Jump to content

AnthonyJoanne

Resident
  • Posts

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AnthonyJoanne

  1. Great minds! Hmmm ... I should check to see if I need to update the dosage of my modesty meds! :)
  2. I agree it's a start. And in fact it brings up another point: Flight in SL is nothing like RL. In SL it's more like driving ... jump in your vehicle, fire it up, and go. In RL you need a flight plan. You need to take into account prohibited zones (e.g. the air above the White House), tightly controlled airspaces (e.g. airports), etc. If our SL pilots wanted a more realistic experience they could collaborate on a 'registry' of 'problem parcels' ... places where the airspace was obstructed with skyboxes, security orbs, etc. Then they could sit down with a map and figure out their flight plan fairly secure in the knowledge that they are able to get from point A to point B and probably not encounter any obstacles. Obviously parcels can change fairly quickly, but if people insist on drawing RL analogies ...
  3. It would be great if that was actually an option, but for the flyers it's not: From the advert: Being above the ban line doesn't mean you're safe ... it means that you MAY be safe unless you encounter a security orb.
  4. Announcer voice: "Good question GG! Let's recap!" "The OP kicked off ..." [Snip 20 minute highlights] " ... and that brings us to where we are now, a no score draw and the referee appears to be asleep!" "Back to you GG!"
  5. Enough. Seriously ... enough. LL did NOT promise you the right to enter other people's property. Stop misrepresenting LL's promise as meaning you are entitled to what you want. And while we're at it these are your words: I was going to let this go, but you just don't seem to get it. The people who want privacy ARE paying for it. They paid for it when the bought the land and the keep paying for it by retaining their premium membership. Ban lines ... remember. Part of the deal when those people BOUGHT the land. The right to stop people entering their property if they so choose. And worse ... you think it's justifiable to force people off the Mainland. What will you do if they don't want to move ... herd them into camps? Because that's exactly what you sound like. You keep harping on about the community experience ... does it not occur to you that what YOU want is not what the MAJORITY of the community on the Mainland wants? That you are, in fact, in the minority. Want evidence? I offer you your own words again: Everyone around you wants privacy. You do not. It certainly appears that you are the minority. So instead of making other people move ... perhaps YOU should move? Convince LL to make a continent for those of you who want unimpeded access and off you go. "At whatever affordable price LL would offer". Either way - I'm done with you. Bit bucket time.
  6. Hang on - got to figure out how to do multi quote lol. Can't figure it out, so I'll have to quote it manually. What I was responding to was this from Codex Alpha: Specifically the bolded section ... but I quoted a lot around it to avoid appearing to take it out of context.
  7. You honestly think that LL would lift every parcel that had banlines and shift them from the Mainland to some new 'servers for those who want privacy'? Because every one of the parcels they shifted would then become abandoned land ... which they would still have to provide servers to support ... as well as providing new servers to run those parcels they force to move. And you think that the people who were forced off the mainland wouldn't object. Vigorously?
  8. Several people have offered the rationale: "It's my land and I don't want anyone I didn't invite on it". You clearly don't think that's valid. Obviously others DO think it's valid. And that's where it ends. As Rolig said: No - there's no point. There is no chance that LL would force everyone who doesn't want their parcel to be open onto private-infrastructure ... the cost would be prohibitive and the backlash would be heavy.
  9. Not now ... it's far too late. I'm not sure what all of the mainland looks like but from my skybox, if I turn up my draw distance to max, the sky is absolutely littered with builds. I'd say that you'd be hard pressed to find any flight level that wasn't cluttered at this point. So if LL declared X meters as a flight level that needed to be unobscured ... people would have to move their builds. And LL would have to deal with a HUGE onslaught of tickets because people screwed up doing so, and as a result lost their items etc. And LL would HAVE to deal with them because they were the ones who said that people had to move their stuff. It would get VERY messy.
