Nalates Urriah

Good point. I'll have to correct myself and say most in place of all.

If you shoot the intruder, regardless of ToS interpretations, they can Abuse Report you. That can prove to be a problem for you. If you EJECT them, the validity of any Abuse Report they make is discounted... landowners have the unqualified right to eject anyone for any reason from their land. Alt-LMB to latch the camera to their avatar, then click Eject. Its almost as much fun as shooting them with an orbiter. You can collect some really fine whines from the entitlement types that think they have some right to be on your land or in your house.

Do you need to toss the laptop? Maybe. You can get a free program named CPU-Z. It will tell you which CPU you have. I suspect you have a Core-2 CPU. This is something like 8 generations back. These CPU's require a video card to run SL. There is no way around it. Nor can the CPU be upgraded to a newer one that would not require a video card. That would require replacing the motherboard with a newer tech board and that just doesn't happen for laptops. It is way cheap and easier to replace the laptop. HOWEVER... you need to check your hardware to see if there is a built-in graphics processor made by NVIDIA or ATI. Quite often laptops with a video chip refuse to turn it on to save power. So, look up your computer specs to see if it has a dedicated video chip. If it does go into your video settings and make a gaming profile for SL. Set it for PERFORMANCE. You can Google for step-by-step instructions.

My SpaceNavigator works with almost the exact same settings in FS and Linden. So, I guess they would.

I'm with Rolig, I have no idea what you mean by "object view". There are system-clothes and attachments. Clothes as attachments come in not rigged, rigged, and fitted rigging. Clothes not rigged can be selected and edited. But, selecting is tricky with any mesh attachment. It is more difficult to select rigged and fitted mesh. Even when selected they cannot be edited for size, rotation, or position. Those parameters are set in the rigging process and they cannot be changed via the viewer's edit process. System clothes can only be selected via a menu or 'worn items' in inventory or appearance.

Alwin is right. Your best bet is: http://wiki.phoenixviewer.com/fs_missing_inventory

I suppose you should tell us what you mean by 'best'. In an aesthetic sense, it is a purely personal preference, as others are pointing out. I take the inclusion of "mature/teen - caucasian?" as suggesting you suspect there is some technically best for fitting the avatar. In that sense, a darker caucasian skin works better for photography and showing skin detail. Dark negroid skins are somewhat difficult to photograph and tend to hide detail. Light colored skins also have challenges for photographers. Otherwise, I am not aware of any other technical difference. All skins are based on the same UV Map (skin template). So, they all 'fit' the same. Years ago I spent months picking the 'best' skin for me. I very seldom wear that skin and the content creator has since left SL because of content theft. Now I wear a YS&YS skin. Finding the right shade of brown is challenging. I'm picky. Once I decide on a Bento Mesh head, I will likely be looking for a new skin. Ugh. Being picky is a pain. Also, the Lindens are changing the Server Side Baking engine. All classic skins and classic clothes are baked into a 512x512 composite by a server. It is this composite we see when wearing a classic avatar. The current change is to up the resolution to 1024x1024. The follow-on change will be to enable the baking service to handle mesh bodies and the coming new animesh (animated mesh objects). The plan is to eliminate the need for million poly mesh bodies made of multiple copies of the body to create layers for tattoo, underwear, and clothes. The plan is tattoo, underwear, and clothes can be baked to a single image (or 3 as now - head, upper and lower body) for use on a single copy of the body and eliminate the need for multiple meshes. It is thought this will improve performance and reduce texture thrashing.

There are restrictions on selling L$ to prevent money laundering and prohibited fund transfers. They are making it difficult to buy RL nuclear weapons...

I quoted what is in the dictionaries in previous posts. Those are facts. Your statement has been disproven. Simple. You seem to have lost touch with reality. While you think you are proving something, you are only expressing your opinions. I have yet to see you offer any facts.

