Phil Deakins

Just as I've never been one for exploring in SL, I'm also not one for exploring some other things, such as Windows, and I am often be the last to know things that everyone else seems to know by default. So... TIL that programme windows can be stretched over multiple monitors. (yes I know - everyone knew but me) I have 2 monitors running (I had 3 with the previous computer but I can only operate 2 with the new computer), and I use 2 desktops - one for the standard stuff like the web browser, email, and such, and the other for SL and any programmes I need to be on view at the same time. Since the external script editor I was using (Sublime Text) updated, I've found it bad for SL scripts, so, on the SL desktop, I've been using the larger monitor (28") for the SL viewer and the smaller (21") for anything else I need with it. With the larger monitor I can edit the scripts in the viewer, sometimes having 2 scripts on display at the same time. But it can be a bit cramped with 2 scripts on display and the object also in view, and I wondered if I could merge the 2 monitors and spread the viewer across them. That would give me loads of space to have everything I want simultaneously on view. A search of the web didn't turn much up on that, but it did turn something up that I hadn't yet discovered - that a programme's window can be streatched into the next monitor. So now I have the viewer occupying all of one moitor and part of the other, and I have everything simultaneously in view that I want It's a bit stupid of me, I know, because I was well aware that a programme's window occupies more than one monitor for a while as you slide it from one to the other. It should have dawned on me, but it didn't

I second that.

Then why don't you just do it, instead of only copying what LL does? That's what the Firestorm people do, although I believe that they have to get the go-ahead from LL for any additions to the viewer that they come up with. You don't need any go-ahead from LL because you're not using LL's programming. Or maybe you've already done it.

That doesn't matter, Coffee. YOU said that a viewer such as the OP suggested would need to be written from the ground up. And it's self-evident that a viewer like that can be written from ground up, and that LL could do it as they've done it before, which is what I said. So what are you disagreeing with? Heck, even I could do it (but it would take me so long that I don't think I'll bother lol.) Note: You're probably right that the V1 was the only viewer that was written from a blank sheet. I thought the V2 might have been, since I'm sure it was outsourced, but maybe not.

I'm several pages in and I'm still looking at 2018 commits, so I assume you are referring to the way the viewers' 'tracks' develope and merge. If that's what you mean, it's nothing to do with what I said, which was that a viewer that makes use of multiple cores can be written from the ground up, just like viewers (and any new programme) is always written (I mentioned the V2 and V3 but I forgot to include the V1); i.e. from a blank page. Making use of pre-written code when suitable helps, of course, but the page is still blank at the outset. Coffee first mentioned that a multicore viewer would need to be written from the ground up, and later, when I said that LL could do it, she said that that's not how viewers are written, which didn't make any sense, and is why I asked for an explanation. If you are both talking about the way the viewer is normally developed, it's different to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what Coffee mentioned - "from the ground up" - from a blank page. Note: The V2 was outsourced and was possibly written form a blank page. The V3 may have been from a blank page or deveoloped from the V1, or even from the V2. Even so, the V1 was like any new programme - written from scratch, possibly making use of some chunks of external pre-written code, but written from a blank page - from the ground up.

Explain please. All programmes are developed from the ground up, even when using pre-written, no necessarily in-house, code, and a viewer can't be any different..

It seems to me that needing a bot for general group announcements would mean there's an awful lot of announcements. Are they actually used that way? What in the policy indicates that it's banned, Innula? The quantity?

LL is always fiddling with various viewers to try different things, and they've created what I think have been 2 totally new viewers over time - the V2 and the V3, although I believe the V2 was outsourced. My thinking is that, since they are not strangers to creating viewers from the ground up, and because the viewer isn't anywhere near as massive a project as the other end of SL, they could create a new multi-core viewer - IF not using multiple cores really is a significant problem.

Start?

Arguing against the quote would achieve nothing. I'm not aware than anyone has argued against it, so I don't understand your question. On the other hand, my point has been proved several times. There's no question of running out of argument. I can't help it if a few people want to be so pedantic that they can't recognise actual reality when it stares them in the face, can I? And the silly little barbs that have been resorted to when they've run out of reason, is just childish.

Far too cute for the likes of you. No proof that I'm wrong has been offered. All you've done is quote from an LL page, and nobody has argued against that quote. It doesn't reflect the reality, that's all. It's merely being pedantic. I've proved it more than once in this thread. Sadly, it has been met with rather large lack of common sense.

You are wrong, LittleMe, as can be seen a multitude of times here - even as recently as yesterday - several times. But I don't like wrong information being the last post on a subject that interests me, so I do try to post the correct information last. In this case there are two ways of looking at it. One is realistically (that's my preferred way), and the other is pedantically, regardless of the listener's understanding (that's the opposition's way). In their own ways, both are right, but one is more right than the other. No prizes for guessing which is the most right I'll give you clue though. If someone posts that they use scripted agent on their land, what would people understand?

