161488303349

the experience permissions creator programme seems like a precautionary measure. same as the mesh upload programme is given that the portal guns appear to be intersim capable (llTeleportAgent) and that temp-attach can be done without explicit consent to any avatar detected then can see why linden is a bit cautious about letting these out. linden realms does temp-attach this way with the HUD. the video shows how its done another way by clicking on the object which is pretty cool and is the best way to do temp-attach imo the experience permissions scripts written as intended are going to change the inworld for the better i think. will also take a bit of pressure off the servers as well. eg. no more hax teleporter scripts, no more demo objects to inventory, etc will still be few gotchas even with this programme. like: a generic no-mod, transfer teleport script that reads destinations from a mod notecard, could easily be turned, by someone else, into a random portal gun able to be used in other areas. the griefing potential aside, the ability for non-scripters to do this is quite important though. same way its important for users of radiostream changers, AOs, etc so i agree with Qie. its the owner who will create any distortions and not the script writer as such i think that any precautionary/defensive effort should go into the About Land: parcel controls. something along the lines of: Experience Permissions: [ ] parcel owner [ ] group [ ] anyone. with an estate/sim override setting as well. so at the most secure setting then experience permissions functions not owned by the parcel owner are not going to work at all, except on yourself. like gridwide self-teleport and in-sim self temp-attach rp costumes changes, etc

am quite disappointed about the backtrack to the status quo can understand why linden not want to go back to a list of lastnames and thats all, like before. but yeah. heaps of people have said already how to do it. pick a Family name from the list. pick Other to enter your own name. pick None if you don't want a last name. is how i would have done it anyways + linden now saying is all too hard this. so OK, now what? rodvik says they are going to eliminate Resident from showing inworld. probably send some spaces (or other non-visible chars) to scripts so they not break on an empty string. Ok thats a start second thing they could do is get rid of the "." in the lists, rollovers, name tags, etc and replace with a space. that "." infuriates quite a few people. is no reason to have it at all third, rodvik says they going to allow other characters in the name, maybe. like a "-" and other chars, so can use them as a name separator. wut!!! if not allow a space as one of the other chars then double wut!!! wut!!! can see how a dash can be used and that people will like: "mary brown-smythe". but mary-brownsmythe. cheez!!!

how they work in the video is way cool. will be really good for all kinds of things can't wait to go shopping in stores where they will make demos you can just click to try on. try before you buy in a easy way like this is going to make shopping inworld SL chocolate awesome sauce . woohoo!

Charolotte Caxton wrote: 16 wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: From my particular spiritual viewpoint, I agree. I value curiosity and playfulness and creativity quite highly and imagine any creator would too. Why else would one create? The idea that a creator would be omniscient makes no sense me. I can't imagine why I'd get up in the morning if I knew everything. What would I do? What purpose would I have? What reason would there be for any action? It would bring me no new knowledge. An omniscient creator would need no new knowledge, he would create us because he loves us so much he could not stand the thought of existing in eternal bliss without us. do not pass Go. do not collect $200. go directly to Heaven oh! wait. i actual want to collect the $200. am sure there is shopping in heaven. would be hell if there wasn't Well, that's just it. In our omnipotence, once we become tired of always being happy, we can make a bad guy, and we can make him so that he makes a lot of the good guys bad to, and then there can be a major war, and since we are all powerful of course we are going to win, so we banish him and his minions from our happy place and make him be miserable for all of eternity and then wonder why he hates us. Actually, we don't wonder, cause we know. a, we made him that way, and b, well, there is no b. Sounds like a crazy sick fairytale to me. i agree with your sentiments i really really don't like it when people use religion as justification for their bad behaviour. can wipe out religion altogether and they just use another excuse i hate even more when discussing things like stoning women under Sharia law, torturing people in the Inquistion, and beating people to death because they somehow magically been possessed by evil spirits; and pious people say stuff like oh! well its their customs and culture and we have to respect that. rubbish! is barbaric that kind of thing. am not going to respect that ever. am not going to respect them kinds of pious people either for what they say

Madelaine McMasters wrote: 16 wrote: /me keeps adding stuff. jejejejje (: If Sy is correct, the future of the Universe depends on us. This is very poor timing, as I am attempting to transition into a life of sheer irresponsibility. jejejejee (: are you going to work for linden?

