MishkaKatyusha

go watch movies about confucius,or perhaps socrates,and youll soon understand and also,your opinion is confined to you,while you have a right to it,insisting that everyone else beleives it is a false generalization i likely suspect that this is an attempted for of humor,in which case,congratulations,you amde me smile after i nearly burnt my brain out

actually,it was the antithesis of insisting that only order exists,from the scenario citation you yourself provided. and in that contextual vein,since you were using that scenario citation to demonstrate against my conceptual explanation,your kind of running into circular logic by insisting that the whole thing is invalid because of the fiction of the scenario that you used to demonstrate against my concept and as for personal aesthetics and a narrow scope driving things?i could accuse you of the same thing due to your insistence upon declarative statement absolutism that order is a fictional thing,and that physics and chaos are one and the same,infact if youll check the following link,there is plenty of information on how ,in physics,order can arise from chaos,thus functionally disproving your declarative statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory also,ill offer another logical refutation you say "by doing this we only create things more fake,and less real" it is an accepted logical principal that "nothing unreal exists" so therefore,in absolutes,not only is there no such thing as "more fake,less real",thus indicating a colloqial "slip" of logic,but also this formally concludes that "if something exists,it is real". and so thus by something like a so called "Virtual world" being played on a computer screen,it is indeed real.it is a mistake of and slip of colloqial handling of logic to think that a virtual world "is fake".it is by logic real,as it is electrons channeled through different sorts of computer hardware in different locations across the globe,which on the usual user end point uses further channeled electrons to manipulate photon outputs,causing (sometimes through physical filters like an lcd screen) the image to appear on the screen.which acts as a form of entertainment by stimulating very real neurochemical transmissions,synapse firing,and in some cases bodily response (i wont get into all the depths of that considering SL's range fo activities). and to say that something isnt real simply because it shifts in color and shape,and size,and emphasis and sensibilitys is also a logical flaw.and infact ill refute that with a purely logical concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution Evolution in all things,from concepts,to ideas,to beleifs,to the actions those drive and as for what religions concern.the truth of the universe as it were,that is a very essentially esoteric matter that is for the most part left out of scientific debate unless someone is looking for 15 minutes of fame. there will be,in the essence of logical absolutism,no proof for or against such a unique concept until likely billions of years into the future,when humanity understands the universe as well as computer code nowadays. so then running back to square 1. when a religion insists that some such being or another created the universe.the few scientists that have foolheartedly tried to deal with the concept.insist usually one of two things. 1.because there theorys about the universe's formation have supposidly been confirmed by scientific observation,they insist that there opinion that no entity created the universe must be true.when in reality thats just circular logic since pretty much non existence,which logically is before creation,cannot be witnessed. 2.stephen hawking insists that because of things like gravity,things like universe creation can and will create themselves.we will nwo divide into two or more logical breaks,and thus defeats of this concept 2.1 when nothing exists,there is nothing.so therefore there is no gravity,nor other things to exist which would create.therefore that is a simpleton's logical error. 2.2 and to insist the something like gravity has "always been",i.e. alpha and omega,is merely switching out one diety for another in concept,and so therefore is self defeating,since the entirety of the effort is to disprove that a diety exists 2.3 circular logic.not only of course can nothing not create from nothing,but the very principle of scientific proof,scientific observation,is missing because how the universe was created,because it basically happened out of non existence,since logically non existence preceeds existence,is essentially unobservable,yet clearly happened 2.4 thus we reach the point where human conceptiosn of such things breakdown: 2.4a nothing unreal exists 2.4b what is real exists 2.4c logically,non existence preceeds existence,and clearly the universe creation,genesis,big bang (how crude),or start did infact happen 2.4d considering 2.4a and 2.4b,therefore non existence did not exist,which is a illogical-yet-logical paradox,and the start of existence did exist,which is yet another illogical-yet-logical paradox,as nonexistence must preceed existence 2.4e and also,because nothing unreal exists,and because the idea that a divine being,which is not readily observable,must therefore not be real,it runs into an absolutism logical fail,as the sole proof of such a thing would be observing the universe before creation and then the creation itself.that is also what stephen hawking's theory hinges on, 2.4f and as such,for stephen hawking to claim that he can rightfully say what happened before existence,and thus disprove the existence of a diety in the creation of the universe,by the rule of scientific observation existing as the sole proof of scientific theory,which is all stephen hawking ever does. his proof does not exist,because nothing unreal exists,so therefore non-existence does not exist 2.4g there is only one solution to this whole mess that is even remotely explanatory,virtual world cosntruction inside computers.the virtual worlds do not exist before we,the humans,create them inside the computer.and because of the elctron channeling and photon projection mentioned earlier,they are real by absolutism.and the reason why we humans eternally wrestle with the logical "bottomless pit" of creation as it were and who did what is simply this.what created the universe,must be so far above us humans in conciousness as to make us humans look "pathetically non-existent" by comparison.proof of this in this specific context is as follows: 2.4g.1: if,hypothetically,all our SL avatars were to gain self awareness,sentientcy,or both.and they tried to figure there own creation,they clearly would not be able to.as the beings that created there universe (we the humans) are so far above them in power,intellect,knowledge,and conciousness,as to make them look pathetically non-existent by comparison 2.4g.1 addendum: now you can see why the smart scientist doesnt bother debating about religion,becuase it introduces an unsolveable paradox which cannot be proven,nor disproven by either logic or science,as illustrated above.its far more sensible for the scientists,and non beleivers,to spend there time on other endevours than to host an exercise in futility,which is trying to solve an unsolveable yet very real paradox i think i will need some rest after this,i enjoy participating in intellectual heavyweight style debates,and they are fun for me,but its exhausting then again i suppose you could say this whole thing is pointless due to the obviously ludicrous way we have both goen off topic

