Phil Deakins

I would think that almost all users would say "Who?" when Anshe Chung is mentioned, but that only means that she's not a widely known SL 'celebrity'. I don't believe there are any of those. But the elite don't need to be well-known. They only need to be able to influence things and I would think that Anshe is able to influence LL - or she could if she would be willing to back herself up. I.e. I think she pays so much to LL every month that LL would seriously miss the money if she stopped, so LL would tend to pander to her. That's just my opinion, which may be very wrong. I don't think that anyone else is in that sort of position.

Apart from one person, the only elite users of SL are those who own land, and they are only elite on their land. The one user who is elite, imo, is Anshe Chung. She owns so much land that LL has to take her seriously - because she pays a massive amount of tier money to LL each month. I don't think that applies to anyone else.

Until I read your post, I was beginning to think that I'm the only elite person in SL I'm glad there is another one. It was starting to feel a bit lonely.

That's weird but it'll have to do. There is a landing point set on the land but it's also set to allow people to land anywhere.

I think you'll find that your 'research searchterm' didn't get any ads because none were available for that term, and not because the engine somehow recognised your search as research. And I now see, for the first time, the same banner ads in this forum. On this page where I'm typing this, anyway, but I'm sure they'll be on other forum pages as well. One thing they must not do is place the ads in the middle of the list of posts. Some forums do that - n posts, ad, n posts, ad, etc. and that's one place where I dislike them a lot. ETA: Yep. The ads are all over this forum but thankfully not between posts. And, because I'm seeing plenty of them, it's obvious that they are geo-targeted.

Cheers, Perrie. I've got an alt in on Phoenix 1.6.1 and she doesn't have the option to allow or prevent LMs being taken, so it disappeared from Phoenix since the 1.5.2 that you have. And ty, for testing it for me. I appreciate it.

Sephina Frostbite wrote: NOOB SOUNDING ALERT!! Whats linking? Linking is when someone like you gets together with someone like me

hehe. You weren't there. It was long before I knew you, and, if my memory is correct, I did get a prize or something because I was the only male in the female contest

So is it not now possible to get a landmark on land that's open to the public? If it's not possible, I need to scatter more LM givers around the store as (I think) there's only one. From the posts, it sounds like creating a landmark should be on for all land. ETA: I've just been to a couple of open places and I can get a landmark in them. So I wonder why my land didn't allow it for Treasure. I've never set it to disallow LMs. I wonder if a few people would pop over and try to get an LM and post if you can get one without using the LM giver:- http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Seymour/192/118/251

It's not difficult to write a browser that will do exactly what you want. High level programming languages come with a ready-made basic browser VB does, anyway, and I assume others do too. So creating the browser itself takes seconds - not even minutes. Then it's just a matter of writing the programming to filter out the visited links. It would have to get all the results, visited and not visited, from the engine, but it could store every page you visit from your browsing, and use that data to filter out the visited ones. Engines are very unlikely to include what you want as an option because there is no call for it. One person wanting it doesn't mean that there's a 'call' for it. However, it can't hurt ask them for it. I don't know about the other majors but Google is extremely good at dealing with individuals.

Treasure Ballinger wrote: Yes I was in your store trying to get a LM for a new resident; and wasn't smart enough to figure out why you didn't allow LM's in the store; finally it dawned on me you have a LM giver right in front of my face.......so yeah I was there and mission finally accomplished. I thought anyone could get an LM anywhere in the store (anywhere on the land). I think that was an option I could turn on and off but I don't see anywhere to turn it on. Any ideas?

Treasure Ballinger wrote: /me wonders if Phil's undies are copy/trans, he could send me a set. :smileyvery-happy: I probably still have them and they are probably copy/trans, or at least trans. I could do a private fitting for you if you like You popped up on my screen the other day

Maureen Boccaccio wrote: Yes, that pic was at the Forum Cartel Hangout - and I believe that's HoneyBear Lilliehook standing next to you. The pink is flattering to your skin tone. Sorry for the thread derail. Carry on! That Honeybear? I was quite friendly with her for a while - only friendly, I hasten to add. But why carry on with the htread's topic when we've hit on a very good topic

Treasure Ballinger wrote: That was surely taken at the Cartel hangout, see the sofas and table with the kitty, in the background. You were lovely, Phil. :matte-motes-sunglasses-3: In that case, it's not the original, but no matter. As you said, I look positively lovely, as long as I'm in pink undies, of course

Contact the person who owns the land they are coming from. If you aren't bothered about other people on your land seeing them, you can turn particles off by setting them to zero in your prefs. Then you won't see them.

Just like I said - I do look good in pjnk The name Serenity rings a faint bell. I don't think that's the original pic though. I think that one might have been taken a long time after the original, to show how good I look in pink undies I could be wrong though. Could that one have been taken in the Cartel place, do you think?

Yesterday, the Cyprus government voted against doing it. --||-

After I'd turned the computer off last night and was about to got to bed, a thought occurred to me that I would have posted if the computer was still on.... I understand what you want, and I don't disagree with it in any way. It would be excellent if it were an option. We're only on opposite sides of this discussion because I don't see that it will happen, and I do see that the way it is now is highly suitable for your needs - not absolute perfection but highly suitable. The only effective differences between the way it is now and the way you'd like it to be, are (1) a few clicks to get more pages of results with blue ones in them, and (2) the current way is slower but the difference can be counted in seconds, which isn't very much at all.

