Mollymews

this is true. Most open game protocols begin as idealistic. Then after a time it all gets loose and wild-westy as you say then to counter this somebody else will come along and make a new open game protocol hoping that this time will be different. When it turns out not to be different (because of creative/player behaviours) then it all muddles along til somebody else has another go at it. Again with varying degrees of success/fail

every creator making bullets for the game knows what the game protocols are and they script their bullets accordingly. When the game target gets struck by a bullet which is not scripted to use the game protocol then the target ignores the bullet. Getting struck by a random object or random avatar has no influence on the game.

the way game proctocols tend to be designed is that in on_rez the unix time is saved in the object as a game attribute when the object collides with a target, the target requests a WHOIS of the object. The response to the WHOIS can include the unix creation time certainly it would be useful in some circumstances to not have to pass game attributes and function capabilities between game objects. Is typical tho that game objects do this a workround for this is to stuff (on_rez) the object's attributes into Object Description. OnCollision the target reads the collider llGetObjectDesc

for games in which multiple creatives make game objects then the game designer typically designs a game protocol. For example channel number, object game attributes, game functions a target object OnCollision for example, asks on the channel for the colliding object's game attributes and functions. The target on obtaining the info interacts with the object the same happens in reverse. The collider asks the target for their info on the channel if either object doesn't recognise the other as a game object then nothing happens

you did underline what you understood to be a principled point about law you were wanting to make. From the underlining I was expecting something a bit more than a chat that has ended in the principles of law being dismissed as nonsense this said, sure is ok if you want to move on

the way you debate is really interesting like start with some principled point. Then reference something which doesn't actually support the point. Then end up finishing with whatevs

the prosecutor would have been better off trying a prosecution under Article 365 of the Greece Criminal Code which is: "Insulting the memory of the dead with cruel or malicious defamation or libel" the cruel insult being that in his book Mr Ritcher said that what the invading army did was no more or less atrocious than what the defenders did in fighting off the invaders. Which I think most people would find to be quite insulting and libelous to those who died defending their homes from an invader but the prosecutor never and the court proceedings ended in a farce as you say

i also think the cat looks a bit frowny. I think is the shape of the top of the eyes, combined with the texture giving the cat a frowny look even those has big open eyes. Might just be lighting and angle tho

i don't think we disagree on this. I think tho we talking about two different things what I first posted was about ordinary people impugning other people and using rhetoric to do this and how this is illegal in some jurisdictions. Nick then mentioned that there is a free speech principle involved here then i said that in the USA the case that surfaced this ordinary person to person situation was Gertz then Nick raised Richter a case from Greece. A case in which proceedings were halted, prosecutor moved for acquittal. Judge told Mr Richter he was free to go (and also gave the prosecutor and the Parliament an earful about jurisdiction) then you (Prokofy) raised New York Times vs Sullivan. Which is a different thing. Sullivan was a public figure, and the Court ruled that the higher common law bar (malice and livelihood) applied in the public figure situation. As you rightly point out then I said the follow on from Gretz (in the ordinary person to person case) was Milkovich. That in this circumstance the common law bar is a lot lower. Don't have to show malice caused actual harm, only have to show that actual harm occurred thru negligence. And also that when we are not negligent (even if harm to livelihood did occur) then the words used are protected free speech (fair comment) and yes is true, I read all court rulings literally. Court rulings literally mean what they say and are not meant to be read in any other way can certainly tho debate these issues from a philosophical pov, but even then I am pretty literal in these kinds of debates as well. Like somebody will make a point and I think thats a good idea, then I start thinking about how it might be done in practice. And when can't work out how it might be done then leave it on the shelf along with all the good ideas til one day are able to work out how to apply it

as a premise i like this quite a lot

i agree with the second part of your post as that is how I understand it also i just quote the first part of your post as I am not sure about this part the case that came after Gertz which has a bearing on the topic, was Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. 1990, where the US Supreme Court rejected (refused certiorari) the idea that opinion privilege existed in cases of libel essentially the opinion privilege idea is that only an opinion which shows malice is unprotected speech. Which is not the situation in the USA due to the actions of the US Supreme Court. The situation is that an opinion need only be negligent for it to be unprotected (this situation is supported by precedent). Leaving the common law principle of fair comment deemed to be protected speech in the Milkovich case, a journalist wrote that Mr Milkovich lied to the Court about their involvement in a event. The journalist asserted this based on their own observation of Mr Milkovich at the event. The court ruled that the jounalist's opinion of Mr Milovich being a liar was fair comment as a consequence of this Mr Gertz ended up winning his case also. That what had been said about him wasn't fair comment, that the writers were at least negligent in their writings, if not malicious. Basically if we are going to impugn someone then best to be able to back that up with something other than one's own opinion

this is the judge's opinion. Which is why I never quoted it. The judge's opinion is contrary to Article 16 of the Greece Constitution. That the judge's has this opinion had no material bearing on the acquittal itself Mr Richter had to be acquitted as the prosecutor chose not to proceed with the case. No proceedings, no case to answer. Mr Richter is free to go

thanks snipping the decision: basically my understanding of this is that the judge determined that it is not the province of Parliament to determine what is or is not a war crime against humanity. That this determination constitutionally is the domain of the Judiciary which makes sense to me, at least constitutionally under the separation of powers rule

i looked this case up as seems quite interesting from what I read the prosecutor recommended to the judge that Mr Richter be acquitted, as the prosecution could not present evidence that Mr Richter had committed an offence under the cited article of the law am not sure where the judge got their view that the article of law under which the prosection was brought, was unconstitutional. as Greece Constitution says: it would seem that the Constitution's Article 14 informs Article 16. The judge tho may have some other rationale for what they have been reported to have said, but I dunno what that might be as I haven't yet been able to find a copy of the Court's decision