ah yes.but indeed,there is one caveat. i apoligize,but im going to have to use an analogy from my faith to explain my next part,for i know of no other way of saying this,no offense intended,with commentary from me in parenthesis, "for in those days,the earth was without form or substance (without form or substance is generally taken as chaos,because it is unregulated existence),and then the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters,and said "let ther be light" and there was light" (thus indicating chaos as the primordial state,or,that from which creation,and thus order,emerges,so thus,order comes from modulated chaos)" i have alot of fun exploring the hypothetical,logical ramifications of just about everything. the quoted paragraph was demonstrating a concept.this system of events can often be observed in nature,you have a spontaneous,unregulated mass "without form or substance",and then an applied forced interacts with it "let there be light" and then suddenly order emerges from the chaos star formation is a great example,a great,vast,rather messy cloud of hydrogen,without form or substance,is subjected to an applied force (gravity) which causes the hydrogen to collapse in on itself,producing a star,and sometimes planets (thus order)

very good post, also you reminded me how i forgot to mention the possibility of intermixed college and factory,or the adhoc,but writing a post that involved takes abit of a toll on my limited memory.i mostly learn by rote. the ad-hoc team/apprenticeship/multiple masters thing is quite the trip,if you can stomach it youll learn things in days that would take standardized learning months,and learn things in months that would take standardized learning "years",and learn things in years that would take standardized learning "decades". it reminds me abit of the depiction of captain kirk in star trek,he existed in a highly regulated,by the book organization,but existed so far on the fringe that he had the freedom to do things in very unregulated and unorthodox ways,and thus often met with far higher success than his peers.as the universe tends towards chaos the further you get from rigid order,you msut meet chaos with chaos,thats balance

