Anaiya Arnold

This all sounds very exciting and much, much bigger than mesh. The pathfinding is something I've been vaguely keeping an eye on since it was first vaguely and tantalizingly mentioned (I believe by Rodvik) some time ago. I can't wait to see it in action, have a play around (obviously) and see the wonderful things I expect will be created by our talented creator community.

All the suggestions given above will work just fine. However if you really want to get fancy, you can try to follow this tutorial and you'll have moving waves (some upload costs will be involved though). If you want the water to appear to ripple when someone mouses over it (this requires the observer haveV2's media on a prim active to be able to see the effect) this script from the same site might be helpful to you.

The item is set to media? Do all the observers who have reported back here have their media settings the same? I don't know specifically about the effect described, but I know some effects that are impossible without media can be done using media. I know there is a possible water effect that makes water appear to ripple when you mouse over it that relies on media for instance. If Chelsea has media on in her settings and everyone reporting back that they do not see the same effect do not, this would explain why only Chelsea is seeing what she is describing but others are not seeing it, and would also indicate that whatever is creating the effect involves media.

The latest craze is to make your own and saturate the market.

Knowl Paine wrote: Having products shown in Wishlist, could be a listing enhancement. Merchants could choose to allow a product they sell to be shown in Wishlist. The selected product (for a flat fee) would show in any and all Residents who add that product to their wishlist. If a Resident tries to add a Merchant's item to his or her Resident's wishlist, and the Merchant did not select this enhancement, the Resident would be prompted by a window asking if he or she would like to send an automated message to that Merchant, requesting for the item to be shown in wishlist. The why: A Customer might want a Wishlist to obtain temporary entertainment. A friend of a Customer may buy an item for a friend from a friends wishlist; acting purely to make their friend happy. Many Merchants want and accept only one form of payment; Money. The Money earned will retain it's value far longer than the product or service. Would you prefer 10,000 skins from 2005, or, would you prefer 10,000L$ If the Lab provides a Wishlist, the Lab will spread the cost to all Resident; even the Residents who don't sell. It would be a form of Merchant Welfare. All the people would pay to help a few people make money. That is taking nickel and diming of residents too far. If as a customer I have a wishlist but I cannot add a product to it because the creator has not paid a fee, the lab looks very cheap, unconcerned with my user experience and if I were new and saw that, I'd probably dump the platform. Talk about unclassy, cheap, money-grabbing and down right shonky. You don't think the lab has enough problems with retention without clearly signalling to new users accessing the marketplace that they will ruin an end user's experience, for want of some other user paying them? The old XStreet provided a wishlist, and were able to do so without making every resident on the grid pay. They paid for it from their income derived from commissions from items sold. If more items are sold, that's good for the lab. If more people are satisfied with their experience, that's good for the lab. The costs, which beyond designing it (something that ought to have been included in the initial cost of designing the marketplace) are negliable ought to come from the income that is generated by the marketplace. You'd hope that income is substantial given the land tier income it appears to have decimated. It's sure to be less than the cost of hosting every item that sells for 0 lindens for instance.

