Jump to content

Rolig Loon

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Rolig Loon

  1. As Sid says, work at first with a small, low power tool until you are comfortable with terraforming. I generally start from a local high or low point and move gently out from there to sculpt the general shape of the land. The effect of any tool is greatest at the center of its highlighted area but extends beyond the highlighted area, so you can do subtle terraforming by "painting" with the edges of the tool. I use larger Smoothing and Flattening tools gently to get rid of spots that look a little too lumpy when I am finished with smaller tools. If I really screw up, I can either revert the land or simply flatten it and start over.
  2. What, again? That seems to happen every week now.
  3. Try thinking of your first days back in SL like a visit to a RL city that you might have lived in 25 years ago. The people you knew have moved on, many of the old neighborhoods have been renovated, trees have been cut down and new ones planted, and there are confusing signs everywhere. So, do what I do. Just let go and wander. Explore stuff that looks interesting, strike up a conversation with a stranger, climb up on a high spot (if you can find one) to get a bird's eye view, and just have fun. BTW, while you are looking for ways to have fun, visit Java Sprockets at http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Puffin Head/32/34/23 to get your free bicycle. That's a gift specially designed for veteran SL residents who are returning and need a fun way to explore.
  4. Just paste it into chat and hit ENTER. You'll see a clickable link in your chat box. There's a lot to learn, and it can be overwhelming if you try to take it all in at once, especially if you are expecting SL to work exactly the way it used to when you were here before. Fortunately, there's a whole huge section of the forums devoted to Linden Homes where you can ask as much as you like. You'll also find that loads of people have already asked the most common questions, so you can search easily.
  5. No. That is a resident's group. They provide a lot of helpful information, but if you want to see Victorian homes, start wandering in the Victorian regions to see how the moles have laid things out and what residents have been doing with their homes.
  6. Possibly. Just open your Map view, search for the Morning Dew region, and enter the 141, 82, 54 coordinates.
  7. Exactly right. That's what the mailbox in front of your home is for, choosing the specific style of home on your Victorian parcel. You may choose the Doyle, Shelley, Hardy, or Verne style by simply clicking on the menu selection in the mailbox, but you cannot choose a traditional home or a stilt home, for example. All Bellisserian neighborhoods are in theme. Remember, of course, that you may also use your land impact allowance to modify your home's interior, to add on some types of external structures (within the theme) and to add landscaping to your parcel. They come up all the time. People change homes a lot, especially as new themes are introduced (as one seems about ready to be released now, in fact). If you watch and are patient, you will see a lot of turnover on any given day. Follow the advice that Clairschen and others have given.
  8. You choose the theme of home you are interested in owning (Traditional, Victorian, Chalet, Stilt, Camper ...) but you don't have to chose the particular style of home until you own a parcel in that theme. You can change the style of the home on your parcel as often as you like, and can customize its color. I suggest reading all the background information in the Knowledge Base so that you understand your options. Pay special attention to the Bellisseria covenant so that you understand what Solar is referring to when he talks about vehicles.
  9. If you are looking for someone to write a custom script, post in the InWorld Employment forum. Be prepared to provide a careful explanation of exactly what you want, and be prepared to pay a fair price for it. Custom scripting is not cheap. When the scripter has to put in a lot of effort at writing and testing the script, and can only earn L$ from one sale, she's not going to give you a bargain price.
  10. It is a fun thread, Rat. Chroma and I are not out to convince each other -- not much chance of that -- but the conversation is fun. We're setting out the parameters for very different ways of looking at reality. It reminds me of being 20 years old and sitting around a friend's apartment discussing the fate of the universe until 4 a.m. That's worth doing every once in a while to keep you from getting stodgy.
  11. Oh, I think that's exactly what she would appreciate. God has a great sense of humor. Look at the platypus.
  12. Heh. Now you trick my mind into remembering a conversation from 40 years ago. I had a friend, an eminent professor of psychology, who told me after an evening of much wine and imagining, that he believed everything he was experiencing was an elaborate fantasy. I did not exist, the room we were sitting in and the wine we were drinking did not exist. They were all in his mind. When he died, he believed, the entire universe would die with him because it was all a marvelous fiction. It's hard to argue against a belief like that. It's like "turtles all the way down" cosmology. It has a ring of irrefutable truth to it. As Maddy says, though, Me too. If you want me to accept that all sorts of fine magical things are real, play by my rules. Use scientific processes to dive into the rabbit holes and root out the pesky errors and biases that hide what might be there.