im rather curious of something. due to recent conversations and events that ive been involved in.it seems to me that the perception of "proper" lsl script learning is highly stratified at the moment. there are some,that seem fervently adhered to a blistering,rigurous,formal learning style of non-apprenticeship (not saying thats a bad thing),i have noticed that this learning style is more common RL in such places as colleges,particularly the most expensive ones yet on the other hand.ive noticed that there seem to be an equally as significant number of people that are of a different camp.specifically,they seem to favor a much older style of learning,that of the "apprenticeship",whereupon a prospective student is taken under tutelage of a great master,with the "hands on" learning provided in exchange for the apprentice assisting the master with his monetarily rewarding work. the "college" as it were is a ,historically speaking,very recent developement.It seems to be specifically engineered to be as if it were a "factory".take note this is not necciscarily a bad thing,it is specifically engineered to provide the quickest learning possible to the greatest amount of people possible,thus producing an overall benefit to society by affecting the vast masses of normal persons.but liek all things it has its drawbacks.much like a factory,it seems to be quite incompatible with "non-standardized parts",which is to say,if a person isnt the usual,outgoing,freindly social type,they will have insurmountable difficulty with such a system.issues of the great expense required not withstanding. the "apprenticeship" style however,takes "far" longer than the college style.being quite non-standard,as each skill master is considerably different.it is also far less monetarily "draining",but requires considerable patience,and humility,in so much that the student must be willing to co-operate with the master on whatever level required.of course the drawbacks are that masters are relatively difficult to make in a high enough quality to be masters.and that because of it's lack of standardized instruction,it can be difficult for the normal types to assimilate.one more advantage though,it can,much like the methods of "handcrafted" production,produce things of far higher quality,and its quite tolerant of non-standard parts,or people as it were,due to the far more personal level of interaction.which thus makes it a haven for those incompatible with the "college factory" style setting. i myself,being on the non-standard type,favor the apprenticeship style in the script learning.infact,there are two people,each good with scripting inthere own right,helping me learn,in exchange for my attempts to help them with there own projects.i myself have had,across my 26 years,a great deal of hands on learning,from many different people.so my skill set is "chaotic" in the best colloqial sense of the word.jack of all trades,master of none fits me best.one year i was taking firearms training & logging training (strange endevour,though it does exist,),the next i had the same sort of "Apprenticeship" style of job at what i was told was called a "honey apiary",where the honeycombs collected from beehives were processed.then in yet another instance afew years later,i was under yet more "apprenticeship" style learning,regarding constructing,de-constructing,and reprogramming computers.and then,on the internet i was subjected to what i call a "crash course" in 3d modeling,whereupon i had all the different sorts of methods and learnings grilled into my brain by 5 different "masters",which was quite unusual for me as im never really used to more than one master at a time. and ontop of all that,inbetween these different events,was rather rigourously taught various far flung concepts of mathmatics and science by my parents. and strangely enough,this all fits perfectly with me.due to my non-conforming lack of social graces,the main pleasure for me is learning.i beleive most english speakers call this a "book worm",a reclusive-nerdish type that prefers the company of books to people. and so,with all that out of the way.i would ask the communitys elaboration on these aspects.no harm,no foul,no antagonization intended.i am not being untruthful nor lieing as it were.i wish this to be an open discussion for the purposes of though.

no,the moral is dont be drunk in a heavily crowded place

im rather fond of the SL camera system rear veiw acts just like the usual follow-from-behind camera mode in most online games,also in msot of the online gmaes ive been on,the scroll wheel would zoom in and out,as it does on sl and the camera orbit things is quite nice.it also allows me to float the camera away from camera position if i need to

that is about the funniest thing ive seen ever. thaks to people like you im enjoying SL more and more

oh!i got one,from a monty python guy: "knowing you are good at something requires precisely the same skills as being good at that something,so therefor,people who are terrible at something have no idea at all"

ah,im good with hardware (to the extent that occasionally i get payed to repair computers) a good card ,that isnt too hard on teh wallet and will meet most of your SL needs in the nvidia gtx 750 ti.also another good thing about it,is that by comparison to similarly rated AMD cards it consumes less power and has a much smaller profile,very good if your relying on your starting PSU (the powerbox the comp came with)

yush. i quite frankly dont see how the two can be seperated honestly.the extremities of human nature is an all in one package secondlife does get alot of revenue from sex related things of course.but i will quote a favorite show of mine: "my advise is that you focus on the sex,because a libido only lasts for a certain amount of time,while the urge to kill someone goes right to the grave" also,funny you should mention "commies" im a communist ^-^,though RL i like to keep to myself,so every election year i get alot of entertainment

feh,secondlife is quite tame compared to alot of the stuff on twitch,including warframe,which merrily has enemy bits raining everywhere this is the march of progress,which in my faith is a divinely granted right (or your particular faith,or lack of,not trying to antagonize) humanity is trying to make a more flaw free version of RL in cyberspace.infact,im not even going to bother explaining my position to the OP,ill let a video do it for me

it wasnt you,i understood what you put. i didnt understand what rollig put X.X

working on it now. told you im terrible with english when you said "put that in exactly as i wrote it" i took that very literally,and thought that by you saying "where x is the (etc)" that given you said "Exactly as i wrote it" meant that just copy pasting it would do what you said >.>