I have a box you sit on that does this for me. I picked it up from Sirena hair shop. You rezz it, sit on it, and up it goes. On arrival at its scripted height, it rezzes into a nice big platform.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: 16 wrote: thinking about this more: if it was an uncertainty model based solely on randomness and if we could work out exactly what the algorithm(s) is, and if we could work out exactly what the source was (something seemingly impossible at the moment, but still). then whats really cool about this thought is we would be able to know the future with absolute certainty thats quite mind-blowing to me would be even harder to work out though if the algos were mutating as well. doesn't seem like it for many of them given what we understand about the algos/rules/laws governing gravity, light, etc. but is a slim possibility that some? of them may be mutable + here's what i think is a really hard question: if you did work all this out by yourself would you tell anyone? i don't think i would. well i hope i wouldn't anyways. could be quite catastrophic for other people if you did tell if we knew the future with absolute certainty, would it matter if we told anyone or not? If the future has been figured out and is known, wouldn't that mean that it is unchangeable and whatever we do or say is what was going to be done or said so that there is no harm in telling or not telling because that is what was supposed to happen anyways? I don't know if it would make a difference, since the discovery might make a difference at that time (the instant of discovery) as to what would have happened had you never made the discovery, and since you can only determine the future, but not necessarily what the future would have been if you did not make discovery, the difference your discovery made would probably not be ascertainable to you. But certainly you'd not have to make a decision about whether you shared the discovery, since you'd automatically know at that point whether or not you were going to share the discovery because you already know all that will happen. In fact you'd become decision-lazy since your future "decisions" would be more akin to reading a novel or watching a movie. You'd simply observe yourself playing out the script you'd already read.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: i was watching a few minutes and i started to laugh when the guy was talking about the spaghetti and how they spent all this time trying to figure out why it breaks into 3 pieces... The first book about computer design I ever read (and the last ;-) was Danny Hillis' PHd dissertation on the design of "The Connection Machine" which is shown in that video. When I first heard Hillis' story of breaking spaghetti with Feynman, I broke about a half pound of the stuff in my kitchen. It does indeed usually break into three pieces and I'm thrilled to see I'm in good company in not knowning why, though I expect they got vastly closer to an understanding than I ever will. Last year, I bought some microwave Kraft macaroni and cheese (it was on sale!!!!). You put everything in a bowl, then microwave, stir, and perhaps eat. I noticed something interesting upon removing the bowl from the microwave, and I present it for your amusement... My theory is that, as the water boiled, the rising bubbles tended to align the macaroni bits vertically. Shaking the bowl of dry macaroni produced no change in the orientation of the macaroni on the left. I shall cherish this as my own personal Hillis/Feynman moment. I can hardly match their intellect, but I think I shared their joy over trying to find something out. So there it is, from Hillis' machine to the shared joy of discovery, we as humans strive for... connection. Aside from the fact that you probably shouldn't eat that stuff, that's kind of awesome.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Ha ha! I'm still trying to figure out what to wear today! Just stay naked. Problem solved and now you've extra time on your hands to post in this thread. As an added bonus, if the mail man comes to the door, you'll make his day.

Ceka Cianci wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: i liek tesla better myself anyways hehehehe If you have the time... i was watching a few minutes and i started to laugh when the guy was talking about the spaghetti and how they spent all this time trying to figure out why it breaks into 3 pieces.. I really liked the study done a few years ago to determine why toast always seems to land butter side down when dropped. It turns out that the shape of a piece of toast causes it to turn or flip while falling and that because of the height range that it is usually dropped from within, it happens to be butter side down when it connects with the ground at the end of it's fall. I found this explanation very reassuring for some reason.