/me keeps adding stuff. jejejejje (:

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: From my particular spiritual viewpoint, I agree. I value curiosity and playfulness and creativity quite highly and imagine any creator would too. Why else would one create? The idea that a creator would be omniscient makes no sense me. I can't imagine why I'd get up in the morning if I knew everything. What would I do? What purpose would I have? What reason would there be for any action? It would bring me no new knowledge. An omniscient creator would need no new knowledge, he would create us because he loves us so much he could not stand the thought of existing in eternal bliss without us. do not pass Go. do not collect $200. go directly to Heaven oh! wait. i actual want to collect the $200. am sure there is shopping in heaven. would be hell if there wasn't

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Decision laziness was the problem I observed in the belief that everything is preordained. If everything that is going to happen is going to happen in only one particular way, then any decision one could make would be the right decision as it is the only possible decision. Takes away a lot of pressure, and responsibility, and makes absolutely no sense. would be quite boring as well from a God's pov if he did exist and he did make it that way. maybe is why despite all the prayers and fattened calf sacrifices he don't come around here no more

Anaiya Arnold wrote: Immutable means unchangeable? If so, then knowing changes nothing and not knowing changes nothing. Only if the future could be changed would it matter if we knew it or not, in that case knowing the future would become much more challenging. yes, accepted

Anaiya Arnold wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: 16 wrote: thinking about this more: if it was an uncertainty model based solely on randomness and if we could work out exactly what the algorithm(s) is, and if we could work out exactly what the source was (something seemingly impossible at the moment, but still). then whats really cool about this thought is we would be able to know the future with absolute certainty thats quite mind-blowing to me would be even harder to work out though if the algos were mutating as well. doesn't seem like it for many of them given what we understand about the algos/rules/laws governing gravity, light, etc. but is a slim possibility that some? of them may be mutable + here's what i think is a really hard question: if you did work all this out by yourself would you tell anyone? i don't think i would. well i hope i wouldn't anyways. could be quite catastrophic for other people if you did tell if we knew the future with absolute certainty, would it matter if we told anyone or not? If the future has been figured out and is known, wouldn't that mean that it is unchangeable and whatever we do or say is what was going to be done or said so that there is no harm in telling or not telling because that is what was supposed to happen anyways? I don't know if it would make a difference, since the discovery might make a difference at that time (the instant of discovery) as to what would have happened had you never made the discovery, and since you can only determine the future, but not necessarily what the future would have been if you did not make discovery, the difference your discovery made would probably not be ascertainable to you. But certainly you'd not have to make a decision about whether you shared the discovery, since you'd automatically know at that point whether or not you were going to share the discovery because you already know all that will happen. In fact you'd become decision-lazy since your future "decisions" would be more akin to reading a novel or watching a movie. You'd simply observe yourself playing out the script you'd already read. yes i can see how that could result. if it was immutable and that there was only one future path. in this case i would probably run off and be a hermit in a cave on a mountain top edit: not probably. actually (:

would we want someone else to tell us how to know the exact time of our death? would we want to know this? and to know everything we will do up to that time? stuff like that. is a few people i think would want to know this. i think there would be more who wouldn't want to know + the other thing is about mutability and how it can work within these kinds of deterministic systems. i can know that you will die on a date far in the future if i don't tell you. i can know that you will commit suicide tomorrow if i do tell you

thinking about this more: if it was an uncertainty model based solely on randomness and if we could work out exactly what the algorithm(s) is, and if we could work out exactly what the source was (something seemingly impossible at the moment, but still). then whats really cool about this thought is we would be able to know the future with absolute certainty thats quite mind-blowing to me would be even harder to work out though if the algos were mutating as well. doesn't seem like it for many of them given what we understand about the algos/rules/laws governing gravity, light, etc. but is a slim possibility that some? of them may be mutable + here's what i think is a really hard question: if you did work all this out by yourself would you tell anyone? i don't think i would. well i hope i wouldn't anyways. could be quite catastrophic for other people if you did tell

i would just like to say that i don't believe in Turtles or anything as majestic as that for our universe. i think that Turtles have way more sense than to end up with us riding on their backs. i think the Turtles are in another universe of their own way way way away from us + i believe that our universe is a highschool student's homework. that when she is not looking then her little brother shakes the box and sometimes pokes it/us with a stick i offer as proof: when things go wrong then i can hear a faint high-pitched giggling. sometimes i am told that this is in my own head and that i should wear a tinfoil hat. but nah! when i do wear a tinfoil hat then the giggling outside my own head gets louder. jejejejjeje (:

Madelaine McMasters wrote: 16 wrote: about the little people, sentient beings, that populate our created universe. is a number of theological references. the first is that we (the god) did create them and that we created them to have free will. to choose their own path within our creation. i think that if anyone could create a universe and sentience, then they would more likely build in free will as one of the rules i can't see any point in having this capability and not doing it. just end up with some kinda mechanical model if not. a purely mechanical model that disallowed free will for sentient beings would demonstrate total omnipotence imo. not sure how useful that would be though if the purpose in creating the universe was to learn stuff + ps. should add that i don't believe in God as written in holy scriptures. i don't discount God in the sense of a Creator completely though. so am agnostic in a religious sense. i do like to know as much as i can about this stuff though Building in free will as a rule seems self contradictory. It is as if you presume that random creation would somehow favor pre-ordination, which must be guarded against by some intelligent workarounds. A purely mechanical model imbued with inherent uncertainty (as we see so far in our own universe) seems quite sufficient to prevent pre-ordination. And as for creation having a point, I don't see a need for any. I would argue that having a point unnecessarily narrows the possibilities. Play has value. if we did want to create a playground (don't know a better word) to maximise the number of potential outcomes then we would minimalise the number of rules/restrictions as far as possible. the minimal construction rule would seem to be: imbue it with Uncertainty, as you say. so makes sense to me + i think that [sentience>conciousness>thinking>free will] however we might describe this grouping and process, is the main dividing point between religious people and others. how did it come about? in the minimal playground Uncertainty Model can see that it could just simply come about. is no question then about How. it just did and we can observe this. makes sense to me this does as well we are though kinda back to the whole randomness of uncertainty and the survival of self-ordering things. that its probable a self-ordering thing could evolve/mutate [sentience>...] another thought that flows from this: can [sentience>..] come out of a non-self-ordering thing? is possible but seems unlikely to me + the Uncertainty Model is cool to think about. the actual difficulty i have with building one is the randomness component. like how we would build a truly random generator? we can't do this purely by algorithmic means. we need a source of true randomness to get it started. seems to me that the source would have to be infinitely large to begin with for true randomness to occur. without this then it becomes deterministic even if it appears chaotically random in many of its untold permutations is kinda almost esoteric this when we are talking about the size of a universe and all the possible starting seeds that this would entail. gets even more so when we try to figure out how we would choose one of them. am getting into the whole P vs NP problem now though

VRprofessor wrote: Knowing what I know now I would start by searching out groups that seem to have interests similar to your own. I rather randomly joined one group because someone I was talking to invited me. I haven't had time to do anything with the group, but the group notices are intriguing--they sound like things I would be interested in. ^^ yeah that ^^ i always encourage new people to join any group that is open to join and see how it goes. even total random groups. all kinds of fun and interesting things, places and people can jump out of them like you say

Porky Gorky wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: If we were able to create a universe, that in itself would not make us all powerful. We would be the creators of that particular universe and could possibly affect it by applying outside forces and pressures, but that would be the extent of it. Until we could control every single occurrence that happens in that universe, we could not be called omnipotent. If we could not control every action, thought, or decision of our mini peeps, then how could we call ourselves gods? A true omnipotent god would by definition be able to control everything, not most things or a large number of things, but everything. Granted, the first few dozen or hundred or even thousand universes that we create, would almost definitely have uncontrollable elements. But there is no reason to assume that we will not be able to master every element of a universe one day. It may take tens of thousands of years and involve a lot of trial and error. But given enough time it should be theoretically possible for us to create a universe that is 100% within our control. That includes having control over any life forms that exists within. It's hard to fathom based on our current understanding of the electrochemical process in the brain that results in thought, but it is just a chemical process after all. Through better understanding and technology, it should be possible to manipulate and control any life forms by design. If you limit your imagination to the boundaries that currently exists in science today it's hard to contemplate such theories as you are constantly confronted by the limitations of our current understanding. You need to assume that we will one day understand everything about our own universe and with that knowledge we will be able to create an artificial universe that is fully within our control thus rendering us omnipotent. In my mind there are only 2 factors that could stop us achieving this First is the Human Race’s long term survival and development, We need to avoid being wiped out and we need to maintain the comfortable conditions required to support our on-going learning and development Secondly, if our universe was created by intelligent design, it’s possible that there are rules in place that will prevent us from leaving this universe, creating a new universe, or obtaining omnipotence. about the little people, sentient beings, that populate our created universe. is a number of theological references. the first is that we (the god) did create them and that we created them to have free will. to choose their own path within our creation. i think that if anyone could create a universe and sentience, then they would more likely build in free will as one of the rules i can't see any point in having this capability and not doing it. just end up with some kinda mechanical model if not. a purely mechanical model that disallowed free will for sentient beings would demonstrate total omnipotence imo. not sure how useful that would be though if the purpose in creating the universe was to learn stuff + ps. should add that i don't believe in God as written in holy scriptures. i don't discount God in the sense of a Creator completely though. so am agnostic in a religious sense. i do like to know as much as i can about this stuff. is too many unanswerable questions though