wait a second.ok i think i get what rollig just said

well,i tried it and got "name not defined within scope" right after the comma following the x listen( integer channel, string name, key id, string message ) { llOwnerSay("Firing"); vector velocity = <X, 0.0,0.0>*llGetRot(); vector placement = llGetPos(); rotation spin = llEuler2Rot(<0,0.90,TWO_PI>); integer startParam = llGetStartParameter(); llRezAtRoot("Missile", placement, velocity, spin, startParam); }

not quite,i couldnt figure out how to add your fancy rotation axis line,nor where to put it,so i stitched together some bits,then wrote my own where needed my only remaining two problems are that the missile keeps launching out the side of the object,and if i have the missile set to physical,it drops like a cannonball,if i have it set to non physical,it doesnt move upon rezzing i tryed to remedy the problem by setting llsetbuoyancy to 1.0,but it doesnt seem to effect it that much if its set to physical

where on the planet are you might i ask? sometimes that can get a person banned from a store,or in some cases fined,or worse,depending on which region of my country your in

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i could hug and kiss you you brilliant person you you have my eternal grattitude looking at your script for about half an hour,i realized what mine was missing,but i put in some snippets based on how yours looked,and it worked like magic,i set the velocity number abit too low (but thats easy to fix,love math,not so good at programming ) here is this beauty (or simple minded curmudgeon,but im quite happy) string object = "Missile"; vector placement = <2.0, 0.0, 0.0>;vector velocity = <1.0, 0.0,0.0>; rotation spin = ZERO_ROTATION; integer startParam = 10;integer listen_handle; //Completed by MishkaKatyusha(Grace Ann Ashcraft) on january 23,2016 at 3:37 a.m. CST,United States. Major Thanks to Steph Arnott,Rollig Loon, and all others who contributed to this workdefault{ state_entry() { //Registers the listen to the owner of the object at the moment of the call. This does not automatically update when the owner changes. // Change 0 to another positive number to listen for '/5 hello' style of chat. listen_handle = llListen(5, "", llGetOwner(), "fire"); } listen( integer channel, string name, key id, string message ) { llOwnerSay("Firing"); vector velocity = ZERO_VECTOR; vector placement = llGetPos(); rotation spin = llGetRot(); integer startParam = llGetStartParameter(); llRezAtRoot("Missile", placement, velocity, spin, startParam); } changed(integer mask) { //Triggered when the object containing this script changes owner. if(mask & CHANGED_OWNER) { llResetScript(); // This will ensure the script listens to the new owner, and doesn't continue listening to the creator. } }} here is the screenshot 

that is seriously above my skillgrade things are going ok,and i determined (by removing the missile object,trying the fire command,and getting the script error) that the script ive got is most definitly receiving the fire command what i cant figure out yet is where exactly i need to insert the various little tidbits of code that rolig gave me in that post,everytime i try and insert them into the llrezatroot line,i get errors all over the place i suspect it has something to do with the little orange bits of text that sit above the llrezatroot line in the same listen block,like the vector lines and so on but my efforts to create those have been going very slowly so far i even made my own "missile" as it were,basically just a round glowing sphere (im trying to make it look like its made of plasma,turns out that wasnt hard to do) being unsure as to whether the previous "missile" that i indicated was compatible or not,i made the glowing sphere to replace it. anywho,while i appreciate that big script you made.and it does look beautiful to my eyes.quite frankly it looks more complicated than heiroglyphics.this might seem annoying or idiotic to you,but look at it from my point of veiw,i am not even by the wildest exxageration an experienced scripter,you however are.and so what would seem trivial or common sense to you would make hardly any sense to the new-comers

you know i think ive learned something from this whole endevour never-EVER buy cheap scripts in a grab bag