I agree. That I like chocolate cake more than Angel Food is a truth. It isn't a 'universal' truth, but it is true and obviously subjective. When examining truth we are often are looking at reality and reality is amazing in its mathematical precision, symmetry, and complication. Many of us see it as beauty. Some very interesting big question truths cannot be proven. Is there a god? Christians are a sucker for this one. The majority have no idea what can and cannot be proven. The result is the majority of Christian children have given up their faith by the end of their first college year. Their parents, family, and pastors simply cannot integrate the Bible, Koran, Tipitaka, Confucianism, etc. with science or defend against the atheist religion. Yet, as all religions promise eternal life in some form and many proclaim eternal damnation for failure to believe, it seems a question worth answering in a definitive way. Since what we believe doesn't change reality, it would seem the ultimate quest for facts and perception of reality. Either we have nothing to worry about and what you see is what you get, or we need to conform our life to some 'godly' standard. But, which?

Since it seems they do render fully this is likely a caching issue. It is unclear if it is the file cache or the video card texture cache. If you have the disk space, max you file cache to 10GB. That will help. If it is the video card's texture cache, there is little to be done. The Linden viewer doesn't allow increasing the video cache. Preferences->Graphics->Advanced Settings->Texture Memory where the max is 512MB. Make sure you are set at the max. Firestorm and other third-party viewers will allow you to push the video cache up to 2GB or your cards max. You can look in Viewer Statistic to see how well you cache is working. IF you see 100% hit rate, then it likely is NOT the file cache and is your video cache.

Well... you continue to miss or ignore my point on definitions. Since your point seems to be fraudulently claiming that 'Truth' has a single definition, and claiming wiki, dictionaries and philosophers all support you, when in fact they do not, your point doesn't need to be addressed, as its fact free rubbish. I just keep pointing out facts. I challenge you repeatedly to provide proof of your point. You just make more denials and counter statements. This is simple. Dictionaries and thesauruses all use the same or highly similar definitions for true, truth, and Truth. How people apply the noun ‘Truth’ and what they are talking about when they apply the word does vary greatly. But, that doesn’t change the definition. You don’t seem to pick up on the difference between definition and use. You obviously do not know how to debate an issue. All one would have to do is point to one definition source to support your position and I would have to concede. Using an ‘I know therefore I do not need to prove’ defense/attack is not a winning tactic. So far you haven't given a single 'proof' of anything, starting with your FRAUDULENT claim that you could prove a statement of mine false with dictionary definitions, which you failed to provide (and how do you 'prove' or 'disprove' a subjective opinion of an ill defined abstract concept anyway), and then later claiming, again fraudulently that claiming you *could* disprove something meant that you had. I provided definitions in this comment. In my first response to you I pointed out I had searched for varying definitions and was not finding them. This gave you an opportunity to rebut my effort, but you didn’t and I doubt you can. A basic concept of logic and debate is burden of proof. The one making a statement is required to back it up. Not doing so in formal debate competitions costs one points. In such debates, a common tactic is placing an opponent in the place of having to prove a negative, something generally considered impossible. You are asking me to prove all definitions of true, truth, and Truth are the same. That proof is unachievable because I would need to provide all the definitions and be able to prove my list was complete. Missing even one would be a failure and leave room for the counter point to be true. So, not a proof. However, your providing just would prove your point and provide a complete argument/proof. Cambridge Dictionary gives a long colorful set of definitions for true with shaded connotations, but, they all conform to the basic definition of other reputable dictionaries. Also, for truth (noun), which they define it as the quality of being true. That makes it a property of a statement, in case you miss the point. They do not distinguish between truth and Truth. But, in both cases they are nouns. Truth only is a proper noun when applied to a thing. Macmillan Dictionary gives the definition of true as; based on facts or things that really happen, and not made up. Basically, the same as Cambridge’s. Truth as; the actual facts or information about something, rather than what people think, expect, or make up. Merriam-Webster gives the definition of true I first quoted; being in accordance with the actual state of affairs. Truth as; the body of real things, events, and facts and (3) often capitalized: a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality. In this later definition it should be obvious the capitalized form is for when it is applied to a subject. Dictionaries don’t comprehensively address the common misuse of words or how we bastardize them. For that we have to get into providers of grammar rules to get more specific. But, no matter how words are used on any given day, the definition does not change. We use idiom to convey colored meaning. So, we can use ‘bad’ to connote ‘especially good’ or a ‘good we like’, but our use of idiom does not change the definition of the word ‘bad’ until popular usage is so great the majority of the population accepts it and uses it a new way. Then dictionaries change. An example is the word 'gay'. You can’t prove your point that the word ‘Truth’ has varied definitions that significantly vary from the definitions I’ve provided. As to your thinking on philosophy… I suspect most of the readers here understand how philosophy worked and developed over time and its usefulness and achievement in human learning. It has no relationship to what you write, but you make your feelings and thoughts about it clear. Since you think the rules of logical debate have no grounding in reality, I now understand why you cannot debate me and why you can’t pick up on the point I have made about the difference between definition and use. That leaves me wondering why you continue to try and discuss the subject. If you can’t be convincing and change minds, what is your goal?