Only when someone is arguing their point I can hardly argue on my own can I LOL

Well, I posted no argument against what LL described. I've only been talking about how the terms are actually used by users here. LL has its understanding and users, whilst agreeing with the accuracy of LL's statement, use the term in a slightly different way. If someone started a thread to ask about scripted agents, I'm pretty sure the first thing we'd want to find out is if they really do mean registered scripted agents, or just bots.

I don't think I've been splitting hairs. If someone says, there are scripted agents on that land over there and the land is set to show in search, we'd all say, they're allowed. But if the same were said but with 'bots' instead of scripted agents, we'd say report them. It's what's understood. At least it's how I've understood it through the years, and I've been into bots through the years, as you know. People don't say scripted agents instead of bots - it's so much easier just to say bots. Scripted agents have come to mean registered as scripted agents. (me) I've got 10 scripted agents on my land. (someone else) good for you. at least you're not trying to game the traffic. (me) oh but I am. none of them are registered (someone else) but you said..... I misunderstood.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. When we use the term 'scripted agent' we do mean registered as a scripted agent. At least that's how I've read the forums through the years. More usually, we use the word 'bot', because we have no way of knowing whether or not an avatar is registered as a scripted agent. Early in this thread I said that scripted agents are bots, because they are run by programmes, and I repeated it a few minutes ago. Through my posts, I've dofferentiated between a bot being registered, thus making it a 'scripted agent', and a bot not being registered, not making it a 'scripted agent'. It's what is meant by the term 'scripted agent', when it is used here, that we're discussing.

Being unregistered means being unregistered as a scripted agent. Being registered means the opposite. A scripted agent is a bot. It's a scripted agent because it's run by programme. There's no argument against that, and nobody is arguing against it. What you're forgetting though is that the 'scripted agent' status is not the same thing at all. That only refers to avatars that have registered as 'scripted agents', and those avatars can be bots or not bots. Mostly, probably near totally, they are bots, but they don't have to be. If you want to call all bots 'scripted agents', you're not wrong, unless you think that they all have that registered status - they don't. So it's best to keep the phrase 'scripted agent' to those avatars (bots and non-bots) that are registered as such, and use the word 'bot' for all bots, registered or not. Otherwise you can easily be misunderstood. To me, a 'scripted agent' is a registered avatar. A bot is an avatar that's run by programme, which may be registered or not. The two expressions are not interchangeable.

Just out of interest, LL would be perfectly happy for peoplel to register their avatars as scripted agent, so that they don't count for traffic unnecessarily on their land - when they leave their avatars logged in and go to bed, for instance, or when they are working on their land. That's the very reason why scripted agent status came in. Incidentally, 'troll' doesn't mean what you used it for. It means something quite different.

Eh? Are you saying that your non-native understanding of english led you astray? Or are you criticising my native understanding of english? Or are you just looking for a verbal fight?

It's hard to believe....<sigh> Look. It doesn't matter what LL, or anyone else, calls bots. The only thing that matters is what they actually are - and they are not necessarily 'scripted agents' (as in the SL 'scripted agent' status) unless they are registered as such. Some bots are scripted agents, and some are not. It's not rocket science, though it may seem like it to some. In SL, 'scripted agent' and 'bot' are not interchangeable terms, even though you may prefer to use them interchangeably. I have plenty of bots that are not scripted agents - they don't have that status. Wanna see some? Heck! People often talk about reporting bots on land that's set to show in search. It happened in this very thread. But why report them if they are 'scripted agents'. Scripted agents are allowed on land that's set to show in search. You're out on a limb with this one.

Aha! Someone who thinks logically

Scripts don't actually "run on names". It's only scripts that need to identify avatars that won't work as well as they did. A security device that stores only names, for instance, won't recognise an avatar if the avatar has changed its name. At first, it won't make any difference to anything, because name-changes aren't suddenly going to sweep through the population. I'd hazzard a guess that it will be quite some time before anything is even slightly noticed.

I stole a palm tree of yours years ago - from the Cartel Hangout. I think I still have it

And then, of course, there is Vanessa Linden. I don't know what she does, and I don't remember ever seeing her, but she's definitely active

Perhaps the frequency that I got to ARing would be considered as abusing the AR system, BUT I considered it abuse, by LL, that I was paying them for land that I was unable to use because a neighbour planted part of a bulding on it, and, for many weeks LL did nothing about it, in spite of me, the paying customer, asking many times. They were taking my money and not providing what I was paying them for. I considered that to be abuse. Now, of course, we can return items that partially infringe our land, but we couldn't back then.