  10. To be quite honest I'd have to say "I'm not sure if it's changed". It's been some years since I used that trick at ground level ... so I tried it out. At ground level, you are correct - it no longer works. Once you are higher than 50m above the ground mesh - it works fine as a method to enter a parcel.
  11. Ok - that's where I think the problem is: Mainland is not public area. Mainland is made up of two different types of areas: 1. Linden controlled. Roads. The large swathes of land which LL 'own'. Water ways. That sort of thing. 2. Privately controlled. This is area which is 'owned' by people other than LL. Currently LL let the residents access the mainland that they control. Which is nice of them and makes sense because otherwise SL would just be a series of disconnected and unrelated scenes ... like Sansar. The rest is private property. Mainland was clearly designed and implemented with that basic concept in mind: That land you 'buy' is private property. Private property is, by definition, the opposite of 'public area'. Some people choose to have their private property open to the public. Other people do not. The reality is that no part of the basic concept of mainland is that you be able to move across the entire space unhindered because mainland is NOT public area. Hopefully that will clarify things. No - ban lines are not effective. From the wiki Arguably this 50m limit is one of the reasons why security orbs exist. The other reason is that you can penetrate ban lines easily by finding a seat/bed/whatever on the other side of the line and sitting on it. If banlines extended to the max height, AND prevented you from interacting with anything on the other side of the ban line, I suspect security orbs wouldn't need to exist on the mainland.
  12. A perspective: I have a chunk of mainland. Said chunk is completely parcel-locked and quite a distance from any public space (i.e linden road, water, etc). When I purchased that chunk my neighbours were all private residences. It was peaceful and quiet. We had no ban lines or security orb. Then one quite large parcel right next to me was sold and the new owner proceeded to put in a stack of skyboxes for rent. No big deal ... except apparently the rent was quite low so there were frequently toons in their skyboxes. Again ... no big deal, IF they had stayed in their skyboxes. The 'visits' to my chunk suddenly spiked. And they coincided with the times when my family and I were in our chunk. We weren't just being intruded upon occasionally ... we were being spammed with 'visitors'. So I turned on the ban lines. But of course ... ban lines don't cover sky boxes so we were still being 'visited'. So ... security orb. Set to 30 seconds. The only problem with that ... 30 seconds is more than enough time for an intruder to completely derail the mood when you're in the middle of an intimate moment with someone and suddenly you're joined by someone who thinks that the height of SL-chic is a used-tampon avatar. Who, after having been ejected and banned then arranges four more visits from different accounts in the same avatar. Alts or just five idiots ... don't know, don't care. And no - I am NOT joking about the avatar. Security orb set to 0 seconds for a couple of days and then we opted for 20 seconds as the new default. Then that parcel went up for sale ... the sky boxes all went away and we thought we'd weathered the storm. Until it was bought and turned into an AFK sex region. I don't know how much money the owner of the region was making, but I suspect that it wasn't much given that all his customers seemed to have had a burning desire to suddenly appear in my home. The orb was set to 5 seconds. During the height of those visits while the orb was set to 5 seconds, btw, I got a notecard from someone who had tried to fly through my parcel. It was quite vitriolic. So much so that person is now banned. I have little to no tolerance for the entitled. After a while that AFK sex region went quiet and the intrusions stopped ... so now the orb is set to 15 seconds. So as you can see ... the settings on the security orb have been reactive to the amount of 'visitors' who chose to violate my family's privacy. When we were being hammered ... the time went down, when people aren't bothering us ... the number went up. Because I understand that people want to fly around. But your ability to fly around is a DISTANT second to my ability to spend time with my family without being harassed. So when we're being harassed ... you don't get to fly through my region. When we aren't being bothered, then I ease the restrictions to give you a chance to get through the region before you are ejected. But I've seen several mentions of 'reasonable'. Here's the problem with that: You do not control what is reasonable on my parcel. I DO. Just as I don't control what is reasonable on your parcel ... you do. Don't like it? All you have to do to avoid it ... is stay off my parcel. And if I don't like what you consider reasonable, I'll stay off your parcel. The fact that some of you think that LL should change the rules so that you can travel through a place you have no right to be ... remember what I said about little to no tolerance for the entitled? BTW the RL analogies are completely bogus because if someone in RL was able to overfly my house, and then abuse reality to be instantly sitting next to my partner and I while we're busy in bed, you can be damn sure that I'd have ground to air missiles to shoot any encroaching aircraft down. What people should take away from this is that LL need to make ban lines that actually work, and that don't screw up people who fly/drive/whatever into them. And we all know that is not going to happen.