I can't see the pic in second citizen without logging in, and I've never registered there. I assume it's the one in pink bra and pants? And you've been spreading it around??? lol

Huh. I'd have put money on that that isn't me - but it is lol. Less than a year ago too.

Ansariel Hiller wrote: Your are still discussing? LOL! Yep

16 wrote: a search engine is a database underneath. a big one true. but is still a database and that's all when run a search engine query then it returns a dataset in a session. the dataset don't change until the session ends. is why the search engine server can serve up pages/linksets from within the dataset without repeating itself when click next page next page. if it didn't then would never reach the end bc this is true then can download the entire dataset for that session just by clicking More/next button/link at the bottom of the page when you make a new keyword or use same keyword and press Search button then it creates another new session and creates another dataset the dataset is filtered client side to tag the links by color. bc the filtering is the same mechanic then instead of tag purple. don't display it + am not sure why you think that to enable this then it has to be done server side. doing it server side don't add anything bc the dataset remain constant until the session ends edit: like add anything capability that cant be done client side already You are pretty much correct about how an engine deals with a query. It does produce a 'results set' (it's called a 'results set') for a query and, if there are more than 1000 matches in the results set, the main engines deliver just the top 1000 to the user - 10 at a time by default. What you're now suggesting is that the browser could get all 1000 results in one go and filter out any that you've already visited. You haven't suggested that before but I'll go along with it. It would require the engines to make a change because, although the user can choose how many result per page to receive, I don't think it can be as high as 1000, but I may be wrong about that. It would also require a change in the browser so that the option to filter out any results that already exists in the History can be set. I've just been rummaging in Google and what you want almost exists. I'm surprised but, if you don't turn it off, Google does store your searchterms, the results it gave you, AND the pages you visited from the results. It stores your history that relates to your Google searches. You can then do searches and receive only the results of pages you visited. What you can't do is receive only the results that you haven't visited. It does the mirror image of what you want. The details are here. With the Advanced Search, you used to be able to change the number of results per page but I can't see any way to do that now and it looks like you can only get 10 results per page. Also, it used to be easy to find the Advanced Search page. The link used to be on the front page, but I couldn't find it anywhere. I resorted to doing a search for 'google advanced search'. I didn't say that. I've said that it could be done by the browser, but not by the engine. Since discovering that Google stores you history, including the results delivered and the pages you've visited, it's clear that they could deliver only unvisited results quickly and easily. But they wouldn't be results that haven't been delivered to you before. They just be stored results that you've seen before but haven't visited. They could do it a bit more slowly and get the normal results set, do comparisons with your visited history, and only send unvisited results. They could do it, but I don't think they will, because, as shops sometimes tell us when we ask for something they don't have in stock, there is no call for it.

16 wrote: i said: "when the web was first invented it was designed to be a research tool". i not say the internet the web hyperlink was invented/designed by researchers primarily for their own use in the first iteration. while also knowing that it might be of some use in other kinds of fields the internet wasn't invented to enable the web. it was invented to allow persistent connections to be maintained/routed in the event of hardware failures. like for military use in that first iteration I wrote about the web, not the internet. I mentioned that the internet already existed when the web was invented. You actually wrote "when the web was first invented it was designed to be a research tool. a repository of indexed documents. that could be searched and info relevant to the researcher could be located. then it changed into a consumer tool"". I wrote that the web wasn't designed to be a repository of indexed documents. The repository, if you could call it that, already existed in the computers connected to the internet. The web was invented to give easier access to those documents via the hyperlink. The hyperlink was the start of the web. It merely made it easier to fetch a document without the person who wants it knowing where it is on the global network of computers (the internet).. The creation of the internet wasn't to maintain persistent connections. Perhaps you meant that it allowed connections to be made between 2 computers via many different routes. Or perhaps you were referring to the hard wiring between computers as persistent connections.

I'm sorry, 16, but what you want won't be done. You still seem to think that the search engine do it, but it can't because the search engine would have to keep a record of every result that every user goes to from its results from every search each user makes, and, because of the incredible amount of storage that that would need, it's just not going to happen. After I dismissed the engine doing it for you, I suggested that the browser could do it, and it can, because it has your History stored - your recent history, anyway. But you won't get what you want (a page full of blue links) from it. I previously explained why that won't happen, so I won't repeat it. The best you can hope for is what I described earlier. The browser can get the first page of results and, after checking through your History, only display links that you haven't visited. And that's it. If you want any more results, you'd have to click to get the next page of them, and so on. No browser will ever keep getting page after page of results from the engine until is has 20 (or whatever) unvisited ones. It's not going to happen. They way it works now is very suitable for you because all unvisited links are displayed in blue, so it's very quick and very easy to simply ignore any that are not in blue. It may not be absolute perfection for you, but it is very suitable for you. I haven't seen anything that you've written that suggests that the current way is doesn't work well enough for you. I'm absolutely astonished that you are keeping on with this. Incidentally, when the web work first invented, it wasn't invented to be what you described. The internet was a load of connected computers that contained documents. To access a document on another computer, the user had to know and enter the computer's address on the network and path to the required document. It was long-winded. The web was simply the invention of the hyperlink. With the hyperlink, the user did not need to know and enter the other computer's address and path to the document. What you described was already there when the 'web' was invented. The web merely gave easier access to it.

I don't remember that. I do remember posting a pic of me in pink bra and panties though. I was taken when I entered a 'best in pink' contest, and was placed on the club's wall for quite a long time.