Jump to content

Helium Loon

Resident
  • Posts

    309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Helium Loon

  1. Short of getting RL contact information and/or webcam with them, you can't. Welcome to the flip-side of the problems many men deal with in SL.....and it's FAR more common for men to play women than the other way around.......
  2. Phil Deakins wrote: I'm sorry but the "all possible realities / many worlds" idea is sheer nonsense, so it's pointless discussing anything about it. It's the same as saying that everything we can imagine, and everything we can't imagine, actually exists, and that ends all discussions on the topic, because whatever is suggested is true, however far fetched and unrealistic it is. All you have to do is imagine something, and you're right - somewhere, in some universe, which, of course, definitely affects this universe, and how it came into being, simply because it's a possible reality. It's just nonsense. Sorry, but simple dismissal isn't a valid argument. So let's demonstrate some logic that satisfies it. Is this universe infinite? Based on current measurements, no. It has an expanding edge. What is it expaning out into? Nothingness? But the slowing of the expansion rate indicates either resistance (which would indicate there IS something beyond that edge, retarding it's expansion) or loss of energy in the closed system of this universe.....but where is it escaping to? Based on all observable evidence, thermodynamics holds true for all closed systems. By your requirements, our universe is definitely a closed system. However, at time t=0, a very large amount of energy suddenly appears. Where did it come from. Even if we decide it's an endlessly cyclical phenomenon (i.e. the big-bang/big-crunch cycles), the energy either comes from a complete 'nothingness' or NULL, if you must, at a time where t < 0, or it comes from outside the system, which means there are other universes.....or the laws of thermodynamics are violated (specifically, the First and Second laws, look them up.) THEREFORE, either 'something' can spontaneously arise from 'nothingness/null', violating causality......OR.....there exists something outside our universe. Pick one, or violate the laws of thermodynamics. You are stuck in linear time and 4 dimensions, and simply dismiss any concept which goes against your beliefs. Provide some actual logical proofs (based on actual scientific laws and theories) and we can continue.....
  3. Ceka Cianci wrote: not every yellow son.. only when conditions are perfect and the things are there will it happen again.. we don't know how rare or how common it really is.. In a truly infinite (aleph-null or greater infinity here) universe/multiverse, there would be an infinite number of such yellow suns with sufficient conditions to support the development of complex life. If we are only referring to our universe, which is questionably finite, then that number would rapidly decrease to near zero. Trans-finite mathematics are such fun. Almost as much fun as non-euclidean geometry...... Time to work out some trans-finite non-euclidean equations and drive myself psychotic......
  4. Phil Deakins wrote: But I do limit it to someone or saomething (an event is a something). You've adjusted what I wrote too far the other way This is where the problem is. Once you assume true non-existence of the universe/multiverse, you've stepped outside of natural laws. Things such as casuality and linear time (which has already be shown not to be) both cease to be applicable. In other words, once you step outside of any given 'universe,' cause no longer has to preceed effect. And thus 'nothingness' can spontaneously create 'something' with no outside cause. It can simply happen. This was a part of my earlier statements on all possible realities existing, though I didn't go into this particular detail enough.......without our basic rules of reality (which are, inherent to a given universe, and can vary) universes pop into and out of existence constantly. There is no need for ANYTHING to 'cause' it to happen, since causality itself is a function of uni-directional time (which is not necessarily consistent from universe to universe, or even applicable.) In other words, we can say "There might be a God", but we can't use our universe/reality as proof of it, since while it is required that our universe exist for there to be 'our God' existing, it isn't sufficient to prove his existence. (edit for typo/clarification)
  5. Infinite possibilities would encompass a great deal more than people seem to be able to comprehend. It would indicate there could be multiple realities (and by definition, an infinite amount.) This gets into the whole question of ordinal and cardinal infinities....but I won't get into that here. Check out the book "Infinity and the Mind" by Rudy Rucker, if you get the chance. It'll explain it better and more completely..... But, differing realities (of infinite variation) would have different physical laws, rules, and the very nature of them could be wildly contrrary to our own accepted reality. And, since math is based on logic and observation (much like science), the very numbers which would work in one universe would not work in another. And thus all our fancy fractals, and or 'order or chaos' concepts break apart. As an example, imagine a universe almost exactly like ours, but with only one difference. Entropy is reversed. Things tend to become more ordered naturally in this universe. Can you see just how significant a small change in one rule can violently destroy all the others? Could life (as we understand it) even exist in such a universe? If the variation is truly infinite, there would exist such a universe. There would also exist all possible timelines (n-dimensional time, once again) for every single one of these universes. So all possible outcomes for all possible 'decisions/choices' do, will, and have occured. So when we talk about multiverse theory, realize that many such universes might exist.....some would be completely static, bereft of anything other than existence......some would be teeming with things and events we cannot even imagine or predict. A infintesimal number of them might be comprehensible to us as 'universes' to us. Now, as for the fractal mathematics.....remember, all mathematical equations are based off of observations in the real world. Of course, we see fractal patterns throughout nature, that's where we derived the equations from! But, as with most of our equations, they only show the part of the picture we can detect SO FAR. So chaos theory equations, non-repeating decimals, irrational numbers, and much more begin to come into play too. Take a circle, measure the circumfrance and divide that by the diameter......such a simple ratio, but we all know it has a non-repeating decimal value.....so what's the last digit? Maybe one day we WILL find the pattern, but until then, we don't know. Same with the concept of using fractals as a model for too many things.....yes, if you look long enough, you'll find any pattern you are looking for SOMEWHERE in where you are looking. But that's correlation, not causation.....