  13. If you want to run two versions of FS, one for SL and one for OS ... you can try running one instance of 64 bit and one instance of 32 bit. I found keeping them separate was doable without resorting to anything too ugly. I run SL in the 32 bit version and save the 64 bit for OS ... as quite frankly I'm spending much more time in OS these days.
  14. I've found that, for me, Firestorm sucks the least. Of course they ALL suck massively if you want to run multiple versions the way I do. That having been said ... I've been able to get 3 versions of FS operational on the same PC and keep their caches etc separate, but it's a nightmare and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I also have the LL viewer, Singularity and Kokua installed ... but haven't fired them up in well over a year so they are hopelessly out of date. Frankly I'd ditch the lot if someone had enough nouse to develop a truly standalone/portable viewer.
  15. Well now that you know you're actually wrong, I'm sure you feel even more so.
  16. Surely you're not being so oppressive as to question my lived experience? How dreadfully unprogressive of you! What can I say? Apparently something in a post I made which was entirely factual and quite benign was deemed as unacceptable by the forum software, and it seems that the moderators concurred. I have absolutely no idea why. End result ... I'm typing things and then proof reading them and wondering if the forum software is going to get triggered. Not conducive to adult conversation. But then again, your response was the polar opposite of adult ... so no problem. :p edit - included my jocular :p a the end because cut and paste skipped it.
  17. From wikipedia: The largest production model of the Saturn family of rockets, the Saturn V was designed under the direction of Wernher von Braun at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama; the lead contractors were Boeing, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company, and IBM. A total of 15 flight-capable vehicles were built, plus three for ground testing. Thirteen were launched from Kennedy Space Center with no loss of crew or payload. A total of 24 astronauts were launched to the Moon from December 1968 through December 1972. Given that we're talking about the space race, and not recent history ... I think you need to qualify your statement just a little.
  18. I imagine that Elon Musk has heard of SL ... but I doubt if he's terribly interested in it. The question is, why would he be interested in SL/LL? I haven't addressed the farcical attempts of Zuckerberg et-al to make a Metaverse, but the two topics relate. Now is the WORST possible time to try to create a Metaverse for two reasons. Firstly - the technology isn't there yet. It's much closer than it was when SL was first launched, but it's still not ubiquitous: You need FAST data. VERY fast data to make it work properly. Yes ... data is available at the necessary sort of rates, but too many of us are still restricted to how much can be forced through the bottleneck of intercontinental cables. And even if you aren't constrained by that ... ISPs are all too happy to leverage their power by prioritising certain data. With hundreds of thousands of people accessing a Metaverse, eventually millions ... that kind of impediment couldn't be tolerated. VR headsets just aren't where they need to be either in cost or in usability to be the basis of a Metaverse that dominates the net. They are getting better, but they aren't good enough yet. Secondly - the sociopolitical landscape is the opposite of what is necessary for development and adoption of a Metaverse. I wrote a quite lengthy explanation of what I mean by this, but given that the forum has taken to censoring my posts I have no doubt that would have been enough to get me hidden as well. Suffice to say that the current political and social landscape is not one which permits freedom of speech or expression except where approved by a small percentage of the population who have used social media to amplify their voices through the use of bots and sock puppets. Don't believe me? Companies who believed those voices to be much larger than they actually are have experienced marked downturns in their profits ... have a look at Gillette and Disney for the evidence. There are other factors, but those are the two big ones. Musk clearly believes he can make Twitter profitable. He may well be right, only time will tell. But a Metaverse? Not yet. Not in the same climate where the people who have been abusing censorship for their own political ends are now screeching that Musk owning twitter is a threat to free speech. Besides ... Nothing LL or SL have are of any real value in creating a new Metaverse. Don't get me wrong ... I still enjoy SL a great deal, but let's face it we saw what LL created when they tried to take the next step, and Sansar was NOT what a Metaverse needs to be.