hmm.things are going well with the redesign so far,no script errors yet (thought its going a wee bit slow) but,i decided to check out the script of the missile object itself *which came with the erstwhile garbage script that steph pointed out) and im abit worried,because it looks quite similar to the script that it came with does this have to be rewritten to? string name;integer chan = 2000;vector tgt;integer blah;integer lstn;Launch(){ llLoopSound("rocket-transit", 2.0); llParticleSystem([ PSYS_PART_FLAGS, PSYS_PART_INTERP_COLOR_MASK | PSYS_PART_INTERP_SCALE_MASK, PSYS_SRC_PATTERN, PSYS_SRC_PATTERN_DROP, PSYS_PART_START_COLOR, <1, 1, 1>, PSYS_PART_START_ALPHA, 1.0, PSYS_PART_START_SCALE, <.1, .1, 0>, PSYS_PART_END_SCALE, <.25, .25, 0>, PSYS_PART_END_ALPHA, 0.0, PSYS_SRC_BURST_RATE, .01, PSYS_SRC_BURST_PART_COUNT, 150, PSYS_SRC_TEXTURE, "smoke", PSYS_PART_MAX_AGE, 3.0 ]);}explode(){ llTriggerSound("exp1", 10.0); llTriggerSound("exp2", 10.0); llTriggerSound("exp3", 10.0); llTriggerSound("qwk1", 10.0); llRezObject("flareburst", llGetPos() + <0,0,0>, ZERO_VECTOR, ZERO_ROTATION, 1); llRezObject("smoker", llGetPos() + <0,0,0>, ZERO_VECTOR, ZERO_ROTATION, 1); llRezObject("lineplasma", llGetPos() + <0,0,0>, ZERO_VECTOR, ZERO_ROTATION, 1); llRezObject("smoke1", llGetPos() + <0,0,0>, ZERO_VECTOR, ZERO_ROTATION, 1); llRezObject("smoke2", llGetPos() + <0,0,0>, ZERO_VECTOR, ZERO_ROTATION, 1); llRezObject("Glow", llGetPos() + <0,0,0>, ZERO_VECTOR, ZERO_ROTATION, 1); llRezObject("smoke3", llGetPos() + <0,0,0>, ZERO_VECTOR, ZERO_ROTATION, 1); llTriggerSound("qwk1", 10.0); llTriggerSound("qwk1", 10.0); llDie();}default{ state_entry() { llSetBuoyancy(1.0);// lstn = llListen(chan, "", "", ""); } on_rez(integer start_params) { llSetBuoyancy(1.0); lstn = llListen(chan, "", "", ""); llSetTimerEvent(5); } listen(integer channel, string name, key id, string msg) { if(llGetOwner() == llGetOwnerKey(id)) { llSetTimerEvent(0); llSetStatus(STATUS_PHYSICS, TRUE); Launch(); llSensorRepeat(msg, "", AGENT, 96.0, TWO_PI, 0.5); llListenRemove(lstn); llSetTimerEvent(0); } } timer() { llDie(); } sensor(integer total_number) { integer hits; tgt = llDetectedPos(0); llSetPos(tgt); if(llVecDist(llGetPos(), tgt) > 4.0) { llLookAt(tgt, 1.0, 0.1); llMoveToTarget(tgt, 0.2); } else { for(hits = 0; hits < 4; hits++) { llShout(393939, "ccc_hit" + llDetectedName(0)); llShout(532254, llDetectedKey(0)); llShout(696969, llDetectedKey(0)); } llStopMoveToTarget(); llSetStatus(STATUS_PHYSICS, FALSE); llStopSound(); llParticleSystem([]); llSensorRemove(); explode(); } } collision_start(integer numtimes) { integer type = llDetectedType(0); integer hits; if(type & SCRIPTED) { for(hits = 0; hits < 4; hits++) { llShout(532254, llDetectedKey(0)); } } }} just tell me which parts to remove

very good, i understand the idea of "mutually exclusive" much appreciation that link message was written by me.see,i had no idea at first the way the script was would respond without the other script had no idea this was an "all in one punch" thing,ill get right to work on that after my coffee this is another reason why i like SL,i can see how you earned you rank,and my respect

basically,here is a tip. pretend like your talking to someone that (not entirely but ive ran out of time,so ill use colloqial) does not speak your language,infact,dont pretend

:D:D well well,i did what you said, had very little idea of what a listen event was,so i tryed looking at the wiki everything was going well until i attempted to add your "rezatroot" thing and then it said that the "Default" was "syntax error" when i tryed to put it all together fast foward afew hours later and my futile attempts to fix and this is what i have at the moment default { state_entry() { listen_handle = llListen(5, "", llGetOwner(), ""); } listen( integer channel, string name, key id, string message ) { } link_message( integer number, integer name, string target, key id ) if(number == 0){ llRezAtRoot(object, rezPos, rezVel, rezRot, startParam); llListenRemove(listen_handle); } changed(integer mask) { //Triggered when the object containing this script changes owner. if(mask & CHANGED_OWNER) { llResetScript(); // This will ensure the script listens to the new owner, and doesn't continue listening to the creator. } }} i cant fathom how default could be syntax error