Phil Deakins

High search rankings are no indication at all of popularity.

JeanneAnne wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: So, in other words, the only people who should be able to access SL are those who can spend $200 a year on "pretty cartoons"? Incidentally, that's well over twice what a premium account costs now. yep .. thats how it should be .. no "ownership" & no freeloading .. everyone contributes & everyone has equal access .. premium accounts are worthless anyway .. those who pay tier support everyone else .. this promotes classism conflict & griefing .. if everyone paid a user free & no one "owned property" & there was no L$ & all content was free .. sl would be a truly egalitatarian virtual society & everyone would be equal .. as it should be .. Jeanne Ah. Now what about all those hungry people around the world who are unable to contribute? You've shot yourself in the foot there, Jeanne SL costs every user money, unless they use someone else's computer, that is. There are people who are unable to spend money to use SL - can't afford a computer at all. Your reasoning in an earlier post is, because there are hungry people, nobody should spend any money at all to use SL (in mere entertainment), because it's "sick" - no internet connection, not even a computer. Perhaps you'd like to decide what your arguments really are?

JeanneAnne wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: JeanneAnne wrote: once i had "land" offered to me for free .. i was kinda naive .. not too sure how tier worked .. so @ 1st the idea of free land sounded appealing .. but then i was informed or realized somehow that i would have to pay LL "tier" on "my" land .. whats w/ this? i thot .. is tier like property tax you pay to the government then? but property taxes are less than the value of the property & tier is much more than the value of the property .. so how can you say that you "own" virtual land when you constantly must pay the real owner for it ?? renting server space for coded cartoons is very much an affluent 1st world phenomonon .. only ppl rich by world standards could even contemplate paying for pixels .. with so much poverty in the world is it even ethical to pay for pixels? thats a question ppl who pay for the privilege of pretending to "own" someting that isnt even real will have to ask themselves sometimes i expect to wake up & find that overnite people will have collectively had a fog lifted from over their brains .. & they will feel silly & sheepish for having taken a cartoon world so seriously that theyve been paying real money for ther colorful illusions .. if this ever happens sl dies .. so i hope it doesnt happen .. but i really hav2 wonder what ppl are thinking when they pay that tier Jeanne You seem to forget that different people use SL in different ways. Your way is fine for you but others prefer different ways. For some people, 'owning' land for various reasons is the prefered way, and the monthly cost of it is very cheap. It's extremely cheap entertainment. You've no need to worry that the fog you mentioned will lift. It won't - because it doesn't exist. You seem to imagine that you are smarter or cleverer than those who actually put money into SL, but you're not. Just like you, everyone who puts money in is well aware that it isn't actually necessary, but they do it because they want to - because it's extremely cheap for their own particular SL entertainment. Using SL and never putting money in isn't smart or clever. It's merely a choice that everyone knows. of course different ppl use sl in different ways .. thats 1uv the virtues of the game .. but whether you use it for music or still fotography or video or building or sailing or for virtual combat or for romance or kinky pixel slex or games or historical / fantasy RP or for whatever .. theres no need to pay for any of it when you say that "the monthly cost of (sl) is very cheap" you sound like Romney saying that middle class income begins @ $200K per year .. you sound very elitist ... when millions of Americans go hungry & billions do around the world .. paying anything for cartoon entertainment doesnt seem so cheap im not worried about the collective fog of self-delusionment lifting from around the brains of elitist ricos .. not because it doesnt exist but because its so deeply ingrained in the minds of the likes of you .. paying for pretty cartoons when you dont hav2 isnt smart but it must be very ego gratifying to the narcissistic personality ... you dont pay because you have to .. but because you can .. mwwah !! wallowing in privilege so you can convince yourself that you deserve the privileges you enjoy .. & boasting about how cheap it is for you .. while many go hungry .. maybe someday youll realize how sick this all is Jeanne Are you suggesting that anything we spend on entertainment shouldn't be spent because others are unable to do it? If you are, I don't think you'll anyone agreeing with you - not even those who can't do it. Tell me, do you ever eat in a restaurant or cafe? You could spend less and eat at home. Do you ever buy a drink for pleasure? You could drink water and save the money. Do you ever have an evening out? You could stay home and spend nothing. Does your internet useage cost you you anything? Broadband? The computer? And does it entertain you? Do you spend anything on entertainment at all? Going out? TV? You do? Why, when so many people around the world go hungry? No, Jeanne, your argument is nonsense and you yourself are guilty of what you accused others of. But just for your interest, Apart from the first few days, I've 'owned' land in SL and, by 'owning' it, I've made a great many thousands of US$ here. So I'm not exactly filled with the self-delusion you talked about. That doesn't exist in anyone, let alone me. As you said, maybe someday I'll realise how sick this is. Perhaps you would be good enough to teach me - after you've stopped paying for any form of entertainment yourself, which, according to you, is sick because there are many hungry people in the world.

