Arkady Arkright

achem Serenity wrote: I was going to say that SL's user base is the most negative group that I've ever come across ... You must have had a very sheltered online upbringing... Forums are (or should be) a medium for both praise and criticism - if you just want to fanboi, start your own blog, where you can simper about how wonderful the SL world is to your heart's content.

Dilbert Dilweg wrote: How many of you are realy being honest and how many of you are just showboating for the proper eyes? lol Nice to know you have such a high opinion of your fellow posters...

I've largely drifted away to another grid - partly because I don't trust LL not to ban/boot me for no good reason (they've "got form" on this). I'm no longer premium or a landowner for the same reason. I do log on every day, but only to keep in touch with friends who insist on staying here. ETA: Phil Deakins has expressed the crux of the matter in posting #8 on this thread. I simply don't trust LL any more - either to not mess me about, or to fix things promptly and properly after they've messed me about by accident/ignorance.

Rene Erlanger wrote: (I mean it's pretty obvious from the photos in the signature right?) The signature is so small (on my system anyway) that I can't see if they're children, adults or geriatrics...

Now that I've discovered that you have a commercial interest in the continued existence of child avatars I understand you better...

That's not "Discrimination", it's "expressing a point of view which is different to Rene's'". You're the one who's being 'narrow-minded' in not accepting that different viewpoints can exist.

Rene Erlanger wrote: Being narrow-minded and practising discimination.......is nothing to be proud of! I'll happily be described as "intolerant" of such folk. What is the actual discrimination being practised here ?

Rene Erlanger wrote: Arkady Arkright wrote: Rene Erlanger wrote:it's your own narrow mindedness that needs examining not the motives of someone choosing such and such Avatar form. There's none so intolerant as those intolerant of intolerance... ....so you've managed to trot out the over-used stale quote. Just because it's overused and stale doesn't mean it isn't valid...

Rene Erlanger wrote:it's your own narrow mindedness that needs examining not the motives of someone choosing such and such Avatar form. There's none so intolerant as those intolerant of intolerance...

Peony Sweetwater wrote: Lol...happened to me once too (I got Japanese, which was fun to negotiate through!)...I managed to find language at the bar at the bottom of the page - to the left of the terms of service and privacy links. After tapping on language, English was the first option in the list. That fixed it, thanks :-)

I've just logged-on to my.secondlife.com for the first time in months, and it's talking to me in German... It should be English, is there any way to change it ?

Ziggy21 Slade wrote: From your general tone I am sure I would like to have an argument with you, if only I had any idea what you were saying ROFL!

I've been a professional programmer since the early 70's, and I've seen just how fast computer capability has grown, and how far ahead of the mainstream some leading technical companies can be. It's a shame how some posters here choose to try and support their failed arguments with personal abuse, so I'll leave them to their delusional little worlds.

Phil Deakins wrote: You are mistaken that "the relevant technology could be developed". Understanding cannot be done by a machine. 'Understanding' isn't required, just the ability to follow a link and see what's at the other end of it. I think you underestimate the potential power and capabilities of the very best computers, now and in the near future. Serious question - what qualifications do you hold that enable you to make such an arbitrary statement ? If you actually have extensive intimate knowledge of the very best of current technology I will, of course, bow to your expertise - otherwise my opinion is as valid as yours. Phil Deakins wrote: Or is it that you think that Google should also be held to account? And why can't you see the [obvious] difference in the two acts, when one does it intentionally, and the other isn't even aware of it? I think that Google should be held to account - the difference is not, as you say, that Google isn't aware of it, it's that they know they can get away with it as they're too big to attack.

Phil Deakins wrote: On the other hand, they could decide that, since they know there is bad stuff out there, and that there is no way for a machine (the engine) to "understand" the content of pages, they could close down so that they don't display links to bad stuff. Once again we disagree. I believe that the relevant technology could be developed - perhaps not 100% effective, but definitely sufficient to show 'good faith'. You only have to look at what's been done with the supposedly 'intractible' problem of detecting spam to see what the IT industry is capable of when it's to its financial advantage - the difference is that there's no money (yet) in detecting copyright-breaking links automatically.

Phil Deakins wrote: I don't. I'm only defending any major search engine displaying links to bad sites because, unless they are told, it's not possible for them to know. And that's the difference between us - you say that it's OK for them to use ignorance as an excuse, I hold that it's their responsibility to find out.