  19. Absolutely. Myself and the rest of my family in-world often get to watch bits and pieces of our various body parts floating for quite a long time before they end up where they are supposed to be. Even more problematic ... recently I got a demo dress. When I attached it I noticed the message telling me that it was a 5 minute timed demo. The dress floated next to my hand for the entire duration of the timer and never positioned properly. My partner and I agreed that I wouldn't buy the dress because while it looked like it might be a nice dress ... as a glove it really wasn't a win!
  20. I always find it vastly amusing when these people drag out the "shouting fire in a theater" line and seem to think that they are making a telling point. When the reality is that they are actually destroying the premise that they are arguing for: People can't shout fire in a theater when there is no fire because ... it is against the law to do so. People can't call for violence on social media because ... it is against the rules to do so. Every social media platform has it built into their rules, TOS, etc. Which raises the question why many of those people who DO call for violence on Twitter don't seem to be penalised for it, if they have the proper political opinion. Here's a few that were sparked by a deceptively edited fake news story pushed extensively by the media. People may recall it ... the Covington School Boys who were harassed by a Native American activist and a bunch of black supremacists: I would put $1000 into a gofundme for someone to punch him right in the *****ing mouth. LOCK THE KIDS IN THE SCHOOL AND BURN THAT ***** TO THE GROUND. Giving a *****-eating grin to a Native American's face isn't legally violence. But he is smiling *about* the violence. He is saying, "my people hurt you, and you can't touch me even while I gloat about it." It is fascism. And you should punch fascists. I could list many more ... I won't bother. Most of the tweets were deleted when the low life scum whose initial response was to call for violence against school boys were confronted with the fact that those school boys were innocent. What's really interesting is that some of those tweets are still on twitter to this day. And most of the people who did call for violence against those boys ... STILL HAVE THEIR ACCOUNTS. Twitter has consistently failed to terminate accounts which have called for violence, because they chose to ignore their own rules. And NOW we have people wittering about how twitter will become a forum of hate because Musk is buying it? Hypocrites, one and all.
  21. I've noticed people who I haven't blocked responding to claims that Musk's 'followers' have been on a crusade of hate. I find that particularly interesting and worth commenting on. Let us consider the concept of 'hate' on twitter. I found this, and I imagine it's accurate: Twitter states in its rules under "hateful conduct" that the company will permanently suspend any account that includes a "violent threat ... incites fears, or reduces someone to less than human," and under "glorification of violence," a user will be suspended for "specific threats of violence or wishing for serious physical harm, death, or disease to an individual or group of people." Ok ... let's find a few shall we? From Peter Fonda Fonda later deleted the tweet because of the amount of backlash he got. But according to twitter rules he should have been permanently banned. Again he deleted the tweet after backlash. Again - he should have been banned permanently. Fonda was never banned from twitter. Then there is Clementine Ford. You may never have heard of her ... she's Australian. She's also a feminist. She is also, by definition, a misandrist who uses every opportunity to spew hate at men. When she received backlash for her HATE ... she claimed it proved how "fragile men are". She deleted the tweet. She also deleted the tweet where she posted and Guess what ... Clementine Ford is still active on twitter. What happened to THAT permanent ban? Note that I'm skipping the THOUSANDS of tweets that contained threats or wished death on President Trump ... that's low hanging fruit. But what about Pete Forester who tweeted That's as clear an example of Hate Speech as you can get. Forester still has his twitter account. And his precious blue check mark. I selected each of those examples because they were sufficiently high profile that twitter would have received hundreds, if not thousands, of reports about those tweets. Twitter, according to it's own rules, was REQUIRED to permanently ban those people. Now for the really cool part: All of this took place under Vijaya Gadde's watch. But criticising her for that ... is regarded as hate speech. No. Just NO. Calling someone out for rampant bias and (at the very least) incompetence is NOT hate speech. And no amount of spin from the regressives is going to make it so.