  6. Just had to chime in here on a couple of things..... Someone mentioned 'infinity'.....but failed to specifiy which kind of infinity, ordinal or cardinal..... A few mentioned singularities. However, singularities are simply a mathematical expression of Einstein's equations (which are the only reason black holes are theorized to exist. While we have astronomical evidence of super-dense gravitational objects, that does not confirm the existence of black holes. But, even assuming that black holes DO exist, the mathematics, as in so many cases, are descriptions of projected observations.....the reality is that there are always other factors, complexities, and rules in play that turn our simple equations into much MUCH more complex ones. In other words, a 'singularity' is an impossible object. By definition, it would possess zero volume, yet a positive mass, and infinite density. If you even work out the issues mathematically (as best as our real ordered field of numbers allows) you quickly find that such an object is paradoxical at the very least. Which, scientifically speaking, means it almost certainly has other undetermined factors or complexities in play, which prevent such paradoxical states. Mass may be being shunted into a subspace, a quantum disjunction, or any number of other possibilities (all completely theoretical, due to our inability to test, and thus, not truly scientific.) If any of these are the case, then the object does NOT have a zero volume, but it's presentation in 3 dimensional space might be (which is why Einstein's theories may not be showing it, as they are strictly based in 2 dimensional analysis (specifically, field theory.) Now, as for the metaphysical questions.....intelligent design? A god/gods? Untestable. And the argument about 'then what created them?' falls apart due to insufficient understanding of n-dimensional time, and the possibility of loops that could circumnavigate the entirey of n-dimensional time (thus being constant throughout time, and having no end or beginning.) N-Dimensional time conveniently avoids the problems of paradox as well as quickly providing useful concepts such as conservation of time and dimensions (i.e., any timestreams/dimensions which are/become identical at any given point will collapse back into a single timestream/dimension). Assuming time is linear, unidirectional and finite is a simplification, which has been shown to have considerable numbers of exceptions. (ETA) Also, someone mentioned that energy is neither created nor destroyed. Not entirely true. It depends on the closed/open nature of whatever 'system' you are observing (these are the tenents of Thermodynamics), and based on quantum dynamics, energy is not only created AND destroyed, but it frequently happens and unhappens constantly at a very high rate of speed...... Now that that's out of my system.....I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe with his noodly appendages. Just as valid and as testable/unprovable as ANY other creation belief......
  7. I would say instead that SL is JUST AS populated with wierdos as RL. It's just that they don't bother to hide it as much in SL. Which in some ways is an advantage, as you are more likely to know someone isn't compatible with you much earlier..... If you want to look for local people for potential dating in RL while in SL, go for it. But as with any online-to-offline situation, be careful and safe. I met my current RL fiance (we've been together in RL now for 4 years) online, and she wasn't local then. So not only CAN it happen, it happens a lot more often than people think. And like most things in life, the 'horror stories' you hear about are 48% exaggeration,47% urban legend, and 5% truth.
  8. Yes. While TargetOmega is client-side animation of the prim, that doesn't mean the server doesn't know about it. It's just that the object itself is not actually rotating on the server. This means that while ALL the clients that can see the object will see it spin, they will not be in sync.
  9. Which viewer are you using, and specifically, which build of it? The Shining-Fixes build from a few weeks ago had fixes for this. I don't know if those have filtered out into the main viewer, but I know they were included in several other viewers already. Firestorm (which I use) has them included in the 3.3 build.
  10. We need more information from you if we are going to help. Please reply with: 1) Laptop/computer model (including OS, CPU, Memory, and Graphics Card.) 2) What happens when you double click the icon? Do you get a window? Do you get a crash report? We need to know what you mean by 'doesn't run'.... 3) Post the last 20-30 lines of the log flie that Nata directed you to look at.
