thing is that having chosen knowledge of good and evil then Man could distinguish between the two the whole supposition of the OP is based on the idea that Man dont have any choice over some of the views he forms. an idea formed and supported by theological reasoning. his idea is provably false by the theological counter example shown + i take it that you do know the difference between theology and science.

JulesMatriarchy wrote: Something has to be banned. Ageplay is banned, why not rape? is USA real world laws that govern SL. depiction of children engaged in sexual practices is a crime in the USA rape is a crime in the USA. depiction of rape is not a crime in the USA when the depiction is viewed or participated in by consenting adults of legal age if you want to change SL to include depictions of other things not currenlty included in the ToS then you will be best to campaign to change USA realworld laws. if you look carefully at the ToS then you will see that it only bans stuff that is an actual a crime in the USA. linden have been very consistent about that ever since the beginning of SL

yes ok like others said, everything you need to try is in the open collar. just go through the menus and try out the options. you will find the RLV relay in there you be best to test it all out yourself and see how it works before you let anyone be an owner. specially if you also got RLV turned on. am assume you already got a RLV viewer like Firestorm or Catznip + is all kinds of stuff related to RLV you can get/buy to do stuff. clothes and attachments and furniture and all kinds if you can, see if can hook up with some kind people inworld before you jump in. you maybe will be ok. is just that some people have got their heads messed up really bad the first time. mostly because they hooked up the first time with some crappy person who didnt know what they was doing and didnt care even if they did

you mention that both you and your test alt haven't experienced the problem. but some other people do in some situations is there anything about them that is different to you? like attachments/scripts that they are wearing maybe can ask a person you know is being affected and see if they will help you test for this. is maybe not a cause but can maybe test for it just to eliminate it as a possibility

Nalates explain the technical rebake process here and some of the quick fixes that can work http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Technical/Blurry-avatar/qaq-p/1475625/comment-id/21607

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: Sadly this is another case where a Linden comments on a JIRA in a way that demonstrates a complete missunderstanding of the issue. Followed by having that pointed out by a later comment by a resident. Then there is 3.9 years of silence from the Lindens.The JIRA continues to await review. yes. agree Alexa tried to say 2 things. 1 was the problem faced by the linden codey cave. so that parts ok the 2nd was where it goes all downhill when is said how residents can mitigate any adverse effect on them. is not practical to go Busy blocking everything from every other residents just to stop one person. specially when Busy mode can also result in lost/misplaced delivery of purchases

search inworld for Open Collar. they have a shop. is heaps of free collars. all kinds. you can from there to get you started

bejjinks wrote: The number one phrase I find most annoying is "I just read your profile and I'm in love" This isn't a Second Life phrase but it is something I get often in all kinds of forums. What's really annoying is that I get this phrase whether I've filled out my profile or left it blank. It make me wonder what in the world did they fall in love with? They certainly didn't fall in love with me. as you say people shape things as they want with the blank profile the thought mostly goes that i can help make you over into the being that you most desire to be in SL. is mostly thought of as a kind thing this. the motivation being that i would love to help you with this if is ok with you is true that sometimes some people will troll you about a blank profile. but most times not i dont find