My apologies Phil, it got a bit messy last night (and I confess I may not have been entirely sober) - Let me try restating my point in the cold light of day. Phil Deakins wrote: You don't "innocently" or "accidently" put links on your site to websites where people can freely download copyrighted films, which is an encouragement for people to do it, unless [etc] But that is *exactly* what Google are doing. Their business model (i.e. money-making mechanism) depends on it. If it's illegal they should re-work their systems to make it impossible to happen, or withdraw from that area of business. As it is, they get a free pass (in the form of a 'please remove this') every time they repeat the offence. Did the little guy get politely asked to remove his site before the big guns came in to 'drag him off to gitmo' ? I don't know (it wasn't reported), but I doubt it. Let me try an analogy:- Gxxgle stands on a street corner along with some little guy. Gxxgle's business model requires that it steals the wallet of every third red-headed person who passes by, as does the little guy's. If Gxxgle gets caught, it just has to give the wallet back on request, and is left free to do exactly the same thing over and over again. The little guy, however goes to prison. Please explain to me why Gxxgle should get a 'free pass' just because they don't care that their systems break the law ?

Phil Deakins wrote: You're not reading what's written. One did it by intentionally by choice. The other didn't. So 'It wasn'rt me it was my machine' is a valid excuse ? Why should that be any kind of defense ? Shouldn't you be making sure your code can't break the law in the first place ? Phil Deakins wrote: Anyway, you're just thinking up stuff to say for the sake of it. No I'm not, but your own voice is drowning out anyone else's in your ears, so end of discussion... ETA - you could and would be prosecuted for images on your computer you didn't know were there, it's already happened. Your faith in british justice is touching, but misplaced.

So one gets asked to remove stuff, and is given time to do so - but the other gets dragged off to a foriegn country for a long incarceration without that option. Guess which is the big corporation, and which the small individual...

Phil Deakins wrote:ETA: The article says that his lawyer stated that Google also links to the site where copyrighted films can be downloaded for free, but there's a huge difference. Google's system is automated and it only deals in websites and webpages, without any understanding of what those websites and webpages contain. I.e. there is no human choice involved. When a site is genuinely complained about to Google, they remove it. That lad chose to encourage people to break laws by knowingly and intentionally linking to the lawless site. It's a huge difference. So it's OK for Google to use the excuse that's it's doing exactly the same thing, but it's automated ? "I'm blameless, it wasn't me, it was the machines I programmed that did it". Sorry Phil, that really doesn't hold water...

Phil Deakins wrote: Alright, as long as we agree that the court's decision is always made by comparing the act to the law, making it a legal matter, and that a decision is only made against a party when that party has actually broken the law - civil law, but the law nontheless. Which law, in which country ? Anyway, this is the proper way to deal with these parasites :- ACS Law (UK)

Phil Deakins wrote: I think you mean that it didn't used to be a criminal offense. It was always illegal but, not being a criminal offense, it was a civil matter that came under civil law, and the law was used in court to decide which side was in the right. The courts weren't a mere arbitration service. I'd argue that only criminal offenses could be defined as 'illegal' in this context. I used 'arbitration' (probably too loosely) in the sense that the court decided which of two parties was in the right, where neither party was the state - damages might be awarded by the court, but provided the damages were paid it was a civil matter, there was no criminal record for the 'offender'.

Phil Deakins wrote: The thing is that the illegal free downloading, and anonymous sharing, of copyrighted works was, and probably still is, very widespread, and the people who do it really do know that it's illegal. It didn't used to even be 'illegal', it was a civil matter between two parties. The courts were simply used as an independent arbitrator to decide between them, the police weren't involved in any way.

Phil Deakins wrote:Getting an extradition order isn't automatic on request - not in the UK, anyway. A case for it has to be made in court. Wrong - A treaty specifically designed to speed up the extradition of terrorists as part of the "War On Terror" is being used instead to extradite an alleged 'expediter of copyright violation' from the UK, when the offense he is alleged to have committed is not in itself clearly illegal in the UK. Since Blair removed a lot of the protections the UK used to have against the acts of politically-motivated DA's in the USA (as part of his attempt to ingratiaite himself further with George W) it has been used to extradite a number of people from the UK on dodgy premises, none of whom could genuinely be described as 'terrorists'. It's also worth noting that not one IRA terrorist (a much closer fit to the original purpose of this treaty) was extradited under this one-sided piece of nonsense.

Phil Deakins wrote:...Stuff like that, and many other things that have been stated in this thread, is just not going to happen. You simply do not, and can not, know that. I don't think freedom and democracy is best defended by people who can't even conceive of it being successfully attacked because "everyone involved has honourable motives and common sense", which is what you're implying.