Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by solstyse

  1. 16, thank you for being the first prerson to notice that Yeah, the way I expressed myself was quite... colorful. And Pierre, I personally know some people who won legit cases. Often their injuries were far greater, and the cause far more ambiguous than the injuries suffered by this woman, yet their settlements were less. And by less, I don't mean unfair in any way except for what a long, drawn out process it was for them to finally get their money. So I have to agree, the cases which I'm citing are the extremes. My arguement is that the line should be moved closer to the realm of reality. there is no reason why a 79 year old woman who spills coffee on herself should get as much money as a 30 year old man who loses his hand due to ill-maintained equipment at a factory. The fact is that while it's easy to hype up her ijury saying "3rd degree burns" she was not permanently mutilated. In the documents cited, the extent of her medical losses added up to less than 20,000. The wait for that money, in my opinion does entitle her to more, since the wait has increased legal fees, and incrteased penalties levied against her for any debts incurred in the meantime. But the amount she got was way over the top. There is also no reason why the business that I used as an example, along with an unknown number of others had to close their doors for their product not being given the respect and caution it deserves. The point I've been trying to make is one of personal responsibility, and how these extreme cases, while on the surface may appear heroic, do much more harm than good. How real families lose everything they've worked to make in a single lawsuit, and real communities are impacted both in economy and quality of life. My point is that in these extreme cases The entire incident was within the ability of the victim to avoid. The coffee lady could have simply used her hands to hold the cup. The pool guy could have simply followed the posted rules. Yet every time, the person is awarded excessive amounts, and their own negligence is simply transferred to the one with more money. then look at some legit cases, where someone is permanently crippled by something that they had far less control over, and look at how after the settlement, their injuries leave them incapable of living lives that are financially independant. It all seems backward to me. After you talk to a guy who got the bones in his hand crushed by a machine that started because the lock-out was defective, or you talk to an assault victim who had to fight for 2 years to get $1000 and suffers permanent nerve damage, an old lady who gets awarded over $300,000 because she suffered the consequences of choosing not to hold her coffee just doesn't seem like someone worthy of pity.
  2. you are entirely missing every single point I'm trying to make. 1. The pool is only an example. It was a small business owned by a family, not a multibillion dollar coproration like mcDonalds. The precident set in this case has closed the business, which contributed to the community by being the only local business to offer such a service. Thus, an entire community lost an entire recreational activityto fullfill one couple's Aamerican Dream" of getting rich in a lawsuit. There are many such cases. I cited one to represent them all. And it's not about whether or not I felt a personal loss about the pool. It is about there is now a service that THOUSANDS can no longer take advantage of because one couple was irresponsible. As in, lawsuits such as this do affect many, many people. Should everybody suffer because one person was clumbsy? Would that be a more appropriate way to feel? Because that pool was owned by a motel, the family that owned that motel could no longer turn a profit. A small business bites the dust, and a family gets their dreams of entrepreneurship stepped on. And I should have sympathy for the person who got hurt by breaking the rules? That seems a bit misguided. Also, you call it my pool. No. I have no connection with it other than being within range for that closing to be considered newsworthy. 2. One important fact you seem to be overlooking is that the case was finally settled out of court under terms that neither party can legally disclose. So you have no idea what the woman finally received, yet continue to insist the settlement was unreasonable. If it's not disclosed, how is it even within my ability to overlook it? What was disclosed, is highly ureasonable. 3. Yet you have to name call and devalue the woman because she is elderly This is way off. I have already clarified, that it is not because she is elderly. I have no problem with her being elderly. She can be elderly all she wants to, There are billions of old people all over the world who I have no problems at all with because unlike this old bat, they don't end up in controvercial news stories. One thing that media exposure does is allow people to form opinions about you. And I have said multiple times that my problem is not her age, but the incredibly high amount she was to recieve, according to what was published. My opinion cannot be swayed by what was not published. So I maintain that it is her GREED that makes me have such a negative opinion of her. And I devalue her because she can certainly afford it. If she runs out of money she can certainly sue again. For the record here, I have committed no actions. I have typed words. I have formed an