Well... you continue to miss or ignore my point on definitions. The challenges to prove you misstatements you do not address. Your entire set of responses are counter statements without proofs. You obviously are short on history and particularly the history of philosophy or its purpose and achievements. The idea the Epicureans were the only ones that approached the idea of the scientific method is just strange. Thales, Amaximenes, Heraclitus, and Anaximander were all going down similar paths. It was philosophers that had to work out the rules of logic to provide a foundation for thinking, which evolved into the scientific method. Roger Bacon being considered a major contributor to today's idea of the scientific method. While many give credit to Aristotle and the Greek philosophers for the method, I tend to agree they are reaching. A closer tie can be made to the Muslim scholars of the 10th to 14th centuries. And before you jump on my use of the word scholar, al-Haytham was a Muslim scientist, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher. So, once again, you are showing how misinformed you are. (Consider that statement an Alinsky tactic.) So... what have you got against philosophy?

This is another of those DEAD threads come back to life... The headset issue shows the value of old threads. There is cause to keep them. But, IMO it is better to start a new thread than comment in a dead one. The freeze at VFS has generally been resolved. With Firestorm there is an additional fix to the viewer to resolve 2017 VFS issues for those running HD Graphics 4000. I am unsure if that fix is in the 5.0.7 version. One can add -noprob to the command line of the icon launching the viewer as a possible work around. SO... those that have this stall at VFS problem need to include the viewer's HELP->ABOUT... information. That information tells us where the problem likely is.

We'll have to guess at what the exact problem is. Lillith has probably provided the answer for the OP. However, I find that groups chats will reopen in the same session after some time. But... there is also an issue with spammers. They target a group of people with a private group chat or 'conference' IM. This is particularly annoying because the chat window reopens with each person's follow-on comment. AFAIK, there is no way to stop it. While this is probably not what is asked about, it is the most annoying and some mistake it as chat from one of their groups. The only fix I know is to abuse report the one initiating the spam and DO NOT comment in the chat. There are those that have yet to figure out their follow-on comments are highly annoying and result in the chat persisting. Post nothing to the group and file an abuse report. When a few people keep posting and forcing the chat to reopen, IM them and tell them to STOP. But, DO NOT post in the private group chat. With the Linden Viewer in Preferences->Chat you can set how the viewer responds to various IM and Group chats. Unfortunately, the setting affects all messages of the same class. But, if you don't have people contacting you for "Conference IM's", you can set the class to No Action to avoid dealing with the spammers. Firestorm excels at giving you granular control of which groups you want popping up and which you want to silence.