  22. We've already discussed this ... but the topic (if not the forums) was rolled back. Twice. No 'authority' is acceptable when it comes to determining truth. Every government on the planet has, at one time or another, been found to be corrupt and/or breaking their own laws. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I'm not saying that every government today is corrupt, but I'd be willing to bet a significant chunk of change that there isn't a single government today that doesn't have corruption at some level. Now we're seeing those same governments creating departments to "combat misinformation". And to pick the most heavily reported one ... the Biden's administrations "Disinformation Governance Board" is going to be headed by a person who literally claimed that the now confirmed-by-the-New-York-Times Hunter Biden laptop was a "Trump campaign product" and that it was "a Russian influence op". That same person was very impressed by the now completely discredited Steele Dossier. That person is a partisan political hack. And THAT person is going to be in charge of deciding what is and what isn't the truth. Even though that person, in the past (while Trump was President) said "I would never want to see our executive branch have that sort of power" about the very job she has just accepted. That may work for you right now. But will it work for you when the other side are in power and a partisan political hack who has very different opinions to you gets to determine what is misinformation and what is not? No government, or any other organisation for that matter, is sufficiently trustworthy to be given the power to determine what is true and what is not.
  23. And of course as the person directing those businesses ... to the extent that he does ... he's in a position of authority. And as such he has a responsibility to his shareholders, and if they believe he's failed in that responsibility they can sue him. In fact that recently happened. The shareholders lost btw. But if they had won ... he personally would have been responsible for the amount awarded against him. Now contrast that to the elected official in the same jurisdiction (i.e. the US) ... to avoid a hot button issue we'll go with a hypothetical: A woman sues her city government because they did X, and it cost her a lot of money. It goes to court. After a trial the woman wins her case. The city is awarded a penalty of $100,000 dollars and costs of $75,000 dollars. The money to pay for that comes from the city's coffers. $175,000 plus whatever the city spent in it's legal costs. The money for the penalty and costs comes from the city coffers, as did the money to defend the case. And the people who are responsible for actually doing the wrong thing don't pay a cent, and more often than not stay in their job. I'd suggest that a businessman like Elon Musk may well have a more of an idea of the responsibility that goes with authority than elected officials who rarely have to bear personal responsibility for their actions. *edit* Inserted missing sentence
  24. I have two responses that leapt to mind on the the Karen topic. Here is my first, somewhat more serious one: Calling A woman Karen is not misogyny. Calling ALL women Karen is misogyny. The 'Karen' designator is a shorthand term for a set of behavioral patterns which HAVE been observed frequently in RL. It is sufficiently frequently observed that pretty much everyone 'gets' the concept in short order ... which is a pretty good evidence that the 'Karen' behavioral pattern actually exists in reality. So if it's REAL, and it APPLIES to a given individual ... then using that designator isn't misogyny. Whether or not it applies to Warren ... I can't say. Referring to Warren as Senator Karen is clearly a JOKE. Arguably it's a mild insult as well. Senator Warren is no more entitled to insulation from insult than any other US Politician ... it comes with the job. Here is my second, somewhat more tongue-in-cheek response: It's not misogyny if we SAY it's not misogyny. This is the standard established by those upright pillars of the rectitude: Feminists, who can say "KILL ALL MEN" and then say that it's not misandry. Enough said. As to how the thread ended up another trans discussion: When a certain segment of the population are losing the argument, or unable to counter the points of those with whom they are arguing ... the inevitable result is that they start hurling slurs. Neo Nazi. Misogynist. Transphobe. White Supremacist. That, I should note, is the segment of the population who are currently fouling their underwear because it looks like they are going to lose control over twitter ... which is rather ironic, when you think about it. Go and have a look at the narrative about anyone that that segment wants to remove from public discourse and they ALWAYS make the same claims. Nazi (or Neo Nazi). White supremacist. Transphobe. Homophobe. Misogynist. Racist. I am quite sure that at least one of the people that I've blocked on this forum for being bigoted or for repeatedly showing that they cannot argue in good faith has called me a transphobe. Yet I am the person who, back in the late 80s, sat and held the hand of a friend who was going in for SRS when her family rejected her. I am the person who waited throughout the surgery and was there when she finally came back from recovery. I am the person who visited her every day until she went home (the other side of the country). I am the person who was in contact with her for several years until we finally lost touch. That's how transphobic I am. The point? The people making these claims have established in their own minds that they are the arbiters of what is and what isn't. They get to decide if something is transphobic, or any of the other ists or phobes that they find useful to stifle debate. There's no reason why they should have that power ... and every reason why they should not, given their track record. The thread ended up being another trans discussion because once again that segment of the population trotted out their usual list of claims and made damn sure it became another trans discussion. And another Nazi discussion. And another Sexist discussion. Etc Ad-Nauseum.