Someone said that you claimed to have hacked Steam and played their games. If what that sounds like is true, you stole from Steam, and that's a crime.

Like others:- I've never watched a single episode of Grey's Anatomy. The single episode I didn't watch was ... j/k. I've never watched it. I've never done the marriage ceremony is SL. I think they're silly, but that's just me. I was briefly partnered though. And I've never had a tattoo. I've never had sales in my SL store. They seem unfiar to earlier customers. I've never gone skinny-dipping in public - dammit!

The 2-tier system of tier is an interesting one but I'd imagine that it could be quite problematic with people breaking the rules too much and people owning different 'types' of land. The idea of reducing tier has been dicussed at LL - and rejected at that time. Jack favoured it but it was rejected. I favour the idea of much smaller jumps in tier, which would encourage people to get that extra bit - and keep on getting extra bits. Other than sheer money-making (nothing wrong with that), I don't see any reason to have such big jumps in tier, and I see what I believe are very good reasons not to have them, including that I don't think it would lose money for LL, except maybe in the very short term.

JeanneAnne wrote: once i had "land" offered to me for free .. i was kinda naive .. not too sure how tier worked .. so @ 1st the idea of free land sounded appealing .. but then i was informed or realized somehow that i would have to pay LL "tier" on "my" land .. whats w/ this? i thot .. is tier like property tax you pay to the government then? but property taxes are less than the value of the property & tier is much more than the value of the property .. so how can you say that you "own" virtual land when you constantly must pay the real owner for it ?? renting server space for coded cartoons is very much an affluent 1st world phenomonon .. only ppl rich by world standards could even contemplate paying for pixels .. with so much poverty in the world is it even ethical to pay for pixels? thats a question ppl who pay for the privilege of pretending to "own" someting that isnt even real will have to ask themselves sometimes i expect to wake up & find that overnite people will have collectively had a fog lifted from over their brains .. & they will feel silly & sheepish for having taken a cartoon world so seriously that theyve been paying real money for ther colorful illusions .. if this ever happens sl dies .. so i hope it doesnt happen .. but i really hav2 wonder what ppl are thinking when they pay that tier Jeanne You seem to forget that different people use SL in different ways. Your way is fine for you but others prefer different ways. For some people, 'owning' land for various reasons is the prefered way, and the monthly cost of it is very cheap. It's extremely cheap entertainment. You've no need to worry that the fog you mentioned will lift. It won't - because it doesn't exist. You seem to imagine that you are smarter or cleverer than those who actually put money into SL, but you're not. Just like you, everyone who puts money in is well aware that it isn't actually necessary, but they do it because they want to - because it's extremely cheap for their own particular SL entertainment. Using SL and never putting money in isn't smart or clever. It's merely a choice that everyone knows.

Freya Mokusei wrote: Pick one of:- Would you try this argument when trying to buy a McDonalds? How about when trying to buy a car? Do you think a salesman would listen to "But the economy is hard" as justification for him recieving a smaller commission? Yes if it meant the difference between a sale and no sale. Some commission is better than no commission

GothGirl Demonia wrote: Yes I support hacking. [...] Keep in mind that hacking in my eyes is a skill, not a crime. Actually, hacking requires knowledge, not skill. Hacking is often a crime. Someone quoted you as claiming to have hacked Steam. That's a crime. Anyone who supports hacking, other than for legitimate purposes such as finding hacks for owners, is wrong in their head - present company included.

That's interesting Innula. It may well be that the pieces of furniture that did work had Sit Targets in them. The first customer also bought some dining chairs from me. We could sit on those but they do have Sit Targets. If I relent and try to help that second customer, I'll try that solution. ETA: I relented. I tested the sit target solution and it worked! She can now use the bed in her home - inside a ball in the sky, apprently TY Innula!

