kiramanell

Phil Deakins wrote: Ah, so you think it's a conspiracy on LL's part lol. Now I can see the sort of mind you have. Thank you for the illumination I wonder why you don't want to accept that they actually mean what they say, and are not trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. But I suppose conspiracy theorists prefer things to be a little less simple and straight forward than that. After all, you can't be a conspiracy theorist without making up conspiracies to rail against, can you? Nah. I just don't like to play childish word-games, is all. Remember how Bush magically 'lowered' the number of war casualties in Iraq, just by redefining the term 'war casualty' a bit?! Same difference: renaming something don't impress me much. However much you want to twist this, SL 2.0 was made and intended to be the successor of SL 1.0. As for you saying I shot myself in the foot, also nah, that's just you being childishly literal, thinking you won the argument that way. It *does* remind me, however, why I stopped posting in this thread: no mature conversation can be had here.

Freya Mokusei wrote: But okay, great. You have one part of a Microsoft product that they kludged together and works (so long as you didn't accidentally buy Home Edition!), and now believe you can dictate facts. Facts tend to annoy ppl, that much is certain: especially when they don't suit them But yes, for all purposes and intent, that 'XP Compatibility Mode' is meant to provide full backwards compatibility. What's anecdotal, rather, are your possible examples of maybe a few programs that aren't (and likely only because they were badly written in the first place, and not because MS screwed up). If you can tear yourself away a bit from wanting to be right, at all cost, looking for the odd exception, you will see that Microsoft at least made a genuine attempt at offering backwards compatibility, LL, on the other hand, has no such intention.

Phil Deakins wrote: However, LL is not producing a new version. As Maddy showed, they are producing a new product, so backward compatibility doesn't even enter into it. You don't find all the parts of one car fitting a new car from the company, even though the new car has the same name for the model, although a few parts might. There is no reason for LL to bend over backward to make everything, or even most things, that works in SL also work in the new product, and there is every reason not to. What Maddy showed, is that LL is using word-play to sidestep the backwards compatibility issue, is all. "Ooo, let;s call it a different product, so as to rid ourselves of backwards compatibility request!" In reality, of course, SL 2.0 simply *will* be the successor of SL 1.0, made and intended to replace our current version of SL.

Freya Mokusei wrote: If you're using Microsoft as your use-case for backwards compatibility, you're gonna be awful disappointed. This is the company that tried to define their own standards for CSS and XML. That has now developed three console systems without a single backwards-compatible game. And Ohgod, compatibility mode - it's like the King Knute of the Internet. It's okay to say you wish the newcomer was backward compatible, it's not necessary to distort history. And whatever happens, they shouldn't do 'compatibility' the Microsoft Way. I have programs written for XP that still run fine on Windows 8.1. Most all still do. That is simply a fact. You may find that an Incovenient Truth, but it's no less true.

Backwards compatibility -- often lobsidedly thrown in our faces here as something holding the company back -- is, in the rest of the world, the corner stone to staying in business. Look at Microsoft, and the history of Windows. With maybe a few small exceptions, a program written for XP, back in the day, will, to date, still run on Windows 8.1 just fine. In fact, if Microsoft had broken with backwards compatibility after XP, Windows would be dead as a doornail by now. The same could be said for a company like Intel. Why do you think they're still on the x86 architecture!? To stay with the XP analogy, there's technically no valid reason the New World couldn't come with a 'SL 1.0 Compatibility Mode' too. Especially since the code for it is, naturally, already there. Not doing so is simply a choice. And, much like there's no such thing as being 'a little pregnant,' likewise there's no such thing as 'a little backwards compatible.' Either you are, in full, or you are simply not. Like I've argued before, half a home = no home: if only half the structure can be ported, I will effectively not have ported the home at all.