opinion. That is something we can all do. It is something that requires no defence. If I want to defend my opoinion, all I have to say is, "By increasing her profile to one of a public figure, she has opened herself to the opinion of strangers, whether positive or negative." Or, I could simply say that I am under no obligation whatsoever to like anyone. I can like or dislike whoever I choose. And this ONE old lady, who is not to be confused with all old ladies, or al old people in general, is one who i dislike. But she is one... singular.... She is not a representative of old people. If people still somehow have themselves convinced that this is some kind of crusade against the elderly, then maybe I should have worded my earlier posts more carefully. maybe I should have completely ommitted the fully accurate observation that 79 is in fact quite old, because there are some people who think that the mere mention of such a fact is a main point, when it is merely a descriptive detail. As in, one which paints a more accurate picture, but has no bearing on the main point. 4. the plaintiff must prove that he suffered injury or loss as a direct result of the defendant's breach.The fact that the coffee was spilled by the woman herself, and not any employee or representative of the McDonalds corporatioin serves as proof to me that McDonald's involvement was at most indirect. 5. the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was under a legal duty to act in a particular fashion.So, McDonalds had a legal duty to consult a psychic about what future beverage temperature standards would be? The problem that I have is that if no such standards are developed, then how is there a legal duty to conform to them? It would be way different if the standards were put in place before this incident occurred. But to punish anyone for not knowing what standards will exist in the future is just baffling. 6. You miss the point in the bar example too. I feel that it's wrong to hold a bar responsible for the actioins of it's patrons after they leave the property. It is the individual who went to the bar who chooses his or her own actions. The bar owner and staff have absolutely no control over that. Thus, their liability should be zero. Any lawsuit filed by the victim of someone who became intoxicated should be aimed directly at the person who directly hurt them. It is disgusting that a legal business owner is held "responsible" for the actions of one of their customers after they leave. Again, that's a matter of hurting what is usually a small, local business for something they weren't involved in. Now, to those who are disgusted by my opinion that the woman's lap wasn't worth the settlement she got, I have a challenge for you. Think of the highest paid profession that is directly dependant on a person's lap. Now, think of how long it would take for the average yearly wage within that profession to equal the amount that was published in that case. Bet it adds up to more than two years, doesn't it? Now, let's assume there was some scarring. My challenge to you, is to post any career which could not be resumed after her lap had healed enough for her to have mobility back, that from the age that a person can first begin working it (18 or 21 probably, depending on the career you choose) until the average retirement age of that career (or even go all the way to the woman's age, 79) where the amount gained by working comes close to the amount she publically won. List any ways that she could have possibly suffered such a monetary loss due to this coffee spill. If it's so disgusting to think her lap isn't worth that money, then change my mind. And someone else asked if I ate a steak that was so hot my tongue had to be amputated... Well, I'm not stupid enough to do that. And this lady didn't have anything amputated. And if you're old enough to chew, you're familiar with the idea of food being hot, and not it's your own fault if you don't let it cool.
  3. Okay. Premium vs. Free. The problem is that premium members really make it out to be something that's not worth it. Just about everything they write, is about how useless the perks of premium are. And honestly, they may be right. Premium accounts get gifts from ll, then complain that the gifts are inferior quality. Truthfully, I can do my own shopping to get exactly what I want. I tried creating stuff when i couldn't find it, and what I made was mediocre at best. But I had fun doing it. Creation too... There are premium sandboxes, free sandboxes, short term rentals, and land where rezzing is permitted. So, since nobody ever sings the praises of the premium sandboxes, I guess free people aren't missing much. Land ownership. Free accounts can rent from land barons, and even a lot of premium members will shy away from mainland. If it's so bad that they won't take what they're entitled to, then there must be a reason. Premium accounts need to be sold. Not just put out there like, "Oh, by the way, there's this." I mean people really need to see a benefit to them. then there's the support, which all the premium members come to the forums complaining means no support, just like free membership. The problem is that if paying to be premium does anything at all to increase the value of an individual's sl experience, then people who are already premium, regardless of whether they have love or hate for those with free accounts, aren't mentioning what those benefits are. The bigger problem is that neither is LL.