Thank you Theresa and Dora. I don't think it's a bounding box problem because, in the first case, we could all sit on other things inside the house. We also had the same problem when the bed was rezzed outside on the beach.

Has anyone come across this:- I sell sex beds among other furniture. A few weeks ago I had a customer with this problem... The bed she bought from my store wouldn't operate for her at all. The beds don't use poseballs. Instead the av sits on the bed and is automatically in whatever animation is selected at the time. But, for this customer, she could only get the "no room to sit" message and couldn't even sit on the bed no matter where on the bed she clicked to sit. So I did tests with her. To make sure that the bed she had should actually work (she bought a copy of the display bed), she sent it to me. I rezzed it and it worked fine. So I brought her over, sold her the bed to make sure she got that working bed (for 0L, of course), she rezzed it again at my place and it worked fine. So she definitely had a bed that worked fine. We went to her place, she rezzed it, and neither of us could even sit on it - same message no matter where on the bed we tried to sit. I rezzed a chair with an auto-anim in it, and that worked fine for both of us. It also confirmed that running scripts was allowed and that the bed should have worked. She got the sim owner who restarted the sim, but it changed nothing. The two of them took the bed to another of the sim-owner's sims, rezzed it, and it worked fine, but it simply wouldn't work in the sim where the customer's home is. She said that she'd had the same problem with other furniture from another seller. I sorted the customer out with an identical looking bed that uses poseballs, and that was ok. I put it down to an oddity that I'll probably never understand, but 2 days ago I got another customer with the same "no room to sit" problem - different bed but the same no-balls system. With this one, we did the test at my place so, again, the bed was fine. We went to her place but she'd taken to being rude every time she said anything and I left without sorting it out. Other people buy the beds and use them without the problem, but it no longer seems to be just a one-off occurence. The only thing that comes to mind is that different sims are running different sim server code but I can't imagine why that would cause the problem. Has anyone any ideas? I was posting this in the Scripting forum but I realised that it can't be a script problem. The system decision to send the "no room to sit" message occurs before the no-balls animation script becomes aware of the av. In fact the script only becomes aware of the av when the av becomes linked to the bed.

The commissions that LL charge on marketplace sales is not a sales tax. If it were, they would need to also charge it on inworld sales. Inworld, LL charges a fee for the use of virtual land. Some people pay that fee and use the land to sell things. In the marketplace, LL could have used the same model - charge people to use the advertising space - but they chose to charge a fee on sales instead, which is both better for the advertiser, because s/he only pays if sales are made, and better for LL, because they get more people advertising there. Both charges are fees or commissions. neither are taxes. (Technically, the money charged on marketplace sales can be called a commission or a fee, but the money paid for the use of virtual land is a fee and not a commission.) Charging a fee on successes (e.g. sales and clickthroughs) is common. Do any search in Google (and other search engines), and you'll see advertisements on the results pages. Those advertisers only pay Google when someone clicks on their ads. If nobody clicks, nothing is paid. That's the equivalent of the marketplace fees/commissions. On the other hand, go to may websites, and you'll see ads on the pages. Many of those advertisers pay for the advertising space on those sites, regardless of whether or not anyone actually clicks on the ads. That's the equivalent of paying a fee to LL for the use of virtual land. It's paying for space, like LL do inworld. So there is no dishonesty in LL calling the marketplace payments 'commissions'. That's exactly what they are.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: And will you lot stop talking about astronomy please. All that discusssion is actually tempting me to take it up! ... bats her eyelashes and enjoys the idea that she can still play the temptress. You don't need to talk about astronomy to be a temptress, Madelaine. Your scientific discussions (and your batting eyelids) are tempting enough

Dillon Levenque wrote: Phil Deakins wrote: And will you lot stop talking about astronomy please. All that discusssion is actually tempting me to take it up! pssst. Hey, buddy. Wanna buy a telescope? That was no doubt just humour but I'm sitting here giving it some significant consideration, dammit!

