Jump to content

Phil Deakins

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Phil Deakins

  1. I was never totally sure about that. When the adult regions came in, I kept my store where it was - in an M mainland sim - and the store sold sex furniture, as well as other furniture. I was absolutely sure that it was fine to show the stuff, and for adult avatars to try the stuff out as long as they didn't get naked to do it. That was all covered in a lengthy thread we had with LL. What I was never totally sure about was child avatars in the sex beds section of the store. So I used to attach my camera to any that came. If any got on a piece of sex furniture, I would have asked them to get off and removed them if they didn't. But none got on any of that furniture. I was never sure about allowing them to wander around it though.
  2. Adding to that... Child avatars are not allowed to be where sexual activity is happening, even if they are not involved in it.
  3. Ok, but walking around the mainland is one thing. Being in a place that's on the mainland is different. Talligurl didn't say what it was she was visiting, but she did say that it was a place, and not just wandering around on the mainland. I can understand the owners/managers of many places asking her to remove 'bits' that were on show, even if they only showed during certain movements/positions. She didn't suggest that she was wearing a long skirt that would require an 'upskirt' to see anything. Her silence on that, when its length was mentioned, does make it seem that it was a short, sometimes possibly revealing, skirt. The person who asked her to remove the 'bit' was silly though. "Cover up please" was the thing to ask. ETA: Example from many years ago. I was dancing with a girl who wore a short skirt with nothing underneath it. The dance animation revealed everything, but not all the time. When I mentioned it, it was news to her. She simply wasn't aware that everything was on show sometimes.
  4. Mainland is no different to other land. Land owners make the rules for their land, and can enforce them.
  5. For those who didn't quite follow Talligurl's post. Seeing transparent objects (ctrl-alt-t) has nothing to do with it.
  6. Correction. I joined in December 2006, and what you described wasn't true at that time.
  7. Yes, but she wouldn't have known that until you poste.... Er.... Oh no I didn't! How dare you suggest that I even know what those wotsitcalled - porn? - sites are?!
  8. How do YOU know that all the porn websites out there simply ask if you are 18 or not? Huh???
  9. As I said - the are better ways The "proper" way to open a door is to create script that opens it. Some methods are better than others for various reasons, but they are all "proper" ways as long as they do the job
  10. @Qie Niangao Soft's comment was posted last year so, if he did "kick it back to the devs for discussion", the devs presumably decided that it's not an issue that's worthy of putting right.
  11. Can anyone who creates a Jira set it to private or public as they wish?
  12. Ditto ETA: And LL is being idiotic to point people that way. But, then, it's what we expect from LL.
  13. I totally agree. The idea is absolute nonsense, although Maddy did say that it was BASIC programmers who needed their memories wiped according to a university, and not all programmers. Nevertheless, that's absolute nonsense too. Like many people, I started with BASIC, because that's what came with my first computer. Then I was straight on to 6502 machine code. Since then, I've programmed in various languages as needed, all of which benefitted greatly from originally learning to write programmes - in BASIC.
  14. And yet doors did open and close long before Void came up with an improved method. I wonder who got them to open and close Incidentally, there's no "proper" way to open and close doors. There are better ways to do things though.
  15. <groan> Ok. Forget it. I've told you more than once that you can include machine code/assembly if you like because it makes no difference whatsoever. You're just being argumentative for the sake of it, and I'm not going to explain to you why you are wrong. However, I will concede if you can show me any loop function in machine code. I don't mean for you to write one. I mean one that already exists in the language itself. Or perhaps what you call a function isn't called a function by others. Every 'code' performs a function of course, but that is nothing like what I mean by the functions in high level languages. I gave you examples of what I meant, so I won't repeat them. Incidentally, your arguing is so stupid because I've said more than once that you can include machine code, because it makes no difference. Perhaps you just like arguing for the sake of it, or maybe you're a bit bored lol. ETA: I'm going to stop discussing this with you now. It seems that what you and I call functions in languages are different. So it's just a matter of you understanding one thing and me understanding something different. And that means, continuing to discuss it is pointless. Also, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of this thread, and doesn't belong here. I do think you know what I'm saying, and I do think you're arguing just for the sake of it. But that doesn't matter, and I'm out.
  16. I disagree. When some people put all of the brain matter they posses to its maximum use, it appears to the rest of us like they are either using very little of it, or not using any of it.
  17. Yep. That's what I posted about and my post is what you posted about lol. Merry Christmas to you too
  18. Whatever, Theresa. What I wrote was correct, and easily understood, even if a whole chunk of it escaped your notice
  19. I've written quite extensively in machine code and assembly - mostly assembly, of course. Specifically, I've written some major hybrid programmes - machine code and high level hybrids. Functions do not exist in assembly. As you said, if you want a function like a loop in assembly, you have to write it. You don't have to do that in LSL and other high level languages. I honestly don't know why you're pursuing this. I already told you that you can include machine code/assembly if you want, because it doesn't make a scrap of difference. Cancel my statement of excepting it. It's fine with me. I told you why I excepted it but it really doesn't matter. You know very well that high level programming experience is always a help when moving to another high level language, like LSL. Anyone who has programming experience, and who chooses to give it moment's thought, knows that very well indeed, especially if they've already written in more than one high level language. There is nothing for you to argue about. It's self-evident, and as plain as the nose on anyone's face.
  20. What you actually said is, "The point is that prior scripting experience is likely to be more of a disadvantage than a help". That's what you wrote that was wrong, and that's what we've been arguing about. Prior scripting experience is ALWAYS going to be an advantage when coming to LSL, or to any high level language, for the very reasons that I stated earlier.
  21. That's perfectly true, but you did overlook one bit of what I wrote - that you quoted. It's this bit:- "Remember back when you first got control of a computer and you wanted to learn how to programme it. " I've bolded the part you overlooked, and it's that part that makes what you wrote nothing to do with this discussion.
  22. Writing in machine code/assembly is so different from writing in a high level language that it's definitely excludable. For instance, you cannot get used to using loops in a high level language and expect to find something similar in a low level one, because functions don't exist in machine code/assembly. Also, being able to load the accumulator with a value from a particular byte of memory dos not exist in high level languages. Programming is totally different between them. I would have thought that the reason I exempted them was perfectly obvious, but if you want to include them, be my guest. It doesn't make any difference. I only excluded them so that nobody could gainsay by stating that it doesn't apply to low level languages, and not because it actually matters either way. The idea that being a self-taught programmer makes a difference is preposterous - and it's clutching at straws. It doesn't matter how a person learned to write programmes, the fact that s/he has experience of writing programmes is what matters - and it's blatantly obvious that that experience is a great advantage when learning another high level language, such as LSL. Perhaps you're thinking that those who were formally taught programming can't really think for themselves so, if they weren't specifically taught LSL, they'll struggle because what they were taught can get in the way, and they would be better off if they hadn't been taught any programming at all. If that's what you mean, then I also disagree with that. Why previous languages fight me for a while is irrelevant to this discussion. It was just a little aside. The fact remains that experienced programmers find their programming experience to be a great advantage when coming to LSL, or any other high level language. Having no programming experience at all is a great disadvantage. It's self-evident and blatantly obvious, and I'm astonished that anyone would even consider disagreeing.
  • Create New...