  11. Your posted code clearly shows the rez target as llGetPos() + <0,-12,-2> which has a distance from the rezzer of |<0,12,2>| or ~12.17m.....which is more than 10m.
  12. http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlRezObject#Notes llRezObject() can only rez objects at a maximum distance (within some minor variation, see the notes linked above) of 10 meters. You are trying to rez the object further away than that, so it fails silently.
  13. Ouch..... 9:00pm I could have managed.....9:00am I'm at work.....can't be in-world.
  14. Sassy, there's a ')' on the end of his link.....delete that from the url, and you should get the right page. I downloaded the client, but won't be able to try it unitl this evening (when I get home from work).... ETA: Just as easy to post the corrected link here: Correct link to shining-fixes build 248340
  15. Madelaine McMasters wrote: I agree about the ambivalence of units, which is why I described the architecture as a ratio to my height. SL's architecture is simply proportionally much larger than RL architecture. Nevertheless, we seem to enjoy it just fine. I just popped in world to probe my avatar bounding box with a tiny sphere. I get the impression it's actually a bounding ovoid. I moved the sphere near my head until it started to push me, then lowered it towards the ground. It continue to push me until around pelvis height, then stopped. At ground level I moved the sphere towards me again until it pushed, then raised it. Again, it continued to push me until reaching pelvis height. The top of the ovoid was about at the top of my head, well under 2.95meters. So Abigail's claim that the box started scaling in 2005 seems true. Making the box an ovoid also makes sense as that maps better to the head, though it's a bit more difficult computationally. That actually isn't surprising it's an ovoid shape....specifically, probably a scaled sphere......which is actually computationally easier than a box shape to calculate intersection tests with (which is what the physics engine has to do), since it can simply be represented as a set of radii and a central point. And ray-sphere and object-sphere intersection tests are highly optimized and computationally much simpler than just about any other shape. And while the bounding box scales to the 'height' of the avatar (based on the shape worn) to some degree, it doesn't handle a lot of deformations done with odd shapes (llike Tinys) so the actual max and min size of the bounding shape's extents is pretty fixed. Even designing architecturally for the 80% median range sizes, means scale is still skewed a LOT.......human height ranges for that 80% median scale only cover a range of about 18 inches (5 foot 6 inches, +/- 9 inches) but in SL that range goes a LOT further. The median height in SL runs at 2.1 meters, or around 6 foot 11 inches, with a variance (at 80% median range) of +/- 68cm, or about 27 inches! That's TRIPLE the potential difference compared to reality. That means scaling up of architectural details is correspondingly larger. Furthermore, as has been mentioned already, camera position is offset above the avatar....resulting in even MORE height adjustment for architecture, since we have to accomodate the camera position as well. Fortunately, if you are already scaling based on the avatar size ranges, you are pretty safe, except for the very tallest avatars. The very smallest avatars (not counting tinys) will seem to be dwarfed by comparison to the architecture, though.
  16. Charlar, I tried to download the viewer-development-shining-fixes build to see if the issue persists in it.....but the last good build (284404) under cygwin gets an access denied XML page for me. But I can download the mac and linux clients for that build without problem. Current bulid failed for cygwin, so can't try to DL that one. Unfortunately, I'm a windows user, so the mac & linux builds won't help.
  17. There are two major things to remember here.... First, since the collision model (aka, bounding box), does not animate. It does not bend or deform. So in order for architecture to allow for those avatars which are set at maximum height (2.95 meters!), the doorway HAS to be big enough for that bounding volume to pass through. While those who set their height that large are relatively few, there is the potential, and if the doorway is NOT large enough, it becomes a blockage to them. The bounding box can't 'stoop down' or 'crawl' through a doorway that is too short/narrow. So, in addition to the cam problem, there is an accessibility problem. Thus if the doors are scaled up, the floors themselves have to scale up as well. Which means windows and most everything has to scale up proportionately. Second, in a virtual space, units are just that. Units. They are arbitrary. In SL, we use meters, and we assume they correspond with RL meters. But they could just as easily be inches, angstroms, furlongs.......anything. Everything is relative to the base units chosen. In the real world, we have concrete points of reference that we use to define our systems of measurement (aka, units). We agree with others to use them for our calculations and measurements, so that we can agree on quantities and dimensions. But in a virtual world, there IS no concrete point of reference, only numbers. So, everything is relative to whatever units they chose to use. So if your avatar is 2.3 meters tall in SL, that's fine. Those meters may not be the same as RL meters. We build and design based on that, but it would be more appropriate to measure things based on a standard default avatar size......so if the average avatar was 2.3 former meters in height, They would now be 1 'height unit' tall. And a standard cube would rez at 0.21739 'height units' tall. It's all relative.