Porky Gorky wrote: There may be rules in place that prevent us from becoming omnipotent, they may even stop us from being able to create an artificial universe. However if we can create an artificial universe, then we can design it to facilitate our omnipotence. To do so may result in a universe that is vastly different to ours. i.e. Maybe we need to introduce new chemicals and materials and laws of nature to allow us to take control. Regarding your cake analogy, if there was a recipe clearing describing how to bake a cake that could transform into a unicorn that could host an elf disco, then it should be possible for anybody to follow the recipe and create their own Unicorn Disco Party Cake given the right tools and ingredients. nom nom I want cake now. It may be that we can create a new universe, but never see it or interact with it. That of course would put a spanner in the works in the plan to become omnipotent. I guess if we could not design some sort of network to allow us to take control or even viewing rights over an artificially created universe then it would seriously devalue the purpose of creating our own universes in the first place. So I would guess that there are a key factors required for us to become omnipotent. We need absolute understanding over our universe. We need absolute understanding of how to design and create an artificial universe that allows humans to be omnipotent and we need to find a way to oversee and interact with our new universe to fully exploit our omnipotence. That is quite a to-do list! To be omnipotent, it has to be possible to reconfigure the universe to anything, includiing forms not consistent with the design necessary to be omnipotent, in which case we would still not be omnipotent. Omnipotent is not merely the means to control things in their current form, but to make anything come forth, to dictate form, to be without limitation in exercising wish or will. To configure a universe so that can be possible, is itself limiting at the outset. If we cannot make this universe an exact copy of our own, then that is a limit on our power within that universe and hence we are not omnipotent so far as that universe is concerned. So far as the cake is concerned, I doubt such a recipe exists. The point is the cake proves that creating something, even intentionally designing it, does not grant one limitless power of control over the creation. There is a huge gap between "can be created" and 'grants omnipotence over the creation by virtue of being created" and just as large gulf between "can be created" and "can be designed to grant omnipotence in respect of it to its creator". If it's not possible for cakes to turn into unicorns, then no matter how long you practice baking cakes, you will not bake one that turns into a unicorn. If omnipotence is not possible as anything other than an idea, then it does not matter how long we practice making universes, omnipotence is just not going to happen. I find the idea that if we create a universe we could not interact with what is inside it, somewhat likely. We do not see any evidence that we can interact with things not within our universe, so it's entirely possible that any universe we create would be boundered from us. Perhaps it would not even exist within our universe. We might not even be able to confirm that we created one if we did. The experiment might look a failure yet have rendered a universe into existence, independent to and not within the bounds of our own. Or in other words, it is difficult to over-estimate the degree of uncertainty, and the possibility of omnipotence as anything more tangible and effecting than a human idea, is far from certain, even before we start to look at the likelihood of humans achieving it, from within this universe. I don't have any cake. The best I can do for you right now is some liquorish all-sorts, and coffee, but it's the instant kind (the coffee, not the all-sorts).

Porky Gorky wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: If we were able to create a universe, that in itself would not make us all powerful. We would be the creators of that particular universe and could possibly affect it by applying outside forces and pressures, but that would be the extent of it. Until we could control every single occurrence that happens in that universe, we could not be called omnipotent. If we could not control every action, thought, or decision of our mini peeps, then how could we call ourselves gods? A true omnipotent god would by definition be able to control everything, not most things or a large number of things, but everything. Granted, the first few dozen or hundred or even thousand universes that we create, would almost definitely have uncontrollable elements. But there is no reason to assume that we will not be able to master every element of a universe one day. It may take tens of thousands of years and involve a lot of trial and error. But given enough time it should be theoretically possible for us to create a universe that is 100% within our control. That includes having control over any life forms that exists within. It's hard to fathom based on our current understanding of the electrochemical process in the brain that results in thought, but it is just a chemical process after all. Through better understanding and technology, it should be possible to manipulate and control any life forms by design. If you limit your imagination to the boundaries that currently exists in science today it's hard to contemplate such theories as you are constantly confronted by the limitations of our current understanding. You need to assume that we will one day understand everything about our own universe and with that knowledge we will be able to create an artificial universe that is fully within our control thus rendering us omnipotent. In my mind there are only 2 factors that could stop us achieving this First is the Human Race’s long term survival and development, We need to avoid being wiped out and we need to maintain the comfortable conditions required to support our on-going learning and development Secondly, if our universe was created by intelligent design, it’s possible that there are rules in place that will prevent us from leaving this universe, creating a new universe, or obtaining omnipotence. While there is perhaps insufficient reason to assume we cannot create a universe and exercise omnipotence, this is not the same as sufficient reason to assume we can do that, that anyone or anything can do that, or that omnipotence can exist in any form other than as a conceptualization of a thinking mind. If something is omnipotent, then that thing can make a rock that cannot be lifted. But if something is omnipotent there cannot be a rock that it cannot lift. Omnipotence is paradoxial and so perhaps an impossibility in any form that exists outside the limits of imagination. So we might both have the time and exist in a universe not created by a designer that implemented rules preventing us from creating universes, leaving our universe or exercising omnipotence, and yet still be unable to exercise omnipotence or even interact with anything within any universe we might eventually create. Omnipotence is a long shot in my opinion. It might be the case that the limits of our human minds prevent us from comprehending it and hence it merely appears paradoxical to (at least some of) us, but it's at least as likely and probably more likely, that the potential of our human minds allow us to conceptualize this impossibility despite the fact that it cannot exist in any form outside our minds and their imaginings.