  4. See, there are 3 main things that make me take issue with that particular case. 1. If the number was flipped, and Mcdonalds was found to be 20% responsible, instead of 80, I might consider that to be a valid judgement. But not the way it happened. Sorry, but the woman did 100% of the spilling. How a product is handled once in the hands of the end user is the end user's responsibility. Take pity, say since it's too hot, she deserves a bit more than what medical and legal costs were, then fine. I could get behind that. But not to the tune of "An entity that was not present at the time of the incident is 80% responsible..." No, no way. That set a horrible precident, and many, many small businesses suffered and fell under the weight of similar judgements. 2. The punitive damages were found for a law that was created because of this incident. Meaning at the time that it happened, there was nothing to punish McDonalds for. Regardless of how many other people may have spilled coffee, the law that they were found negligent for breaking didn't exist at the time that it was "broken." 3. The jury didn't make up the number. They agreed to the number. I maintain my theory that no 79 year old lap is worth that kind of money. Neither is the lap of 90% of young people. For anybody other than a model, as long as they can still walk, sit, and move like normal, the monetary damages they suffer will never come close to that amount. I'll even venture to say that the emotional trauma a person suffers after something like that falls steeply by the time they pass the height of their "vain years" (very young adulthood) Before the jury could award the number, the lawyer had to come p with it, and the old lady had to say, "Yeah, that's what I want." So yes, she is greedy. Anyone who even attempts to get such a settlement is nothing but a parasite. The pool example I mentioned in an earlier post is only one business that closed. Then there are roller skating rinks that either never opened, or closed due to a threat. Skate parks that never opened because some kid's parents might sue over a skinned knee. Do you know what assault victims get told when they try to get a lawyer? They get told, "Well, we could sue the bar that sold the alcohol to the perpetrator." As if that's justice. As if it's somehow the bar's fault that someone picked a fight with a stranger walking home. And as if in the middle of recieving grievous injuries, the victim would have been able to have a conversation with their assailant about the bar. when the question is, "So I can't sue because it was a willful act... Are you saying if I would have tripped and landed on his fist you'd be more willing to represent me?" The answer is yes. That's sick. So, accidents are punishable, while willful acts are not. Now, whenever there is a shooting, there's a rush to point fingers. Whenever a fan of a certain band does something dumb, it's the band's fault. Is it video games? Is it violent movies? Is it comic books? Nobody looks at the logical place to point the blame anymore... At the perpetrator. And this case is probably the first, if not the most famous, where it was deemed that a person's own actions have no bearing on what actually happened.
  5. I believe Singularity is still based on V1, which is inherently faster than v2 and v3 based viewers. but by now, it's only the V1 viewers with the most dedicated developers that still exist.
  6. My attitude toward this clumbsy, greedy oaf does not reflect my attitude toward the elderly. Sure, I mentioned her age, because nobody can argue that she's old. But placing a freshly-bought cup of coffee between your legs and trying to open it whileNOT holding it steady in your hands somehow doesn't have everyone convinced that she's dumb. It's the overcompensation that forms my attitude toward her. Judgement about her quality of life? Let's see... Would being able to work cause her to have no source of income? Nope. There's disability and Social Security. Thus, in a purely monetary sense, it is an undeniable fact that she had less to lose than someone who is younger. Gaining almost half a million dollars from this puts her way, way too well off for her to need my sympathy. Ever try getting a lawyer for a legit case? Ask an assault victim how easy it was to get representation. Ask them the hell they went through to even try to get their medical expenses covered. Now, McDonalds should have settled. But, the fact remains that she wasn't even in the restaurant when the coffee got spilled. And the whole arguement about the coffee being so damn evil is completely bunk How many people kept going back for the coffee? 700 burns, compared to how many millions of cups of coffee sold is what percentage, exactly? Yeah, looked at it from that angle, the number is actually quite small. And think of how many dangerous things people handle daily. If you buy sulphuric acid to unclog a drain, and end up wearing it in your lap, by the logic of this case, then the hardware store is on the hook for massive amounts of money. It wouldn't matter that the container that it's in is in perfect working order, and that if handled properly, the contents will not and should not touch skin. It doesn't matter who's fault the transfer of the liquid from container to skin is. the company was negligent for selling the product to a clumbsy person. That's why I can't get with this "Oh gasp, if only it wasn't so hot!" mentallity. If the temperature of the coffee had been lower, then similar injuries would have resulted. Perhaps not quite as severe, but she would still be hurting. If, however, she had the brains to keep the coffee away from where it doesn't belong, and actually hold the cup while removing the lid, she wouldn't have been burned at all. Odds are that's why McDonalds chose not to settle. I'm not saying McD's was 100% right. They should have used their insurance. But, this oaf of a woman has effectively turned being an idiot into a career by getting what she did. And, earlier, I did say that I'm a darwinist. I'm all for someone getting help in cases where they had little to no control over what happened. But those who have these sort of accidents, well, no.