  13. That's Blaise Pascal's 17th Century argument for God, and it's a good one. Why believe that God exists? "If you gain, you gain all. If you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He exists." I like that argument. It satisfies my own sense of the universe, and it has absolutely nothing to do with science. Some things do not deserve to be proven. So again, if you wish to believe in invisible elephants, telepathy, or faeries, be my guest. If you want to convince me scientifically that they exist, however, find a way to do it that uses the tools of science and doesn't begin by assuming that they do. Begin by assuming that they do not. If you run into an example that seems to disagree with that starting point, do everything you can to eliminate observational error and experimental bias. If the observation still survives that scrutiny, you might be onto something. That's a really tough hurdle, though. So far, the jury is still out.
  14. As a scientist, I usually know better than to argue about beliefs and articles of faith, most of which are real to us and -- by their very nature -- impossible to prove. Most importantly, they influence the way our minds interpret the world around us and either accept or reject it. There's a major difference between faith (or belief) and scientifically verifiable reality, though. I will gladly defend anyone's right to hold beliefs that shape her universe. I enjoy Harry Potter and speculative fiction as much as the next person. Just don't try to apply the tools of science to "prove" that realities based on faith and wishful thinking exist. That's unfair to science and to faith.
  15. Not at all, you are still looking through the wrong end of the microscope. With mild apologies to Sherlock Holmes, who almost got it right, "when you have eliminated the impossible possibility of statistical error or experimental bias, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” The core of scientific investigation is demonstrating that an observation is not the result of poor technique or wishful thinking. If you want to prove that your invisible elephants exist, you have to start with the null hypothesis that there is no such thing as an invisible elephant. The job from there is to demonstrate that any invisible elephant you think you detected isn't due to bad equipment and lack of sleep. If you can do that, you have met Sherlock Holmes's test. On the other hand, if you begin with the hypothesis that invisible elephants exist, there's never any way to prove it.
  16. That's more than a little stretch. So ..... hypothetically .... you might claim that there are invisible elephants in the room, but that I cannot see them because I have a bad attitude. No matter how many tests I perform with a range of sensors that show absolutely no trace of invisible elephants, your claim will always be that (a) I haven't proven that there are no invisible elephants and (b) I have a bad attitude? That's doing the science the wrong way around. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that there are invisible elephants. In the absence of proof, the most you can say, being extremely generous, is that it's an open question. The most that either of us can say honestly in the absence of evidence is that it is highly unlikely that there are invisible elephants. You may continue to believe in invisible elephants, or faeries, or Santa Claus if you wish, but you will have to invoke faith, which has a very different set of rules than science and does not involve proof. For now, as a disinterested scientific observer, I will wait for your proof that invisible elephants exist. 😉
  17. Um... the whole point of a disinterested observer is that he/she has an open mind; that is, no expectation/attitude/bias that would prejudice a fair evaluation of the test. That's what "disinterested" means.
  18. Or, if you choose to take a more cynical viewpoint, continuing the mandates presents a greater disadvantage to society and the economy than exposing a decreasing number of vulnerable people to serious illness and death. It's a utopian decision. As long as most people were potential CoVid victims, the scales were balanced in favor of protecting them. Now that they are becoming the minority, the welfare of society becomes paramount. After a year and a half of pandemic distancing, I can see that perspective gaining ground rapidly on this side of the Atlantic. The downside, of course, is that it's a small step from there to blaming future victims for their own fate -- whether it's because they chose to avoid vaccination out of fear or moral objection or because they have underlying health conditions that make vaccination risky for them. It's all too easy to blame the victim (of assault, rape, financial ruin, and other disasters), and it's rarely good social policy. Personally, I have been fully vaccinated for three months and I firmly believe that it's the right choice for most people. However, I do get nervous when I hear vaccination used as a wedge issue to separate "moral" people who have had their shots and are no longer holding back society's recovery from "selfish" people who choose not to be innoculated. (My nervousness has its limits, I admit, when I encounter people who choose to be unvaccinated out of misguided political loyalty and people who actively spread disinformation about vaccination. )
  19. I've had my KitchenAid mixer since sometime in the 1980s. It's indispensable (and indestructible).
  20. Nej, tack. 😧
  21. .. .. Then how about shrimp? No, insects are not crustaceans. Insects and crustaceans are in different classes, although both are arthropods. Shrimp and lobsters are on my "No Way In Hell" list. Spiders (which are neither insects nor crustaceans) are too.
  22. What did you run into him with? Something big enough to leave bruises? This is how wars start, you know.
  23. If you have exhausted all of the tests you can think of, put together a procedure that can be used to replicate the behavior (with the standard LL viewer) and submit a BUG JIRA report. It would be most helpful (and most likely to speed up action on the JIRA) if you can demonstrate that this behavior is not unique to your own account or assets. Try to test your procedure with alt accounts or by having friends replicate the bug. You should also query the JIRA archives to see if anyone has reported a similar problem. Then wait. Some bug reports get quick attention; others can languish for ages.
  • Create New...