Gavin Hird wrote: Freya Mokusei wrote: I don't see how such a localised law would affect the rest of the EU or give anyone the power to shut US services out of member country markets, above and beyond any other trade agreement. Happy to be educated on this point, I've been trying to get a source on this thing the whole way through, no-one's heard of it. You obviously don't understand how an EU directive work, but it is mandated to be worked into the legilsation of all member states. So there is nothing localized about it. :-) There is plenty of source on it - go to the gaming thread or search EU documents. Actually, "mandated to be worked into the legilsation of all member states" is *precisely* that: making EU Directives localized. Or domesticated, with a fancy word, as EU Directive are not themselves Law. Rather, a EU Directive is a legal act which requires member states to achieve a particular result, without dictating the means of achieving that result. Member states are then required to start legislative procedures to implement the required result. The EU Directive does *not* mandate what the localized legislation looks like -- so long as the desired result is achieved.

Perrie Juran wrote: Many years ago I had the "privilege" (add a sarc mark there) of being in a tightly controlled group with one of the original companies that developed the original pre-employment psych evaluations that are so abused by companies today. I could write a book on that experience. There were several hundred of us employees involved in that and quite frankly I don't think the study if done today could survive the current ethical requirements for doing research. It is naive for a researcher to think that even when people don't know the purpose of a study to think that people don't tailor their answers. From experience I can assure you that the controls necessary to really begin to draw valid conclusions are anything but happenstance. The study admits a possibility and it may be a reasonable one. But that is all it does. And it's at 'reasonable' that I came in. I hadn't heard of the studies mentioned -- thanks for the links, though -- but it simply made sense to me that ppl not riddled with many (unresolved) issues about sexuality are mentally healthier than those who are. Sometimes things just make natural sense.

Thomas Galbreus wrote: What a BS post. You quote a random post of me in it's entirety, only to address not one syllable in that, but to conceive random rants about me being an awful person. Such behaviour in a forum is 100 % proof that someone lost the argumentation completely. Instead, I addressed the entirety of your posts. And concluded that your continual obsession with porn and sex would probably make me feel less safe around you than I would be with others who have a more normal attitude towards sex. And that was a far-cry from a rant, and a far-cry from me saying you're an awful person. Obsessive people tend to do radical things, though; and, when frustrated enough, are more prone to hurting themselves and others. That's probably not something you want to hear either, though, but something you objectively probably know to be true. As for argumentation, I offered none in that post: we're way past that: I merely made (a somewhat sad) observation, is all.

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: kiramanell wrote: ThomasGalbreus wrote: Imagine a new user stumbles upon this thread (which is linked in blogs etc.). Not only see they porn in SL vigorously defended, but also those who have a problem with it repeatedly told to go and stay away. Will help the stigma a lot. In one of the many, many replies, someone mentioned BDSM folks were, overall, psychologically more healthy than 'normals.' I can see the validity of such a statement. Not about BDSM per se, but that ppl like you, obsessed with porn and sexuality in general, tend to be more mentally unstable than ppl with less obsessive attitudes about sex, and sometimes pose a danger even (like an activist killing ppl at an abortion clinic or something). I mean to say, I'd probably feel more unsafe around you, in SL, than with someone just wearing their silver collar, is all. Take from that what you want. Hello Kira, I had posted a link to some research done on mental health, and BDSM practitioners, on page 159 of this thread, here's a link to my comment: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Linden-Lab-is-building-a-NEW-virtual-world/m-p/2792194#M190552 (Later in this thread, Freya also posted that link, so yes....it's not news that BDSM people are better adjusted mental health-wise than their counter-parts in the general population. But, apparently news to Thomas) Thank you for the link. And page 159, hehe, yup this thread is looooooong.

Thomas Galbreus wrote: Imagine a new user stumbles upon this thread (which is linked in blogs etc.). Not only see they porn in SL vigorously defended, but also those who have a problem with it repeatedly told to go and stay away. Will help the stigma a lot. In one of the many, many replies, someone mentioned BDSM folks were, overall, psychologically more healthy than 'normals.' I can see the validity of such a statement. Not about BDSM per se, but that ppl like you, obsessed with porn and sexuality in general, tend to be more mentally unstable than ppl with less obsessive attitudes about sex, and sometimes pose a danger even (like an activist killing ppl at an abortion clinic or something). I mean to say, I'd probably feel more unsafe around you, in SL, than with someone just wearing their silver collar, is all. Take from that what you want.