  7. Yeah, I thought it was you who posted about spending $300. That price for an i7 DID seem too good to be true.
  8. Charolotte Caxton wrote: No, because the damage inflicted was not because of the spilling but because it was dangerously and unnecessarily hot. If she had ordered molten lava and accidentally spilled it on herself, then everyone could laugh at her for being an idiot. Coffee should not be so hot that it can cause third degree burns. Imagine if she had tried to drink it? Are you saying that if she had not spilled it the burns would still be there? Look, I could agree to a reasonable insurance settlement. That's what insurance is for. And i could agree to more, if it had been someone else who spilled it on her. But if she had the brains to actually hold the cup while removing the lid, which is something that 99% of the world has figured out long before they spend 1/15th of the time being alive as she's had, it wouldn't have happened. So how is a person, corporation, or entity that was not even there 80% responsible for her poor decision making? If she had tried to drink the coffee instead of dumping the entire contents in her lap then she would have scalded her lip, said, "Ouch." and ended up staring longingly at the coffee while she remained thirsty for an extra couple of minutes. I can tall you that much from experience. Then again, I actually hold the cup that I drink from. And nomatter how painful the burns were, the only monetary damages were her medical bills. There is no career she was absent from. There are no college courses she had to drop. Those intangibles simply don't exist for a person of her age. Also, saying McDonalds was negligent for making coffee that was perfectly legal at the time is like suing a car company because you got into a crash driving a model that existed before airbags because it doesn't have airbags. Seriously, nomatter what the temperature of coffee is. you should be well aware that using your lady parts to hold it is a bad idea. And whether you expect third degree burns or not, you certainly know it's not going to tickle.
  9. The last few days, I had some random crashes too. But I was able to log right back in, so i didn't look too closely into it. I just assumed it was on my end. Guess not.
  10. Okay. It may be worth that much money. But since the person who spilled it was her, shouldn't she have sued herself instead of the people who sold it to her?
  11. You're right. The attempt to copycat is something she can't be blamed for. but the way that law works, because it is precident based, means that the sucess of those copycat cases go squarely back to that cup of coffee. Her injuries sucked. And if I was her, then yeah, I'd want a bit more than just doctor bills paid. But if I got enough to cover medical expenses, lost wages, and just a bit extra, then I'd be satisfied. Half a million is just plain greedy. And lets not forget that the law that McDonalds was found negligent for breaking wasn't written until after the incident had already occurred. I find that disturbing too.
  12. Follow Myll's advice to the letter. The reason that happened is that Win8 automatically installs the Microsoft driver. If you ever do a system refresh, you'll have to follow these steps again.
  13. I think the same thing, all the time. Like an advanced search, where you can check Mesh, prim, sculpty, or system. And maybe a special criteria box for things not covered. It would also be nice to be able to exclude things from your searches. Like, say, if you've already checked a specific store, and now you want to see things that are similar without thta store taking up so much space in your search. Typically, by the third item I see that I like by the same person, I'll do just that... check their store alone, then get frustrated when I go back to my main search and have to wade through the same items again. It would also be nice if sorting by relevance did some sort of sorting at all.