free speech even in the United States is not totally unlimited for example an assertion that something is true when it is not true, and that assertion is intended to pillory/defame/disrepute another person or group of persons the US Supreme Court limited free speech in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)

it is in many european countries. Basically the laws say that we can't use rhetoric to negate that a crime against humanty did happen like: hey peeps! I was wondering if the holocaust actually happened ? What do you guys think ? when the asker is pushed back on, they say stuff like: I am not denying that it happen, am just wondering if it did and asking people what they think in many european countries it is a crime to use rhetoric in this way. The countries have these laws because of their history. They have a painful history of people using word salad to create sectarianism within society

good point. I edited it to use the type constants rather than magic numbers

i put a formal serialisation method here:

a conversation here discussed serialising a list to a string and deserialising it back to a list. When the string is not formally serialised (like when is coming from an independent source for example) then we have to pick the string apart as @Coffee Pancake shows. If it is formally serialised then we can do it as @Profaitchikenz Haiku shows picking up on Prof's method then a way to do this is: edit add: Replaced magic numbers with the type constants as per feedback from @Quistess Alpha // List2Serial - serialise a list to a string denoting element type // Serial2List - deserialise the string back to a list restoring element type // // public domain // // hat tips: Profaitchikenz Haiku, Coffee Pancake, Quistess Alpha string List2Serial(list source, string seperator) { // prepend the list type to the serialised element string result; integer len = llGetListLength(source) - 1; integer i; for (i = 0; i < len; ++i) { result += (string)llGetListEntryType(source, i) + llList2String(source, i) + seperator; } return result += (string)llGetListEntryType(source, -1) + llList2String(source, -1); } list Serial2List(string source, string seperator) { // source conforms to List2Serial format list result; list buffer = llParseString2List(source, [seperator], []); integer len = llGetListLength(buffer); integer i; for (i = 0; i < len; ++i) { string element = llList2String(buffer, i); integer type = (integer)llGetSubString(element, 0, 0); element = llDeleteSubString(element, 0, 0); if (type == TYPE_ROTATION) result += [(rotation)element]; else if (type == TYPE_VECTOR) result += [(vector)element]; else if (type == TYPE_KEY) result += [(key)element]; else if (type == TYPE_FLOAT) result += [(float)element]; else if (type == TYPE_INTEGER) result += [(integer)element]; else // TYPE_STRING or TYPE_INVALID result += [element]; } return result; } default { state_entry() { list data = [ ZERO_ROTATION, < 0.1, 2, -3.4>, llGenerateKey(), 2.3, -1, "hello" ]; llOwnerSay("begin: " + llDumpList2String(data, "|")); string s = List2Serial(data, "|"); llOwnerSay("serial: " + s); data = Serial2List(s, "|"); llOwnerSay("end: " + llDumpList2String(data, "|")); } }

i rented a upstairs room over the top of a bottle store in a town one time. Could get free alcohol in the bottle store by touch the fridge and boxes. Would get random people going into the bottle store, preloading and then coming upstairs and going hey! where's the party at. Look! I brought beer and wine! Was quite funny sometimes i never had to pay any rent. I asked the town owner if I could and they said sure why not, if nothing else it puts another green dot on the map another time I rented a room in a boarding house. The room was 4 x 8 meters. I had a 7 prim allowance for 10L a week, which was plenty to furnish the room with sculpt bed, dresser, lamp, media radio, rug, and a wall montage 1 prim sculpt bed with 1 prim over to rez boxes. Would sometimes get random people come in, but not as many people as living over the bottle store. Was two other people who had rooms there as well, just a place to call home I think, same as me. I quite liked living there, then one day I logged in and the place was gone

experiment with Path Cut: B = 0.25 E = 0.39 (about) Hollow: = 80.0 (about) Size: X = 2.5 Y = 7.0 (about) these give you (about) something to see how it can be done the main thing is to get the Size ratio and Path Cut: E to line up when Path Cut: B = 0.25

is always best to plan autopilot routing over Linden public right-of-ways. This way the autopiloted vehicle and its passengers can not be banned/ejected, or the vehicle prevented from the airspace (no-object entry)

a way to do this with one object is rez two prims the first prim (containing music url changer script) is deeded to group the second prim is not deeded, scripted login and accept tips, money going to the owner of the prim, script uses llTransferLindenDollars to the logged in person when we link these two prims (the first prim being the root prim) then the money script linked prim will not be owned by the group, it will continue to be owned by owner a caveat with doing this, is that when we take the linked object into inventory and rerez it then we have to unlink the prims, reset the ownerships in the unlinked state then relink them

agree

this is my fav SL picture is of Elizabeth my SL baby my baby's daddy is Boy. Like in Boy NextDoor it came as a bit of a revelation to me to discover I was SL pregnant. Given that at the time of supposed conception, I had all my clothes on and Boy having taken off his pants discovered he never had any diddle. Not that this discouraged him, as he thoroughly enjoyed himself learning how to click all the buttons best thing that ever happened to him ever in SL so far, he said. Which I accepted quite modestly as I don't like to be show off, even when is true 😺 needless to say Boy went off afterwards to get himself a diddle which he found in a freebie box, and came back later on for another go but by then I was pregnant and I had to tell Boy that aorry I can't. As a venerable respected doctor from the Fake Doctors Association of Second Life had advised me to refrain from getting actually diddled until the fake doctor had determined if it might be an immaculate conception or something, given the circumstances which Boy being a nice person took in good heart and the last I saw of Boy was him nekkid as, proudly standing out in the crowd. Looking for someone to teach button clicking too you can see from the pic that Boy is Elizabeth's daddy from the prim hair shadows on her forehead, and that I am her mummy from her two little front teeth, which kinda look painted on, as her mummy had painted on teeth as well at that time