Back when you and the other member of your tribe were inventing language… That is opinion and speculation. You have no proof. The oldest languages we have any evidence of are well past the stage of point-at-something and name it. Sumerian being the oldest and a logographic representation system as opposed to a phonetic representation. Modern day Chinese is also a logographic language. They seem to have no problem writing complex thoughts and abstract physics concepts. So, the Sumerians probably had no problem representing complex philosophy. As best I can tell there is no proof languages of 3,000 BCE were primitive, just different. Anything older is speculation and opinion. Debating opinion is a pointless debate. No, you haven't. You CLAIMED that you COULD, No. You are misrepresenting what wrote. I presented the argument showing history is about truth. Reread the post. Even you seem to agree that english words often have multiple meanings… I do. I even acknowledged true and truth have degrees of meaning. But, the degrees are like flavors of vanilla. It is all the same basic flavor/definition. Any one definition from any of the sets of definitions from any dictionary provided, when given to someone would allow that person to have a reasonable idea of what someone means when using either word. Not all words are that way. But, these two words certainly are. The point I made with the words true and truth, the subject here, is that that there is a singular nature in the definitions consistent through all the variations. Not the varied definitions you espouse is the case. You have yet to rebut that point I’ve made repeatedly. You seem oblivious to the fact your examples are more representative of adjectival nouns than varied definitions in use. The dictionaries you talked about say... NO. You’ll need to show me which one disagrees about the definition of Truth. I am aware of how proper nouns are used and that capitalization is said to convert the word to a proper noun especially with the word Truth. But, you can’t show where that changes the definition of the word. Yes, people apply it to various objects to name them. Those objects, ideas, etc. have varied relationships to truth even when named Truth. But, I repeat myself… Yes, but you speak American, and failed at finding the right turning off the Freeway when you moved to California.. Yes. I did. Do you think that defeats the point I’ve been making? The word 'next' has a dictionary meaning. That people in my area of the Midwest took it one way and that the people of California took another meaning didn’t change the published definition or the worlds concept of ‘next’. My point is using standard definitions works and there is a singular standard definition for true, truth, and the proper noun Truth. Particularly amusing is the "Consensus Theory" of Truth… Here you once again ignore or miss the point I have been making. What you call the philosophical gibberish is talking about the varied subjects people have named Truth. None are debating the meaning/definition of truth or Truth. They are literally working to rationalize what is factual and true to determine if the name Truth can be honestly applied. Show me one that isn’t… Alternatively, find something useful to do instead of philosophy. I suspect you are unaware that on a somewhat tangible level philosophy lead directly to science and the scientific method. The logic coming from and developed in philosophy is the same logic used in math and science. Ethics and morals are derivatives of philosophy. Law is the enshrined result of philosophy. Perhaps if you understood it philosophy better you could present a better argument for your viewpoint...

AFAIK, there is no way to search reviews. You might be able to coax Google into searching the MP and finding it. But, probably not.

Don't take your frustration out on us... Want help, be civil. We are users too. You are NOT entitled to anything from us.

You gave us the symptom of the problem. We don't have enough information to do more than just guess at the cause. Tell us about what you viewer stats (ctrl-shift-1) say for PING and lost packets. It is also a good idea to include the viewer's information you can copy from HELP->ABOUT... Cykarushb thinks your viewer setting for network bandwidth may be the problem. I doubt it is the setting. In Preferences (menu or ctrl-P)->Setup (tab)->Max Bandwidth is a setting for UDP bandwidth. This setting is depreciated and has way less effect than in previous years. This my doubt. The setting is information the viewer sends to the region server to tell it how fast to send the viewer information over the UDP protocol. The Firestorm Team has tested to determine the most trouble free value for the setting: 1500kbps or 80% of your max download speed, whichever is smaller. (lowercase denotes kilo-bits) This applies to FS or Linden or other third-party viewers. That all use the same HTTP and network connection library, AFAIK. While I doubt the setting is the problem, definitely check your setting and if it needs to change, see if it makes a difference. I am assuming you are using a basic mouse. If you are using a gaming mouse, check its settings. Assuming you are Windows open the Control Panel->Hardware & Sound->Mouse and check how you have double-click set. You want the setting as fast as works well for you. Faster eliminates false or unintended double-clicks. While there, test whether or not what you think is a single click has the mouse sending a double-click. I am not aware of anything in the viewers that can affect clicks. So, if it is isn't the Windows settings or a mouse thing, then I would look at the connection to the SL servers. A good general Internet connection is not the same as a good connection to the SL servers. Test your connection to the SL servers. http://blog.nalates.net/2011/10/26/troubleshoot-your-sl-connection/