  14. Your timing must have been perfect to get that kind of machine for that kind of price. I would expect that to cost double.Did you have to cash in any kind of rewards, or fill out a ton of rebates? Also, can you please post a link to where you bought your computer at? That is an amazing price for an i7
  15. Hugsy Penguin wrote: It's clear you don't know anything about the Stella Liebeck case. Coffee is supposed to be served hot. It's not supposed to be served at 185°F (85°C). That's hot enough to inflict third degree burns (i.e., not just red on the surface but burned all the way through the dermis) and is unfit for consumption. McDonalds knew their coffee could do this to people (because there had been claims in the past) but did nothing about it. And, no, she wasn't trying to scam millions out of McDonalds. She initially sought $20,000, which I believe mostly covered medical costs, but McDonalds refused. And before they entered into a secret settlement, the amounts were reduced to $160,000 in compensatory damages and $480,000 in punitive damages (still a lot but not millions). I don't think anyone, including Stella herself, is saying she did nothing wrong. What's being said is that the coffee was served ridiculously negligently hot. Here's more info (WARNING - contains photo of her actual burns): http://pratlaw.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/an-old-posting-i-always-wanted-to-have-referenced/ solstyse wrote: Not a bad idea, but I'm still young enough to need the parts she burned, while she's old enough that it doesn't matter. Honestly, that's just a disgusting thing to say. Her lap is every bit as important to her as yours is to you. See, if anything, you're proving my point with that article. The person who was 100% holding the cup is only 20% at fault for trying to drink it with the wrong orifice. The law regarding the temperature at which drinks could be served was written AFTER the incident, not before. So, regardless of what her injuries were, She was still the one holding the cup. And she apparently didn't waste a drop. How, if not by purpose, do you spill the entire contents of a cup on yourself? I suppose the other 80% was telekinesis. Some McDonalds employee touched their temples, said, "Ohmmmm." and the cup tried to rape her, right? Okay, so McDonalds should have had to pay her medical bills, any wages she couldn't earn during her recovery, and maybe a little retribution. But half a million dollars? No way. I doubt that the manager of that McDonalds will have that kind of money pass through his/her fingers in a lifetime. To me, the moral of that McDonalds story is that you can work hard, earn an honest living, and struggle your whole life, or you can be a clumbsy oaf who gets lucky enough to be considered only 20% liable for an action that you 100% committed so that some sappy jury can make a lump-sum payment of money that you did nothing to earn.. And you're right. It IS disgusting to say "Not a bad idea, but I'm still young enough to need the parts she burned, while she's old enough that it doesn't matter." It was also completely sarcastic. If you remember, this McDonalds incident set off a rash of people "accipurposely" hurting themselves seeking large settlements. To me, this coffee hag symbolizes the beginning of the "What I do is everyone else's fault but my own." mentallity that plagues modern society. Each time a small business closes, or some person who is obviously trash starts screaming in my face that I'm going to have to deal with a lawsuit for their stupidity, I hate the woman they got the idea from even more.
  16. I respectfully disagree with Qie. I think you should Set a restore point, get the new driver, and if you don't like it, simply use the restore point to get your computer back to normal. I'm on a computer that only works because of a driver that HP doesn't support. Also, not just for SL, but because you're running Win7. Your machine will be MUCH happier if you double your ram. It's an inexpensive upgrade. If you don't want to open the computer, then get a usb stick or sd card that can run ReadyBoost. then after you figure out what's making SL crash, your experience will be much better.
  17. I think in this thread you and I have finally found our common ground. Maybe the difference is that I feel optimistic that with the merging of formfactors cleaner code is the inevitable result, while you're more pessimistic? We definitely seem to have a common goal. I think in other threads the reason why you and I have butted heads is because I feel that the future necessitates progrrams running on multiple platforms, which will take hardware demands to the lowest common denominator (meaning more efficient code to make up for the lack of capability in certain devices) If I'm reading your posts right, it seems like you're more conviced that things will simply pause as they are to give those less cabaple devices time to catch up. If that's the case, then I hope for LL's sake that I'm right. That the devices tat are sold with lesser capability are the ones that will be marketed to in the near future. Times are different now. Microsoft isn't the only game in town, and it seems like they know it. Now they compete with Linux, OSX, IOS, and Android. I feel that at this point, for any software to be considered successful, it must work smoothly on the least capable of all, while not lacking any of the features that the most cappable can take advantage of.
  18. The more technical info you post, the more we'll be able to help. what viewer are you using? what operating system? What hardware? what is the specific error message?