Phil Deakins wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: Most means the majority, although the majority is not necessarily more than a tiny smidgeon over half. If you say "many, if not most" you are defining "many" to mean less than "most" and so you are suggesting an amount that is perhaps less than half, but perhaps more than half. It's definately a very long way from suggesting "all" so you were right in that case at least. Thankyou. I was right about it all those years ago, but they chose to abandon their native language because they wanted it to have meant the majority. In response to the rest of your post... I haven't tried to dictate how people use words. It's all been about you trying to dictate something that I assume, regardless of me repeatedly telling you that I don't don't assume it. I don't even assume a creator, let alone an intelligent one. I lean strongly in that direction because I find the "always there" scenario to be incomprehensible, but that doesn't mean that I assume it.. As I said before, the word "creator" is generally used to mean an intelligence behind it. E.g. "the creator of the universe" is generally used to mean an intelligent creator, such as God. You said, "As to what I have said, I told you that your use of the word created assumes a creator, and it does. Whether or not you assume a creator is a separate matter". Whether or not I assume a creator is exactly what this side-issue has all been about. You stated more than once that I have that assumption, and I told you more than once that I don't, but you refused to accept it. Instead, you tried to prove that I have an assumption that I said I don't have. If you'd accepted it, instead of trying to prove the opposite, which was never going to be anything but a futile effort, this side-issue wouldn't have happened. I'm sorry, but it's the way you dealt with it that has dragged it on for so long. All you need do is accept what I've said all along - that I don't assume a creator - and that's the end of it. ETA: Have a read of your post #337, which followed the one that I quoted from in this post. You use the word "creator" quite a lot but not the phrase "intelligent creator". Anyone reading what you wrote about a creator in that post would understand that you were talking about an intelligent creator. There's nothing wrong with the post and your use of "creator" in it. The point is that you repeatedly used the word in the way it is generally used when talking about the universe - intelligent creator. You're welcome. I don't know why you think that if you use the word creator, created, and that if someone responds to what you are saying following your use of the word, that it's reasonable to propose that everyone must think the responder's use of the word means intelligent creator, while your's does not. I do feel you've had plenty of chances to explain that and the fact that you have not done so indicates to me that you can see no reason why this would be the case either. As to who was telling who what their words mean, that was you telling me what my use of creator means or looks like. I told you what the language you are using and hence what your argument assumes. I do not know why you are unable to distinguish comments describing what you have said from what you think. This post here is not the first one into which I have typed the word "miscommunicated" in this thread. I don't believe you can find a post of mine where I am telling another poster "I'd already told her that the way she is using the word "creator" means an intelligent creator". As it happens nothing about my use as distinct from your use indicates any such thing. You've had ample chances to show why your use does not mean such a thing and yet mine does. Bear in mind that of the two of us, only one of us has said "the answer to your question is that an intelligent designer created it" in a situation where the question referred to is "How did the universe come into existence?" Despite your claims, nothing about it being an answer to that question, and nothing Porky said prior makes that statement not mean "an intelligent designer created it. It really does beg belief that you want to shove down my throat that my use must mean to everyone an "intellligent creator" while you wish to claim the contrary for your own use. The fact is if you use a word and someone uses that same word in response, it's beyond silly to suggest their use looks one way while asserting your's is not like that unless you can substantiate the distinction between them. Blanket and vague claims that "everyone" will read it to mean a certain thing, while you cannot explain why everyone would not read your use to mean that thing, is just silly, and some even might construe it as just arguing for the sake of it. So far as my use is concerned, whether or not he creator is intelligent is wholly undefined and utterly irrelevant to the arguments I was making so nothing makes my use look more like intelligence is involved than your own use, the big difference being, I've never specifically asserted anything about an intelligence capable of design, but you've unambiguously asserted one. Or put bluntly, it's not someone who is not you who is trying to redefine the meaning of words in this instance. Certainly someone in this thread is trying to redefine what "creator" means, based on who is using the word, which is probably more silly than trying to redefine the phrase "many if not most" for everyone's useage. At least those girls were being consistent in their redefinition rather than expecting everyone to swallow that "many if not most" means one thing when they use it, and another thing when you use it, and further that "everyone" would read it so.