Monalisa Robbiani wrote: I didn't, that's why I put quotes. It's what the media and the general population thinks about SL. For the record, I didn't mean to imply *you* were the 'idiot.' Rather i was referring to that reporter (was it?) that had made the initial comparison. Those ppl tend to experience any social media only vicariously, thru their kids; and then, to them, Facebook and Second Life just all look like variations to the same thing.

Monalisa Robbiani wrote: Really, that's why Facebook, Google, Apple, Disney, flickr, Yahoo, Skype etc. are niche products while SL has billions of users, private and corporate. Oh wait, it's the opposite. It's the adult content that cripples SL to a niche for "socially inept weirdos" you better not talk about. Only a complete idiot would compare Facebook with Second Life. The End.

Thomas Galbreus wrote: kiramanell wrote: *every* legitimate bank in the world requires that! I thought so. Then tell me: How do direct banks (that operate only online) do it in the US? Or don't they exist there? Or do they use a similar system? Why should that not be pratical for porn sites then? Trying to open a bank account online has nothing to do with age-verification for online gaming. Nothing whatsoever, The former is about establishing identity beyond a shadow of a doubt (so other ppl can't open a bank account in your name, of instance). Verification of age, in said process, is just a by-product, as it were, of verifying the identity. Online age verification, however, is an entirely different deal, both practically and conceptually. The purpose here is not so much to protect you from identity theft, as it is to offer the provider of the service a means to comply with the law that prohibts him from exposing certain material and/or services to minors. Here the identity is the by-product, as it were, of the age-verification process. Again, your examples showing that you need to have your identity established if you want to open a bank account, have nothing to do with the topic of online age-verification for gaming. Not one iota.

Thomas Galbreus wrote: Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Can you show me an example of a German company that has an effective age verification program? The most common method is called "Postident-Verfahren", which includes showing your identity document at a post office. Direct banks often use it for age verification in Germany. Examples: http://www.bankofscotland.de/mediaObject/documents/bos/de/downloads/leitfaeden/Postident-Coupon/original/Postident-Coupon.pdf https://www.volkswagenbank.de/de/privatkunden/kundenservice/hilfe/fragen_Antworten/allgemeines/legitimation.html http://www.wuestenrotdirect.de/de/bank/service_2/service_3/fragenantwortenneu_2/kontodepoterffnung_1.html?searchresult These links are absolutely hilarious! So, you win the argument now, because you've shown that you need valid identification papers in order to open a bank account (and in some instance, a birth certificate as well, when it involves a minor; yes, I speak German). Newsflash: *every* legitimate bank in the world requires that! LOL. And it has absolutely nothing to do, whatso-frikkin'-ever, with online age-verification for gaming. I LOL-ed again. P.S. Never try to pull a fast one over Kira.

Thomas Galbreus wrote: Wrong. SL would not be allowed to run on German servers. You won't find a porn site running on German servers without a rigid age verification system. And what would the relevance be in practise? Half the MMO's I've played, I have no idea where their servers are located exactly. And who cares?! is the point. If circumventing rigid German age-verification is as simple as not hosting your business on German soil, then their entire law was just a Null-Gesetz to begin with.

Phil Deakins wrote: The law does not have a physical presence and is, therefore, powerless to stop or prevent anything from happening. The original statement that you disagreed with and started this discussion was that, 'The law does not protect anyone from anything'. Physical things can protect people from crime. Things like walls, people, dogs, guns, etc. can protect people, but words on paper cannot.. Seems Thomas is unable to grasp the distinction between 'Law' and 'Law Enforcement.' The latter is there to ''Protect & Serve' -- but even that is, at most, a 'best effort' deal. And anyone who's ever lived in Detroit will know that *wanting* to protect ppl from getting murdered, and actually being able to, are two vastly different things. Besides, Perrie's original statement, 'The law does not protect anyone from anything,' was in made in the context of Thomas erroneously thinking that mere better age-verification laws would prevent ppl from lying about their age. To which Perrie, entirely correctly, argued that no law will prevent ppl from doing so, if they really want to.