  19. Here's the important bit. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of her grandson's Ford Probe, and her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Was she in therestaurant? Oh, nope. She was in her grandson's car. Did a McDonalds employee place the hot beverage between her legs. I mean, They did lose, so they must have done it... Oh, wait. Now. She put the cup there herself. So, there must have been a defect in the container, right? Nope, wrong again. the clumbsy old bat didn't know how to properly remove a lid. And yet somehow, her injuries, which nomatter how severe were completely self inflicted, wree the financial responsibility of a business that sold her precicely what she'd paid for, in perfect working order. It's common sense that hot beverages, whicfh is the category that coffee and tea fall cleanly into without any controversy, by design are hot. And what prevented her from holding the cup like a normal human being in one hand while using the other hand to remove the lid? She'd spent 4/5ths of a century on this planet. If she hasn't figured out how to open a lid on a simple cup of coffee by now, she's beyond hope. The extent of her injuries do nothing but attempt to get "sympathy points." The act that was committed that directly led to her injury was committed by her, not by McDonalds. Now, if you were to make the case that the medical claim should go on McDonalds insurance, then fine. But to me it seems that this old bat burned herself and got more money than I could spend in my lifetime in the process. Not a bad idea, but I'm still young enough to need the parts she burned, while she's old enough that it doesn't matter. I say she did it to herself as a get-rich-quick scheme. It was her own fault she got burned, and she's rolling in money because of it. Her grandkids will never need to work. It's not that I'm completely insensitive, But people really need to take responsibility for their own actions. And then her case led to all the "real life courtroom comedies" of the 90's. Some Lardbutt finds another fast food restaurant to sue for "making him fat." as if the restaurant somehow removed the option of not being a pig. An RV company got sued because someone who bought a short bus of their very own thought that cruise control meant they could leave the driver seat. The idiocy that came in the wake of that old woman's case is astounding. Right where I live ther used to be a public swimming pool, until some asshat decided to run and jump into the shallow end. He landed on a grate for the pool's filter, and cut his foot. the resulting lawsuit closed the pool. Now, the closest place to go is a 30 minute drive away. For 6 stitches in his foot, he sued, got a six digit settlement, and his wife sued for "loss of companionship." that's what closed the place down. Now, if they couldn't bump uglies because of his FOOT, then there's a man who really just ddint' want to stick it in his wife. My whole community was robbed of summer recreation because someone read the story of the old hag with her stupid coffee cup, decided to copycat it, and again, inexplicably won the case even though the injury was inflicted by not using common sense. He broke the rules. He was in the wrong. He ran, which nobody should do poolside, and he jumped in where you're not supposed to jump in for a reason. As far as i can tell, they took some marital problems out on the community, since a foot injury has nothing to do with loss of companionship. either their marrige was very derilict (since the foot is so far away from the wang) or very depraved (if the foot really made a big enough difference for loss of companionship to make it into such an injury case.) As a footnote, this case was well published, and the couple became local pariahs, then used the excuse "Our lawyer told us to" maybe if the jury hadn't been so generous to the lady who tried to drink her coffee with the wrong oficice the judicial system could operate with some efficiency. Maybe the entire idea of personal responsibility wouldn't have gon out the window. maybe at leasts one city could have kept it's swimming pool. I may sound bitter, because I am. I'm a darwinist. I'm tired of every time an individual does something wrong, the blame goes to what music, what movies, what video games, what other thing that someone else who has never seen or spoken to the person may have done to influence that turn of events. I'm tired of the majority suffering due to the idiocy of some retard. I'm tired of the mentallity that everything a person does is somehow someone else's fault. I'm tired of "should we censor this, because out of a billion people who saw it or heard it one did this." So I am a darwinist. Human beings are the dominant species on this planet. If you find a way to die prematurely, or maim yourself by your own stupid actions in spite of this, so be it. Just at least have the decency to putthe blame where it belongs... on yourself.