Dilbert Dilweg wrote: Linden Lab is allowing these residents to act as assholes. this is being allowed because despite several abuse reports and indicating my alt without my permission and LL wont do **bleep** about it. This tells me they WANT it to happen. How did he know who your alt was? Did he have access to the RedZone databank that was entirely compiled by the end users of the system installing it on their sims and parcels so it could gather information about their unsuspecting visitors, in order to place it in the hands of a convicted computer fraudster whose use of SL violated his parole conditions?

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Dillon Levenque wrote: Lee Marvin was the highlight of that movie. He was the highlight of "Cat Ballou" too. Oh wow, Cat Ballou! I had forgotten about that movie.

Er, no. Why on earth would party B pay for party A to have things on their wish list? Should we also pay if someone writes something nice about one of our products in their profile, or if they wear or rezz something of our's in-world? A wish list is primarily for the benefit of the wisher and anyone who wants to buy the wisher a gift. It may or may not benefit a merchant (because it's entirely possible no one will ever look at the wish list of any one avatar just as it is entirely possible someone might buy something for an avatar based solely on it appearing in their wish list). A wish list encourages people to give gifts by setting a social expectation that gifting is an established and important practice in SL. If the marketplace supports a wish list, it's essentially sending a message "buy your friends things because that's how we do things around here". This benefits LL as much as it benefits anyone else. As to a seller paying for what someone chooses to put on their personal wish list, would this function in a way that would allow a competitor to make many alts to bankrupt somone by putting every item in their store on multiple wishlists, or would a customer be prevented from putting something on their wish list unless and until the seller agreed to pay the fee?

Porky Gorky wrote: Anaiya Arnold wrote: I'm not sure why in your later post you claim that if we create a universe this is proof that a creator or other omnipotent entity could actually exist. We're not omnipotent, so while the potential for a universe to be created through intentional design would be confirmed, the possibility of omnipotence would not be. We are not omnipotent in our own universe, however if we manage to create an artificial universe along with the ability to control it, we could have unlimited and universal power and authority over that universe, thus rendering us omnipotent within our artificial universe. We would be the creators after all. The universe could be specifically design to facilitate our omnipitance. Any intelligent life forms that exists within it may look upon us the same way we look upon our own omnipotent gods and creators found through-out our religions. If we could pull it off we could effectively become Gods. Ok, that makes more sense, however, it's a huge leap. If we create a universe there's no certainty that this will simultaneously grant us limitless control over everything within its bounds. It's not necessarily the case that if we can create a universe that we can design it to facilitate omnipotence within it. Omnipotence is not necessarily possible, and if it is possible that does not mean it is or ever will be attainable to just any old body who happens to be able to create universes. Just because I can create a cake, does not mean I can create a cake designed to turn into a unicorn at midnight or to hold elf-attended discos inside itself. In fact it may be the case that we not only would be unable to exert omnipotence within the universe created, but that we might be unable to exert any influence of any kind, or even observe what occurs within that universe. It may be completely bounded so that we are entirely shut out from transferring information to it or extracting any from it. Ask any parent whether or not creating something grants one limitless control over it.