Madelaine McMasters wrote: I didn't say you were arguing for an intelligent creator, just that I argue against it. As far as I can see, we're in general agreement. You favor a particular cosmology, I'm ignorant enough of all the details that I have to admit to preferring the explanations that seem weirdest, but with no expectation they're right. I can't tell if I'm open-minded, or gullible ;-) That's good to know, Madelaine - that we are in general agreement. Like you, I am ingnorant enough of all the deatils but, unlike you, I am far more ignorant of all the details. Fortunately, we don't need to know all the details to realise that existance must either have always been there, which can't be true, or it came into being (was created). So, changing the sub-subject a little - just to make a comment... Although I do like Brian Greene, I seriously dislike string theory, which he adheres to. Not because I have other beliefs, but because it's just so convoluted (contrived). I don't like brane theory either, or the hologram idea, or the 'many worlds' nonsense. The more I read, the more it seems to me that these mathematical physicists just come up with mathematical models that might just fit the bill. Physics has largely become merely mathematical excercises to my way of thinking. I liked Einstein's ideas though - classical physics. I'd like a particle to be a discreet lump of something - a particle. I don't think it is but I'd like it if it was. And will you lot stop talking about astronomy please. All that discusssion is actually tempting me to take it up!

Ceka Cianci wrote: if the universe is expanding it has to be expanding in something... May I just pop in here and make a comment? Good The universe isn't expanding into something - as far as is known. Outside the universe is that nothingness that we can't visualise. We can conceive of it but, since it is absolutely nothing, we can't realistically visualise it. Beyond the limits of space (beyond the universe) is what I like to think of as 'singularity'. So, wherever on the universe's boundary you step out, if that were possible, you'd end up at the same point (except that, since it is nothingness, there is no point to end up at) and, if you reversed the step and stepped back in, you'd be anywhere on the boundary of the universe - maybe at the opposite side. Which brings up another point. Someone asked where all these other universes are, if they exist at all. My answer is that they are in nothingness, just like this universe is. So they are nowhere in relation to this universe, so they can't interfere with each other and, therefore, there is no restriction on their sizes. ETA: Brane theory, which is only a mathematical model, suggests that each universe is on a brane - a sort of plane - which could collide with each other. It's suggested mathematically that gravity could leak between branes and, therefore, we in this universe could possibly probe into another universe.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: If the "always there" idea doesn't hold any water, then the universe simply appeared from nowhere/nothing. While I'm happy to call that a creation, it eliminates the creator.. Good. I call it a creation too And in that it is a creation, it must have a creator - not necessarily an intelligent one but something (or some intelligence) caused the creation to happen - a creator. You didn't provide any alternative ways that existance might have come into being. You said you could think of many of them. Sure, I could propose that I'm imagining all this, making you the creation of my mind. That sounded pretty stupid when my philosophy professor proposed it to me 25 years ago, and I countered that if I was imagining it all, and I had free will, I'd imagine him proposing a better explanation for his own existence. I'm sure he'd heard such retorts before. I could imagine that the laws of physics change over time in a way we can't detect. I bolded the important words in that theory, as they can be grafted on to the tail end of any silly theory, rendering it unassailable and potentially pointless. This is an accusation the string theorists face. While I can imagine literally endless explanations for all we see, just like people have done for thousands of years, I wouldn't believe a single one of them. Figuring this out will be a cooperatve venture. No one of us has the wherewithall to collect the needed evidence to reject the theories we're advancing. And so, like most of humanity, I must have faith in something outside of myself. But unlike most of humanity, I won't extend my faith outside humanity. Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you wrote that you can imagine many ways by which existance came into being. I can only think of one - that it was created. No matter. Excuse the purple, Phil, it's my favorite color today ;-) I like magenta (it's not purple and I sometimes colour my posts too.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: What you will see me argue is that I see no evidence that a creator is taking an active role in daily life, nor that all the intricacies of existence were mapped out by a grand planner. Maybe someday an experiment will show otherwise, but until then, I think it's more likely that people are praying to their imaginations because the "side effects" of that particular irrationality have proved evolutionarily advantageous. You haven't seen me argue that either. I've never mentioned or even hinted at an intelligent creator, and yet we seem opposed in this discussion Things like the cosmic microwave background do point towards the Big Bang, but have nothing to say about time before that point. If we are confined to witnessing only four of a potential ten or eleven dimensions, we may never know what the heck is going on. If the "always there" idea doesn't hold any water, then the universe simply appeared from nowhere/nothing. While I'm happy to call that a creation, it eliminates the creator. That's okay by me, as is the "always there" idea. That all falls into the vast pool of "things I don't know".

I think that the preference for "came into being" is because the word 'created' feels to imply an intelligence. It doesn't imply it but it feels like it does The 'bouncing' universe idea isn't new, although the work written about in that article sounds newer. There's no date on it. Even so, for the universe to 'bounce' requires existance so, although it is right in keeping with the topic of the thread, I still come back to the fact that a bouncing universe requires the existance of 'stuff', and that requires a creation (a bringing into being).