  18. Just verified in-world with others who are using other viewers (one of which was on a new dev build (Second Life 3.2.8 (248008)), so the mesh render code should be up-to-date) and they all saw the issue. While this is a rather specialized case (mesh with mulitple materials, some faces set with transparency) it isn't THAT unusal......I'm thinking this is buggy behavior. It also masked-out hovertexts, even the name/displayname/viewer blocks, water, and anything with a non-zero transparency setting.
  19. Okay. I updated my drivers.....even went up to the current beta geforce drivers (290.53) I'm still seeing the issue in firestorm-release. Checked my other machine (with the 560GT Ti), same thing. I should probably note something. The mesh with transparency that is demonstrating the issue is an rigged avatar attachment, and has different materials (some of which are transparent, some aren't) and that's what's creating the issue. The mesh has three 'layers' that are turned on and off via script by changing the tranparency of two of the layers (either both 100% transparent, or one or the other 100% transparent.) I'm including a pic to show it: (The red object in front of the mesh figure is actually a spherical red glass xmas ornament.....) I'll have to try the current LL viewer to see if it also happens there, or if it's just Firestorm.
  20. That is very possible. I had to back up to a pretty old driver to avoid a nasty bug on this older machine......OpenGL kept crashing with the newer drivers at the time. I'll update again and see if it's improved any......the card is a 7950 GTKO, so while performance isn't bad, it had some issues with the newer drivers. If that doesn't help, I may have to upgrade my card......if I can afford to. (my other comp has a 560 GT Ti......and runs much more current drivers. I'll see if it happens on that machine too, and will report back here.
  21. *laughs* Sorry, Chosen.....I know that particular terminology is incorrect in reference to 2D graphics and 3D meshes.....I was referring (as I think you know) to the Alpha Masks. But you are correct.....in this forum, considering how layer, channel, and mask are all applicable, I should be more careful to refer to the right one.
  22. No. Take a normal prim, set it to 100% transparent. Take another prim, make it 50% transparent. Put the first in front of part of the second. You'll see right though the 100%, and see the 50% just fine. Now, take a mesh, set it to 100% transparent, and move it in front of the 50% transparent prim. It will completely 'cut away' the 50% transparent prim as if it weren't there. Those areas not viewed 'through' the 100% transparent mesh will look normal (i.e., a 50% transparent prim) but the part viewed through it will simply vanish. That's invisiprim behavior......invisiprims were a special texture, applied to regular prims, to 'cut away' the avatar mesh and hide it (since we didn't have alpha layers back then.) They caused a lot of visual problems when they were used too much, or made larger than needed. Seeing this behavior on a mesh set to 100% transparent seems both odd and unintended.
  23. Wearing a mesh item with 100% transparency (to hide it at times) results in the hidden mesh acting like an invisiprim, causing all non-opaque prims and meshes behind it to effectively dissappear.... Is this a known issue? Or expected behavior (I hope not!) I searched through the JIRA's a bit, but couldn't find anything that matched.
  24. You're absolutely right....I forgot to change that line in my copypasta from his original posted script. That'll teach me to edit scripts here in the forums that late at night!
  25. You need a loop, like the one in the giveContents() function, inside your touch_start() event, inside the if statement. I don't believe llRemoveInventory() can remove items from an agent's inventory, only from the prim it resides in. And since the test in your if block only fires if the number of elements is GREATER than (not 'greater than or equal to'), it won't even try when the number of items is one or zero. Something more like: list inventory;giveContents(){ integer num = llGetInventoryNumber(INVENTORY_ALL); string script = llGetScriptName(); integer i = 0; inventory = []; for(; i < num; ++i) { string name = llGetInventoryName(INVENTORY_ALL, i); if(name != script) { if(llGetInventoryPermMask(name, MASK_OWNER) & PERM_COPY) { inventory += [name]; } } } if(llGetListLength(inventory) > 0) { llGiveInventoryList(llDetectedKey(0), "Contents", inventory); }} default{ touch_start(integer n) { giveContents(); integer i; integer numInList = llGetListLength(inventory); if(numInList > 0) { for(i=0; i < numInList; ++i) { llRemoveInventory((string)inventory); } llOwnerSay("CLEARED!"); } else { llOwnerSay("No items to clear!"); } }} Initializing your list with [""] actually put an entry into it. To clear a list, set it to [], as I showed above. This will allow you to compare lengths easier.
×
×
  • Create New...