  20. I'm glad you seem to know that my wording was just a friendly jest. After I posted I thought it could be taken wrong. I'm relieved it wasn't. File size may be the worst way to express it. I agree 100% with what you're saying. Anything that lowers demand while keeping existing features intact is a good thing. I really wish that LL would put the new stuff on pause, and say, "Let's clean up what we already have first.." Likewise, if they won't I wish that a TPV would take the base viewer code, and instead of making it unique by adding features, would clean up a little. That's kind of what I've been getting at all along. Even in other threads where you and I have talked, agreed, and even disagreed. Maybe the way I was expressing it was just as ineffective as the way I see you using file size as a way to express it. But it seems that while we're talking from opposite sides, what we're both wishing for is sleeker, more efficient code.
  21. Senobia Xenga wrote: If LL were to add these additional elements of realism to SL, would you still play? *Your house could be robbed and items really taken *You could be robbed and Ls really taken *You could be murdered (Not only on combat sims, but by random acts of violent crime - no starting over, no grace period. Once you're dead, you're gone. The end unless you get a new account.) *You could contract STDs and suffer the same consequences to your avatar as you would in RL *You could become pregnant w/out it being an option *You could die/become maimed/injured in accidents, too - like car crashes, falls, etc.(Same no 'do overs' apply here as above) As for me...I'm not sure. If I did, I'd be daresome to leave my house. What say you? not a single one of these suggestions is a good idea, at least not sim-wide. About being robbed... There are sims for that. If you want the risk of being mugged, you can go there. but then it's all rp, and it's all done in a way that while assets are lost in the game, none are in real life. After all, that roleplay money isn't something you have to pay real money for, but lindens, and objects bought with them are. It would really suck to log in and find that all your stuff is gone. Being murdered randomly and needing a new account... Who would want this? Again, it's taking back things that people have aquired here over time, and with real money. Even roleplayers can keep their characters after death. They just have to either move that avi to a different sim, change them altogether, or do some "alt-cycling" so that the original avi could be used as a different person than it originally was when the alt gets killed or retired. Again, no loss of stuff. STD's Pregnancies, and permaent injuries... There are huds for all of that. Why impose it on everyone? Everything proposed here takes away every bit of control that a person has over their sl experience. There wouldn't be a single benefit to any of it. SL would become a place where nobody bought anything, since someone could just kill them, and the money is wasted. So nobody would build stuff, since they can't sell it, or even keep the asset on their local machine. And any progress would come to a grinding halt. It would be nothing but Ruth wars.
  22. Aislin Ceawlin wrote: You mean like this.....LMAOOOO! (approx 2007) :matte-motes-agape: Geez, get a razor. It looks like your lower half is a member of ZZ Top!hahaha
  23. Gadget Portal wrote: You're misinterpreting that section of the privacy policy. It doesn't mean you can share stuff you read in local chat (within SL)- it just means that when you disclose information in a place people can read it, people that have access to that place can read it, no matter who they are in RL. It's legal speak to protect them from getting sued in case somebody finds out RL information by standing next to you and listening to your conversation in local chat, or in case you're dumb enough to put your phone number in your profile feed. It doesn't give people permission to ignore the CS rule, "Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited." Gadget, I actually agree with you. I just felt the need to play devils advocate for a moment there. Because noatter what it technically right, that document does give someone who breaks the TOS and community standards a leg to stand on. I did say, if someone wants to be a lawyer about it. And what do lawyers do? They give million dollar settlements to old geezers who spill coffee on their lap, as if they didn't do it themselves, and as if any lap that old is worth that sum of money. they include "loss of companionship" in injury lawsuits that only involved their client's foot. They make it necessary to label the dumbest things, as if someone who is planning to take the hairdryer into the shower with them has the IQ to read the warning. Or as if that guy who was going to stick his hand under a running lawnmower was sober enough to see only one label. The law is all in how it's interpreted. And in a dispute, it is up to both sides to have the judge interpret it in their favor. The privacy policy is something that the defendant could easily turn to if a dispute was to happen. At the very least, if a person is clever enough, they can use it to make a case that will reduce a ban to a very stern, "Just dont do it again." It doesn't make it right. but it does make it possible. edited to add: Yes, there are a lot of sim owners who use chat logs to settle disputes. Usually, hidden deep within their covenants is a clause that chat logs can be used for this purpose, and only this purpose, not to be shared with the general public. However, regardless of any consequences or lack thereof to anyone who breaks this rule, if you're quoted, then word is already out there. It's still best to post as if there is no rule against it. Keep out personal and embarraasing info.