Luna Bliss wrote: What I'm saying is that I think LL believes it's more advantageous for them to attract a lot of people paying tier vs a few businesses paying for full sims and taking a lot of money out of the game. And I am saying I think that's a really, really, silly idea. I convert less than 80 dollars worth of potential earnings into actual Linden Lab income per year. A sim holder converts significantly more potential earnings into actual income for LL every single month, and that's if they only own one sim. By the way, I have no use whatsoever for a cruddy old linden home and would give up my subscription rather than be stuck with one. And subscription is not 10 dollars a month. It's less than half that if you pay by the year and from memory (although I admit I could have this bit wrong) less than 10 dollars a month if you take the most expensive option. I'm not convinced an experienced person running a single sim uses more support than 40 newish and confused members who have access to live chat. Not that live chat offers any identifiable support, but someone has to be paid to tell us to lodge a ticket and I suspect many newer members seek support for issues that the average sim owner can solve on their own. For instance who is more likely to contact support to ask how to get a skin they took off back on? A major creator who happens to sell enough to pay for an entire sim or more each and every month, or a linden home owner who joined a week ago? Most sim owners probably never need support unless something is wrong on LL's end, in which case they'd still have to do something whether it's a private sim that has gone awry or an area holding 40 homes of users who all have access to live support. The only difference there is whether they have to deal with one single, probably technically astute or SL-familiar owner, or 40 probably very confused, probably very SL-unfamiliar, and probably rather newish accounts all with access to live support.

You got hacked. I've been warned in a couple of group chats that this is happening. You've done the right thing to file a ticket with LL and it's great that you've changed your password. You might want to reopen the ticket now and explain about clicking this link as this might help with their investigation. It might also be a really good idea to run a full virus/trojan/malware scan on your computer in case there was a "nasty" hidden in the code of the phishing page you were sent to. Please, never, ever enter a password into a page you reached by a link someone gave you, and always check the address to be sure you are actually on marketplace. If someone sends you a link and it asks for a password, never enter the password on that page, but instead, navigate to the marketplace your usual way in another tab/window, and if you are logged in there already, then the link is a phishing scam. If you are not logged in, log in from the page/tab you directed yourself to (rather than from page of the link you were given) and refresh the page that you got to from the link. If the link you got was genuine and not a phishing scam you can refresh that page (the link page) after logging in from a page you typed the address into, and it will pick up that you have now logged in. If that page still asks you for your password after you've logged in from another page, then that link you've been sent is again a phishing scam. I'm sorry you had this problem. It's important everywhere on the internet to be very careful of links and never enter a password into a page you got to from a link someone gave you. Always open the page for yourself byusing your address bar, typing the page in, or if necessary from a google search result, then refresh the page you were sent a link to. If it's not a phishing scam, then no harm, but if it is, the last thing you want to do is put your password there. It's sad there are nasty scammy folk who make these safety steps necessary but it's not just Secondlife where this happens and you need to be careful about this kind of thing everywhere on the internet. I hope LL can catch the culprit and I hope you get your lindens back.

Porky Gorky wrote: Charolotte Caxton wrote: Sounds cool, but weren't we supposed to have flying cars by now, and will the little people we create in our tiny universes be content to know we created them, or will they wonder who created us? Yes It won't help much in identifying the intelligence that created our universe, but It will add validity to the question, "were we created by an intelligence?" If we can create a universe then the chances are it's a common place occurance within the multi-verse. However, I agree with what you said, the lack of flying cars doesn't give me much hope that we'll be creating our own universes anytime soon. :smileysad: I'm not fussed on the possiblity element. I already think it's possible. I tend to doubt we could detect it though (perhaps there is a signature on a random planet or astoroid somewhere, or a trade mark at least), and more importantly, that if we detected or confirmed a creator, that the question would then still not be answered at that point. If a creator created the universe then this is only a step in the pathway to the the universe coming into being, and we still need to answer questions about how the creator came into existence to get the full answer to how our universe came to exist. Starting at that creator is like starting a book at chapter 7 instead of chapter 1. You've still not read the book when you get to the end but rather have only partially read it. The question is already legitimate, if unanswerable, but if the answer were confirmed as "yes" it's still not a full answer to how our universe came to exist. I'm not sure why in your later post you claim that if we create a universe this is proof that a creator or other omnipotent entity could actually exist. We're not omnipotent, so while the potential for a universe to be created through intentional design would be confirmed, the possibility of omnipotence would not be.