…we use languages that were designed for telling each other where the game herds were, or warning of attacking hostiles, … This is your reason for thinking languages are ambiguous? Why do you think that? Are you thinking we are still speaking primitive languages? That we haven’t improved the accuracy of our languages? Are you proposing humans are incapable of accurately stating any idea? … the reason your search engines cannot find that quote is simple, it's NOT a quote… Whether a quote or an original statement, I’ve already shown it is false statement. You claim that 'Truth' is a 'property statement'… No, I quoted a definition which is the agreed-on definition from popular usage of the word. You misstate what I said, an Alinsky tactic. Is English your first language? 'Truth' is an ABSTRACT, due to the ambiguity of language … I already addressed this point in an earlier post. Truth has a simple definition with no ambiguity. You need to reread the prior posts. The word Truth is a noun and has a singular meaning. Similar to the noun ‘bear’. But, we apply that noun to many things which are not ‘bears’. Example: a ‘bear of a man’, which does not change the definition of the noun bear. … it is easy to confuse 'true' and 'Truth' but they are NOT the same thing… You are right, one is an adjective and one is a noun. But, there is no confusion in the meaning of either the adjective or the noun. You seem to confuse the meaning of these words based on how people ‘apply’ them to THINGS/SUBJECTS they are describing. … there ARE so many different 'dictionary definitions' of Truth … No, not dictionary definitions. All of those nearly identical in meaning. You are gain conflating/confusing the definition of truth with its usage. Wiki and philosophical comments on Truth that vary are based on differences in what the word is being used to describe. They are giving the subject of the discussion a description or the attribute of being true by applying the noun. The variations are a conflating of what a ‘Truth’ is defined as verses what people apply the label to. Example: to say creation is Truth and say Darwin’s evolution is the Truth does not affect or vary the definition of the word Truth. One or the other or both statements are false. They can’t both be true. So, only one is the truth. People apply the word to both and then debate merits of the concepts and supporting facts. But, none of that changes the definition of the word. The person using TRUTH (adding emphasis) for Darwin’s evolution applies the same meaning for the word ‘truth’ to their point as one that applies the word to creation, or whatever else. In philosophy, the challenge is to accurately convey meaning of one’s statements, so complex subjects can be discussed with mutual understanding. While many have opinions about that, there is no philosophical reasoning supporting having debates where all words have definitions based solely on each speaker's personal preference.

Wrong? I could be. Unfortunately and often embarrassingly, it wouldn't be the first time. It may be your facade is working better than either of us suspected.

This is where people seem to get confused... manipulated, and played. There is opinion that capitalization changes the meaning. But, I find no reputable grammatic text that says that. We do know that context and what a writer is trying to imply can often be expressed better by breaking the rules of grammar... or not. Breaking the rules certainly gives propagandists wiggle room and the ability to confuse issues. WikiQuote well illustrates the point as they point to those arguing there is no absolute or objective truth/Truth. If one holds to the straightforward simple definition provided earlier, truth or Truth and be easily decided. Propagandists need to spin the meaning of words to confuse issues and simulate having a valid point. People try to win debates by spinning the meaning of what their debate opponent supposedly meant or what a word/concept means by changing the definitions of words. It is a basic Alinsky tactic (Rules for Radicals p59 Kindle). Alinsky tells people to consider that 'everything' is relative so, use whatever definition you want to make up. One has to decide if they think such a tactic is intellectually honest. I don't. The quote (?), "Truth" has no part in History. is one I cannot find. None of the search engines find it. Using simple dictionary definitions it is easy to disprove the statement. History is a record of things that happened. Truth is a property of a statement about real events or facts. So, if a historical account is not true, it isn't history. It is a story. One could complete the statement, which is why I searched for the source. Truth has no part in history as history is meant to be the whole truth. And I can make other varitions. But, the statement as you made it is prima facie false. As ambiguous as English is, it should be obvious the idea of any word having a single meaning is false. Being skeptical one considers whether they are arguing a point, with substance, or opinion based on personal preference. The latter being a pointless argument.