Phil Deakins wrote: Excuse me for butting in here, but I want to say that Perrie is correct. What Perrie said is that "no laws protect anyone from anything", and that's what you didn't agree with. But Perrie was right. Laws cannot stop things from happening. Example: murder is against the law, but that law does not stop murder from happening. The law against murder can certainly make people think twice (at least) before committing a murder, and it can be said that some people are alive now because other people decided not to risk spending a very long time in jail, but that law did not protect anyone from being murdered. It was influential in some people not being murdered, but that's all. If someone decides to risk jail and murder someone, the fact of the law's existance cannot protect the victim from being murdered, or prevent it from happening. It's as simple as that. Excuse me for butting in here, but I want to say you are entirely correct. No law can ever prevent harm from comig to you. At best ppl can say: "Here's a law we made. It's supposed to dissuade peeps from killing you." That's all. And they can put some more blue on the street, to deter bad folks even more, but the law never shields you from the ill-will of others. At best, the law offers remedies to injuried parties. Like copyright infringement, Laymen will say the law protects your works; but it doesn't. All the law does is offer remedies for when ppl steal your work. But the law can no more prevent ppl from stealing your work than it can ensure that you won't get murdered. At the most, the law can dissuade.

Sparks Racecourse wrote: Primary being developed for Online gaming industry. Ever been to casino and someone ask for your identification? In my early 20's, I went to Las Vegas and got carded at a local casino. This new technology is coming to the onliine Gaming. The problem with the old secondlife method is that a third party held the information, but with this smart card technology. Then it is embedded on the chip. Most PC's come with a webcam and fingerprint scanner for secure log on. Only one person can unlock the data as it is transmitted via a hardware secure connection with the website. Really? Finger-printing? Biometric data on a chip? Why don't you add a retina scan, while you're at it?! Seriously, you've been watching way too many movies if you think this kinda James Bond stuff will be commonplace for gaming, LOL, If you read the article further, you can see your casino example was apt, as the system seems designed with online gambling in mind, Linden Lab is never going to implement this purile cloak & dagger stuff, just to satisy the obsession of 1 German user who thinks every pixel is pornography. Ultimately, the onus is on the user not to lie about their age: not on LL to prove they aren't.

Thomas Galbreus wrote: Drake1 Nightfire wrote: If you engage in sex in SL with an avatar run by someone that is under age you can and possibly will be held accountable for YOUR actions. And your action in that case is confronting the under age person with depictions. I only have some detailed knowledge of German law. According to that, exposing pornography over the internet is already a criminal offense if it is not technically assured that under age persons can not gain access. At least this explains why you see everything in terms of pornography. In Germany, indeed, suppllying hardcore pornography to a person under 18 is an offense, and websites hosting pornographic material within Germany must comply with very strict rules about verifying that viewers are over 18 (even just giving your passport number does not suffice). However, lest ppl get derailed by your obsession with pornography, trying to 'engage in sex in SL with an avatar run by someone that is under age,' as Drake1 put it, has nothing to do with pornography. It's called child solicitation, and can be defined as 'An attempt to convince a minor to engage in a sexual act or conduct.' An entirely different law. Also, sex in SL, per se, is not pornography, so your entire argument is fail. Pornography is generally seen as "Sill photography or video footage that contains explicit and (often) intensive depictions of sexual acts." Engaging in (legal) sex with someone in SL is, therefore, not pornography at all. It might, for instance, be the case if you were watching a sex tape *within* the virtual world. Yet you can only ever be said to be watching 'video footage' of something when it pertains to watching a second-hand recording of an event: operating your own 'live' avatar in SL is *not* considered 'video footage' in that context. But, you will just say that any sexual depiction is pornography; so, arguing with you is actually rather pointless.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Yes, people can cam into adult SL venues, but the existence of RL peeping toms has not caused reasonable people to consider sex in the bedroom pornographic. Now that you mention it, I think it was a few years back already that LL made it so you can prevent people from peeping at you on your parcel: yes, they can still cam in and watch the furniture, lol, but not see the avi's themselves. Actually, I would agree with Thomas on several things, if he hadn't lost all nuance. For instance, I *do* believe that many forms of sexual expression, even when generally deemed consensual, are still rooted in some sort of (past) abuse. Like is that hooker really selling herself freely? Or has past abuse conditioned her into thinking sex is the only way for her to gain value in life, and is the jon just taking advantage of that? See, you gotta be careful with that. What I cannot do, however, is blanketly call all expressions of sex porn, or see all 'powerplay' in sexuality as slavery, or an assault of human dignity. It's like The Boy Who Cried 'Porn!' If you do so at every expression of sex you witness, then no one will take you seriously when real porn rears its head.