  25. What's ironic is that, like Musk, before the massive leftward shift I was demonstrably a left leaning centrist. I still am. I could detail a long list of my positions on a whole range of issues, but some of it would take me into hot button topics and would be almost guaranteed to derail the thread. More significantly I could list a whole range of issues which were formerly considered "radical" or even "extreme" which are now a part of the 'mainstream left' agenda. But each and every one of those IS a hot button topic. And the question that you all need to ask yourself is this: Why are there SO many hot button topics now? That brings us back to the actual topic ... twitter and it's ownership. Let's acknowledge an unchallengeable series of facts. I realise that it was a hot button issue, but we don't have an option: Twitter banned the New York Post when they reported on the Hunter Biden Laptop story. Just weeks before the Presidential Election in 2020. Twitter banned numerous users who referenced that story. The vast majority of the 'mainstream media' actively avoided reporting the story. Joe Biden dismissed it as a "smear campaign." That story was confirmed to be true by the New York Times in 2022. While the Hunter Biden Laptop story was demonstrably a HUGE story ... it became a hot button topic because twitter enabled the outright suppression of the story and enabled the narrative that it was all a right wing conspiracy theory. In other words twitter took action which made it possible for the left to denigrate anyone who raised the existence of the laptop in discussion. And yet we've seen what are supposed to be reputable news sources claim that twitter is right wing. The same news sources who reported, as fact, numerous stories which were then found to be utter fabrications with no supporting evidence whatsoever. The same news sources who have NOT been banned from twitter for that disinformation. At this point I wrote on a particular topic to illustrate just how far the Overton Window has been forced to the left. But it would absolutely derail the topic, and I'm really trying hard to do the right thing so as not to make the moderators jobs harder. Suffice to say that because of the domination of twitter and the majority of the media by groups who subscribe to a particular set of political narratives, a number of issues which are fully supported by demonstrable fact became 'hot button issues' because those facts were suppressed and/or labeled misinformation or conspiracy theories. Those facts persist in emerging ... and are being ignored by the media. And are being suppressed on social media. But the domination of social media is now threatened ... and suddenly we're seeing governments rush laws to establish what can only be described as Ministries of Truth. I'm sure some people here will poo-poo me referring to them as Ministries of Truth. I won't see it because my block list is working overtime in this thread 😀 ... but I'll address it anyway: If you don't think these organisations are a bad idea ... are you going to have the same opinion when the pendulum continues to swing and control of those Ministries end up in the hands of religious extremists who believe that homosexuality is a sin and should be treated by chemical castration or outright execution? Ministries that enforce the mandate that anyone who claims otherwise is spreading disinformation and should be blocked from posting, and charged with a crime. Because people are already being charged with crimes for expressing opinions on the net ... hell, people have been convicted of crimes for quoting song lyrics. Because those Ministries won't always be under the control of people you approve of.
×
×
  • Create New...