Ceka Cianci wrote: 16 wrote: Porky Gorky wrote: I was talking to a friend on Skype last night, He is a Theoretical Physicist at UCL. We were discussing the origin or the universe and he made a good point that I shall mention here. Many scientists have trouble believing in intelligent design or a creator because of the lack of visible evidence to support such claims. However he believes that will change within the next few hundred years because human beings will have developed the ability to create our own physical universes, He believes we will be able to replicate the big bang and create replica universes on a much smaller scale. We will be able to demonstrate our control over the universes by manipulating time, gravity, expansion rates, matter dispersal etc etc. By creating our own universe we effectively scientifically prove that intelligent design is both possible and likely. that would be way cool. would prove the multi-universe thingy once and for all as well. and i need not bother about specks ever again either if i could upload myself into it then i be quite happy to call him God or whatever title he wants. even a plug in the back of my head will do. just hope that when it happens i don't have to have a hyphen in my name and that i dont walk like a duck (: that's actually what fermi lab had been trying to do for some time..and now they have this bigger ring out in france or some other country .. colliding sub atomic particles to try to create matter.. a lot of doors are gonna open up if they ever can do that.. yes, have been following what they are doing. its all very exciting

Porky Gorky wrote: 16 wrote: yes true. as the created universe would be inside this/our one. so does this mean that it could be considered a model of a universe? I don't think it would be a very good idea to create a universe inside our own universe. I think it will need to be attached to ours in some way but it would need to exist within it's own dimension and not within ours. I don't know what my opinion is based on but seems the logical thing to do, When I think about the multi-verse, I see the universes existing independently of each other, but attached in some ways through strings or black holes or whatever. I've never really thought about universes within other universe. That could go on forever like an infinite Russian Doll. I'll have to think about that concept more, it's interesting. if your friend can pull off creating a universe outside of our one then that would be pretty awesome like others, thanks for this thread Porky. has been way cool. i love thinking about these kinds of things and chatting about them. it helps me to learn stuff even when it does make my brain hurt sometimes. so cheers (:

Charolotte Caxton wrote: One of the disappointing aspects of religion, is that you are taught the rules, play by them, and then find out that the rules were made not by the official, but by other players just like you. Not only that, but there are many other playbooks out there for the same game. Then the question becomes, what makes our rules more correct then the hundreds of others? What if the way we are playing is the wrong way? Then the answer is our faith is not strong enough. Ok, but what about all the others who believe in their way, is their faith so strong that they can all be so wrong? If it were a matter of either you believe in god or you don't, it would be easy. The problem is which god and which of the many right ways are we supposed to believe? is some good thoughts in here. can't answer then all. can say though that people who have strong faith tend toward wanting, needing even, certainty in their lives. humility can also play a part in this. i human, am humbled by the thought that i may not actually be the pinnacle of conciousness

Charolotte Caxton wrote: I can't speak for them, but my feeling is that for some of the religious persons the question has already been answered so there is nothing to discuss. yes pretty much. if we can assign a nil property to God then we can also assign a non-nil property. it's a matter of belief either way. we believe this to be the case. when we do believe that God is non-nil then we can construct heaven and hell, creationism, etc on top of this. can even write a whole book about it and then interpret the universe and everything in it according to this view

Phil Deakins wrote: 16 wrote: that would be way cool. would prove the multi-universe thingy once and for all as well. and i need not bother about specks ever again either Actually, it wouldn't prove anything about the creation of this universe, or about multiple universes, except that it could have been created that way, and there could be other universes. As for it actually happening - I'll believe it when I see it yes true. as the created universe would be inside this/our one. so does this mean that it could be considered a model of a universe? + I won't have to believe it if/when it happens. same way that i don't believe in the sun ;p

Porky Gorky wrote: I was talking to a friend on Skype last night, He is a Theoretical Physicist at UCL. We were discussing the origin or the universe and he made a good point that I shall mention here. Many scientists have trouble believing in intelligent design or a creator because of the lack of visible evidence to support such claims. However he believes that will change within the next few hundred years because human beings will have developed the ability to create our own physical universes, He believes we will be able to replicate the big bang and create replica universes on a much smaller scale. We will be able to demonstrate our control over the universes by manipulating time, gravity, expansion rates, matter dispersal etc etc. By creating our own universe we effectively scientifically prove that intelligent design is both possible and likely. that would be way cool. would prove the multi-universe thingy once and for all as well. and i need not bother about specks ever again either if i could upload myself into it then i be quite happy to call him God or whatever title he wants. even a plug in the back of my head will do. just hope that when it happens i don't have to have a hyphen in my name and that i dont walk like a duck (:

jejejejeje (:

the interesting thing in this argumentation is the speed of light. we can actual measure this and we use this quite often as a base when constructing proofs in our efforts to understand our universe. we consider our Time relative to this something moving at the speed of light would, as you say, reference Time in a different way to us. consider a reference to Time from the photon's pov. does the photon die? if not then its infinitely eternal. if it does die then we, and the photon, would have a point in Time for the photon

ps. i add this here consider another theological reference: "God is knowable by his works and his wonders to behold" context: works/wonders = suitcase. God = suit