Madelaine McMasters wrote: While it may be that we ultimately can't prove the presence or absence of creation, science doesn't really care, does it? It simply seeks to find the truth, as revealed by nature. Science is done by people who may care about such things, but the overall messy process seems to be able to make progress even so. No, science doesn't care about how existance came into being, because science knows that it'll never find out. Science can only deal with existance. One might make a case for people having an interest in refuting creators that take an active role in daily human life, and can therefore be used as instruments of coercion (my God is the one true God, so I can rightfully take your stuff), but I can't see a reason for people to expend tremendous energy railing against the idea that our universe might have been "created" as a random result of physical laws we've not yet understood. And yet, when I said that the universe must have been created by someone or something, you argued against it Whether something always existed or simply popped out of nowhere is the sort of philosophical question best left to philosophers. I don't see a way to use the term "creator" without implying more than the evidence suggests... so far. It's not that I prefer a "creator" not to be the case, I think it's that most people prefer that "creator" be the case. I've seen more evidence to explain the latter than the former. But the evidence literally suggests that the universe was created. The fact that the universe exists is all the evidence necessary. The only alternative is the 'always there' idea, which doesn't hold any water. I think that most scientists prefer an 'intelligent creator' not to be the case. You didn't provide any alternative ways that existance might have come into being. You said you could think of many of them.

Nyll Bergbahn wrote: Actually, Roger Penrose said that Phil and I just quoted it. As I said, Stephen Hawking also said it - in his book, "A Brief History Of Time". I don't see any disagreement between us. You like to think that the universe started with a quantum speck of vacuum, which is fine with me. You also said that that speck was created, which is also fine with me. None of us can discuss how that speck came into being (how it was created), but we agree that it did. So we are in agreement.

You inadvertantly highlighted the main reason why I'm not drawn to putting time and money into astronomy. That is, with relatively low cost equipment (I don't mean cheap), there's not a lot to see and, once you've seen them all, then what? - other than spending more money on better equipment. I prefer to read, so I buy books. Madelaine mentioned Brian Greene. I haven't read the book she mentioned but I have his follow-up book - "The Fabric Of The Cosmos". I found a real gem (for me) in that one, which, to me, is much better than seeing Saturn's rings, for instance. He said that everything, including you and me, is in motion at the speed of light. The speed I travel through space, plus the speed of my personal time, adds up to the speed of light. A real gem. So, the quicker I move through space, the slower my time clock ticks, and vice versa. It really helps me to get a grasp of personal time. A conclusion I drew from it is that, from a photon of light's point of view, there is no time, and it is simultaneously everywhere it will ever be. I like that

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Well, we can't prove negatives, so I don't try. I can actually imagine endless alternative ways we might have come into existence, but the religious (and perhaps the string/brane/multiverse theorists ;-) are so good at it that I feel woefully outclassed. And just because a question goes around begging doesn't mean I'm gonna make up an answer for it. I have no problem with admitting I don't know. And this has seemed to be the dividing line between me and my faithful friends. They need to know "why" right now. I can wait. Nothing can be proved either way, of course, but I'd be interested to hear some of your alternative ways that existance might have come to happen - alternatives to that it was created, that is. I can only imagine one alternative - that it was always there - but I can't believe that because of the question, "How come?" I suspect that the reluctance among many to acknowledge that the universe might have a creator is simply that they prefer it not to be the case.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: The "creation" argument is really looking for a sentient creator, possibily one that looks after us. I understand the comfort that ideology can bring to some, but it brings none to me, as I like to poke and prod and ponder and I see no evidence to support that ideology. If you allow for the possibility that the dimensions of space and time we observe spring from some larger dimensional space we can't probe, then we're sorta stuck in a state of perpetual wonderment. Could it get any better than that?! ;-) At the same time, you see no evidence against that ideoligy. What you also don't see is any alternative way that existance came to exist. (Existance includes such things as our universe springing from an existing multiverse, and some existing "larger dimensional space") I see no alternative to existance having beed created. Even the 'always there' idea begs the question, "How come?", which in turn leads to the conclusion that it was created and not always there. I've been careful not to suggest a sentient creator, to the extent of writing "someone or something" and such.