"Any depiction of sex seen by someone is porn." Too ridiculous for words. Now here's what's really gonna bake your noodle, later on. By your definition, everytime you see a display of sexuality in SL... you're watching porn! You perv!

Rayzer Haggwood wrote: Not sure who started this thread changing over to porn but all I can say is if someone doesn't like adult content then don't go to adult sims. Problem solved. My point exactly. You have your MP filters, and can get your own private island (or be on a region that is non-Adult). And whilst I'd like to point out again that I have no interest in Adult content myself (a few erotic statues I own despite, maybe), I feel no need to moralize, whatsoever, and ruin it for others. I'm European; I believe in freedom, and making up my own mind about what I can see or not. I don't want someone forcing their own narrow morality on me and others. If it's not illegal what ppl are doing, then more power to 'em! And if that means I too can occassionally strap on some sexy boots, and dito outfit, and go clubbing in peace, then all the better.

Thomas Galbreus wrote: A virtual world, on the other hand, can only prosper beyond just a niche if it offers a rich variety of content and people can be open about using it. If a virtual world gets identified with porn content, people won't be a lot more eager to tell their friends, parents, colleagues or neighbours about using it than they are eager to tell them about the site they found that deals with the fetish they are craving - even if they are more into real porn (or into real erotic activity) than into pixel porn so wouldn't use that part of the virtual world anyway. Sexuality is not a 'niche.' All those friends, parents, colleagues or neighbours, they are having it too. And your assumption that a virtual world can somehow not thrive, unless it's devoid of Adult content, is based on nothing. Rather, it stands to reason that the most successful virtual world will be one that mimmicks the real world the best. There's no reason, whatsoever, to believe a stodgy Mickey Mouse world, controlled by a bunch of prude American puritans, would be what people want. Of course, if you're as biased as you are, and you keep telling those friends, parents, colleagues or neighbours, "Please, join me in this porn-laden den of inequity called Second Life," then they might indeed not follow. However, a person less obsessed with sex would just tell those folks about a great virtual world, in which you can go shop, build to your heart's content, dress up as spiffy and sexy as you want, and even enjoy the occassional moment of human intimacy -- you know, like in RL -- then I'm sure people would be a lot more enthusiastic. Perception, indeed, ironically, is everything.

Thomas Galbreus wrote: Porn is the depiction of sex, so as soon as sex furniture is used in SL and someone sits in front of a screen watching it, it's porn. You think that sort of thing is happening a lot? I mean, people using sex furniture, whilst others are watching over their shoulders, looking at their screen? Apart from being rather far-fetched, I would say that happens nearly never. So, if that is your definition of porn in SL, then we can safely conclude there's as good as no porn in SL. Or did you mean the avi itself sitting in front of his screen, using the furniture? Then it's definitely not porn, either. Camming aside, SL mostly offers a third-person view (or, overall, a 'behind-the-back' perspective). That third person is still the avi itself, of course. So, unless you were taping your sex act, to watch back later with another person maybe, merely having your eyes on your screen, whilst having sex in SL, does not constitute watching porn. No more than having sex in RL, and using your eyes directly, is watching porn.

Thomas Galbreus wrote :But that would be typical of an enterprise that is seen as a mediocrely successful porn service. Your obsession with porn is taking on weird proportions. Actually, since you don't seem to grasp the distinction between porn and sex, I say there's actually surprisingly little porn in SL. There's sex furniture, for sure, and various erotic attributes; but porn? Hardly any. There are probably some TV's out there that may support porn tapes (and I doubt that business is doing well on a larger scale), but that's pretty much it. Then there's ppl dressing sexy in SL, Kinda like in real iife. You need to come to grips with that. People trying to attract other people... OMG! On that note, “What holds the world together, as I have learned from bitter experience, is sexual intercourse.” -- Henry Miller