  24. Oh no. 122mb out of roughly 500000 that the average disk is rated. that only leaves us with.... too many left to count on our fingers and toes left! hahaha. Kind of puts it in perspective, doesn't it? Seriously though. Programs typically get larger. That's life. And HDD space isn't exactly hard to come by. Even if you do fill up a hdd, then it's one of the few pieces that you can upgrade in even a laptop. Don't want to upgrade? Certainly out of 500gb not every single file needs to be on your bootable hard drive. Move some stuff to flash drives, or burn some dvd's or something. that being said, though, I'd really, really like to know why it is that the same people who tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about when I suggest some optimization suddenly love the idea when it's their turn to type it. Storage problems are a thing of the past. The current concern is power being traded for size and battery life in modern machines. Memory usage, cpu usage, and graphics handling are all major concerns. File size isn't.
  25. Jadeclaw Denfu wrote: Well, both rules apply. It simply depends on, who disseminates the information. If I write: "Solstyse lives at <RL-address> and you can visit her whenever you want" then I violate the privacy rules in the TOS. If you write: "Hi, I'm Solstyse, I live at <RL-address> and everyone can come visit me" then you publish your own personal information, it then becomes public information according to the privacy policy. Because you decided to publish your information. Whenever you give out personal data or give others permission to do so, it's your own fault. If another resident starts digging and gives out personal data without your permission, then you can AR that resident. And of course, only if the data is published on LL-infrastructure. Outside any equipment/network operated by Linden Lab, you are on your own, that means, you have to contact the abuse help desk/support of the site, where your personal information has been published. Linden Lab won't intervene on your behalf at Reddit, Wordpress, Google+, etc., nor would they ban a resident in SL because of what he/she does on other sites. I hope, that makes it clear now. That's actually a major part of the point that I'm trying to make. The example you gave is why absolutely nobody on SL gets any kind of rl info about me. You are 100% correct. Now, in terms of the OP, here's my take on it. If you post to local chat, then whatever you have posted could be argued as being public information, under the link I posted. If a person who I AR for divulging such info can present evidence that I did divulge such info, then my AR could be disputed. However, due to my habit of keeping rl info out of sl, or being entirely vague when I do say something about rl, I provide no counter-evidence if I were to choose to make an AR. This protects me, and any who see what I post. An example... If i'm on a rp sim, and I catch someone putting something I said in local chat into a "quotes pick." I thank them. I take it as a compliment. Are they technically breaking a rule? Well, that's grey. But because I'm careful not to post anything that may haunt me, the person who witnessed that comment and myself are both exhonorated from any wrongdoing. I think that the rules of the 90's regarding the internet are more relevant than ever, but are more forgotten than ever at the same time. Social media, such as myspace, twitter, facebook, and twitter, activities like blogging and vlogging allow people to reach a greater audience than ever. But the knowledge that people have forgotten is that the broader audience, the more control you lose over your own information. Privacy is something that the individual is more and more required to defend as time goes on. Look at... Oh, say, Windows8 for example. Win8 ties your seperate accounts together because it's convenient. One login means you have access to all your social media (facebbook, myspece, twitter, etc) and your phone (google+, gmail, etc.) and countlesss others. It's nice, as long as yyour Microsoft account isn't the one that gets hacked. At the same time, Microsoft is going to court against several "ad agencies" that consider microsoft's efforts to afford you some privacy are wrong. In the latest version of internet explorer (which is the only one that rated #1 in anything other than "best browser to download other browsers from" The option of "do not track" is turned on by default. Every browser in the world offers that setting as an option, but only the latest IE has it on by default from the moment you log in. Why does the latest IE have it on by default? Probably to protect you, since every single thing you do is now tied together under their OS. Thank you Microsoft, for combining security with convenience. **bleep** you "advertisers" for saying it's somehow wrong for MS to do so. In closing, educate yourself, protect your own privacy, excersize common sense, and threads like this become a non-issue.
  • Create New...