Phil Deakins

I totally agree with the first 3, but I don't have an opinion about the 4th one. It would be a decent perk for having a premium account. I said at the start that .Residents should be able to acquire a last name for free. I'm very strongly opinionated about that. I'm also very strong that new accounts should be able to pick a last name without any cost. But it looks like LL is bent on using it as a money-earner. They don't show any concern about having landed so many accounts with Resident when all accounts used to be able to choose a last name. They see it as an extra, and not as we see it (putting something back they took away). The same attitude would consider disabling the ability to build from all but premium accounts, if it weren't that building for commerce has been moved out of SL altogether.

I experienced this years ago with Virgin. You could set your watch by when throttling started and finished every day. They stopped doing it some time later, but I did learn the meaning of 'unlimited' in this context. It doesn't mean unlimited speed. It simply means unlimited amount, and throttling doesn't affect that. It can't mean speed because we pay for up to certain speeds, and we don't get higher than what we pay for.

lol. Wochit kid!

Not as special as you thought I got the error a couple of times too, not many minutes ago. Maybe they are tweaking things again, like they've been doing recently.

Ty, Vanity. I read those 3 blogs, and the whole thing is absolutely astonishing. Perhaps the victims investors are thinking that, because the value of bitcoins increased the way it did, and bitcoin is underpinned by blockchain, that anything that's associated with blockchain will do likewise. As you wrote, it's a lot like the tulip bulb bubble - and the south sea island bubble.

I'm reminded of something that Ebbe wrote in the forum quite a few years ago now. Talking about the next generation of virtual world that they were about to start work on, he said that, "If we don't do it, someone else will". He was right. There are loads of them coming along, and I don't think that Sansar isn't anywhere near ready to be let loose in the wild yet. Maybe LL has taken much too long in developing it.

Interesting blog, Blush. Ty. In spite of the news items, Decentraland can't yet be visited, and, it appearts that it's just one of a number of 'blockchain' worlds in production. But the worst thing about it is that it costs almost US$450 for a 10m x 10m parcel of land lol. Surely the whole thing is just a practical joke.

QUESTION: Can we have script editing (and maybe other) boxes freed from the main viewer window, please? It is surely a simple matter of not confining them to the main window - at least it is in Visual Basic, or whatever it's called now - which is a simple checkbox option. The benefit for writing scripts would be that the window(s) can be moved to another screen and not get in the way inside the main viewer window. External editors are used for that purpose, so it would do away with the need for them.

I followed the link, and then followed another news item from that page, and I read about the decentralised system called 'blockchain', something I'd never heard of until last night. I put it together with the name of the new system - 'Decentraland', and came to mention it, only to find that Solar had beaten me to it. In other words, I've nothing to say, because I don't pretend to understand yet what blockchain is. ETA: In view of what Garnet wrote, I'm now wondering if the world is merely, or intended to be, a distributed one, where users host the land. Something like opensim grids.

I thought we'd done that question to death once or twice.

It cuts both ways. On the one hand, when changing a name to get rid of a stalker, for example, it would be good if the stalker couldn't see what your previous name was. On the other hand, changing a name to get round an inworld ban that you got with your previous name, or to continue with someone who wants rid you of, would work if you were not recognisable by your previous name, or the person hadn't kept a record of your UUID. Either way isn't crazy.

There's no chance of that happening. Not because I don't admit mistakes when I make them. I do. But because you don't have even any slightly reasonable arguments. For instance, trying to make out that, because homosexuality isn't depraved, neither is sawing people in half and roasting them on a spit. With that sort of reasoning you buried yourself without any any assistance from me or anyone else, so there's no point in wasting any more time arguing the toss with you. The other reason it won't happen is because I already stopped arguing with you about it last night. All I was doing at the end was responding to one or two completely different bits, such as your 'open door issue'. If you want to continue the main argument, and bury yourself even further, you can do it without me. You've done a very job of it so far, and I have confidence that you will continue to do just as good a job with any more arguments you make.

What a brilliant idea! But just a little too late. I can still taste the tea that I've just finsihed drinking

It was how the OP described it. And you certainly sounded as though you thought that the open was the 'legal' issue. My mistake. Perhaps clearer wording would have helped.

"The issue there and I agree its an issue is he didnt have the doors shut and he should have" That's what you wrote. It sure sound like you thought the open was the issue.

But you wrote that the issue was the open door. <sigh>

That's the very next sentence to the one that you quoted. It wasn't difficult to know what the issue was, and it was not the open door.

Read more

The Linden pointed out that the place was in breach of the rules by changing the house, and expanding it to move onto land that the user didn't own. You should have known that.

No. I blame you.

No. I blame you.

The issue there was quite different to that, as you'd know if you read the Linden posts about it.

If he'd stuck to the topic, instead of unsuccessfully trying sidetrack it by equating it with homosexuality and such, it might have been a sensible discussion, but not when the he's pouring as much homosexuality into as he can. Such sidetracks only achieve one thing - more and more argument.

I think you're right, Garnet.

If this weren't the SL forum, I'd tell you that you're just plain crazy, and not worth disccussing things with. But I can't do that because it's the SL forum. So I'll leave you to your ideas. I don't consider you worth my time for further discussion.