There is often the belief that history is strongly colored by the victors writing the history books. Thus there is no way to get to the REAL facts. To some extent this is true. History is edited and rewritten over time. Often rewritten with an agenda or bias in mind. And skepticism is an invaluable skill. But, the truth can be found. As time passes the agendas dye out and those with vested interest in a biased account pass and new people write more objective accounts of history using skills we have learned and a deeper understanding of human nature. Fortunately we have literally thousands of tons of manuscripts that date back 1,000+ years. We even have a good quantity of manuscripts that date back 2,000+ years. Using weight as a measure before then isn't fair as we go from paper to stone... But, we have some written records dating back 5,000 years. There are the skills of Textual Analysis and Forensic Statement Analysis, to name a couple most people are not familiar with. With these and others we have the ability to sort out bias, agenda, ego, pride, lies, and BS.... and get to the actual truth. Our understanding of history will never be as detailed as we like or as complete as we wish. But, we do have historians that have a single minded goal to provide accurate information for scholars. Plus, the Internet has made it much easier to access original source documents. While I may not read Greek, Hebrew, Assyrian, Aramaic, or other ancient languages I can use the translators dictionaries to get the varied definitions of a word that creates a question about what the original author meant. So, like the several definitions for Truth, reading them all gives a broader and deeper understanding of what is meant by the word and context often suggests which meaning is more likely. As does an understanding of the culture of the writer. Being skeptical these days is a requirement for finding anything approaching the idea of what is true.

You are welcome. So, there is something you two are doing differently. If you can figure out what...

An interesting question in this age of relativism where people are tending to try to ignore reality. Defining ‘truth’ pulls us into defining reality. One of the broader definitions I like is Merriam-Webster’s: the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality. Digging deeper we have fact: 3. the quality of being actual, 4.a something that has actual existence, 4.b an actual occurrence, 5. a piece of information presented as having objective reality. And reality: 1. the quality or state of being real, 2.a a real event, entity, or state of affairs, 2.b something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily. I think this leaves us with the simple meaning for truth being a statement that fits reality. Stating, ‘there is a table in the kitchen.’ If there is, that is a true statement and thus truth. If not, then it is false and not a statement of truth. The complication starts to enter when one tries to decide if the one making the later ‘no table’ statement lied. That pulls in ethics and morality and what they knew or thought. But, even these are simple to decide if the definitions are held to. So, the simple answer is, yes truth exists. As Mulder said, “The truth is out there.” Which in paraphrasing we can say, ‘Reality is out there.’ The problem is deciding what is truth and non-truth. But, these definitions provide a straightforward tool for deciding. As we get beyond simple things like a table in the kitchen, what is real gets more complicated. We see this as psychologists struggle to describe people’s perceptions of the world around them and what they are dealing with. We know that when people lose touch with what is real they have difficulty coping with life. Psychologists have to have a way to describe a problem to work at solving it and passing along solutions within the profession. So, we get terms like ‘shared reality’ as one tries to be more precise. I tend toward the side of a single objective reality. There is a wall there and any attempt to walk through it will likely injure you. It does not matter if people ‘share’ that reality. No matter the belief or perception shared or not, walking into a brick wall has the same result.