Phil Deakins wrote: I don't know why it should sound like that to you. "Many" means a lot, either a majority or a minority, but a lot. "Perhaps most" means maybe the majority but not necessarily so.  Most means the majority, although the majority is not necessarily more than a tiny smidgeon over half. If you say "many, if not most" you are defining "many" to mean less than "most" and so you are suggesting an amount that is perhaps less than half, but perhaps more than half. It's definately a very long way from suggesting "all" so you were right in that case at least. As for whether or not I ever stop, it's more than two tango-ing over this issue, I'm only one of those, and you are there at each and every step. Do you ever stop? Why do you feel you have the right to dictate what words used by others means, while also having a right to not have your words interpreted as what they mean, and also have the right to tell others to stop while you keep carrying on? Do you think you are just more special than everyone else? Every accusation you have made about me in this thread, I have given you ample opportunity to substantiate by directly pointing out how the accusation is justified by anything I've posted, and instead you come back demanding I stop and essentially give you the last words. You're not even happy having the last words as you still carried on even after I devoted one of my posts to giving you the last words. You can stop any time you know. I don't demand or even request it. It's your decision. But I'm not trying to bully someone into silence just because I cannot cope with admitting to myself that I made a boo-boo so your mileage may vary. As to what I have said, I told you that your use of the word created assumes a creator, and it does. Whether or not you assume a creator is a separate manner. The meaning of the words you chose to use assumes one and I'm not the only poster who has told you this in this thread. Meanwhile, you've not yet explained why it's ok for you to tell me that my use of the word creator must mean "intelligent" creator, much less why if my use must mean this, your's does not necessarily mean this. The whole issue you seem sick of yet unable to stop yourself from carrying on started because you tried to insist my use of the word creator meant intelligent because you interpret the word that way. It's beyond obnoxious and argumentative to insist my use of words was intended to convey your definition while expecting everyone to accept your use of the same word does not mean what you define the word as meaning. The phrase "get a grip" along with "grow up" comes to mind. I'll stop when I feel like stopping, and I welcome you to stop or to carry on as your own preferences indicate.

I agree with Jo. I'd love the maps to zoom further.

Two possible explanations. They have the information but you gave it in conditions where you were not obliged to acknowledge the information as true and correct for the purpose of access to adult areas (in other words it's about limiting potential liability). The other possible reason is that their database is such a mess that it's just easier to make people push the buttons themselves, than try to automatically, globally update the right information fields within their database.

Tazmrb1928 wrote: iv been in SL for 8 years now and im not going to let some **bleep** Defame me in frunt of all my frainds. evryone there was my fraind I do not understand that. It's pointless and ineffective to defame me to or in front of my friends, because, they are my friends. My friends know better than to believe defamation about me, just as I know better than to believe defamation about them. This is all correlated to why I am their friend and they are mine.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: Oh, and that roundtable discussion he promised, yeah, that's not happening either rodvik.linden Hey folks, as I mentioned to some of you over the weekend I am going to do the next roundtable stuff in private one on one's rather than as a free for all. That makes it more low key and doesnt turn it into something which is contentious. Thanks for all the feedback. https://my.secondlife.com/rodvik.linden So that's cool and all, except that it is another broken promise, it is not a round table, and I doubt he will have the time to speak to everyone one on one. Oh wow. Oddly, the words "pathetic", "coward", "unaccountable", "contemptuous", "manipulative" and "duplicitous" all sprung into my mind when I read that. I wonder why..... Prok will be happy at least. Finally a chance to blog about the FIC without being sent a million or so tin foil hats in response. I can only conclude that Rodvik crushes on Prok and wanted to make Prok's day. You're an odd one Rod. In the meantime, does anyone happen to have an easy to follow guide to "raising an elder god" handy?