Solar Legion

Maelstrom Janus wrote: Im sure all these words from NON-LINDENS are very comforting but you'd think a linden would take a few minutes to check this story out and come and issue a strong denial that it could ever happen or re-iterate the circumstances in which it might happen..... Gee - have a problem with Linden Lab? Too bad - if it had actually happened before, such news would have been splashed around every forum and personal blog by now. Seeing that such is not the case - it doesn't happen. Period. Take your vendetta elsewhere.

Phil Deakins wrote: Solar Legion wrote: And I - and all others that actually matter here - are getting tired of you being wilfully obtuse. You are wrong - period and end of the discussion. Your opinion here does not matter - it is in utter opposition to reality and makes so many false assumptions as to be utterly laughable. Come back when you can read and properly comprehend what is being said. Aw, come on, Solar. It's so easy to show him being wrong that it's good fun. Leave him alone lol. I don't suffer such people, Phil. You're welcome to keep on "debating" with him but .... He's proven across most forums that he has an agenda. An agenda he harms far more than he helps ... and he refuses to see this,

Masami Kuramoto wrote: >> "A Second Life/ OS Grid server is not a web page - period. This forum? It's a web page. SL/OSG servers? No - they're far more like a WoW/MMO/Online Game/Content Distribution server." I am getting somewhat tired of people misquoting me and then refuting those misquotes as if they had anything to do with me. This is what I actually said: "Technically, an OpenSim grid is a website" I said "technically," not "pedantically." The fact that not all of its formats and protocols are W3C-approved doesn't matter. Otherwise most webcasts wouldn't be WEBcasts. You got that? Here's why OpenSim is not like a WoW/MMO/Online Game/Content Distribution server: 1. There is no game, no inherent purpose or goal. 2. There are no shards. Each place is unique and can be referenced by a globally unique URL (opensim://host:port/region/x/y/z/). 3. The content is persistent but not static. The world is streamed and cached, not downloaded in advance. 4. There are no technical barriers between grids. The same "browser" is used for all of them. Avatars can teleport from one grid to another. Items from one grid can be rezzed on another. Instant messages can be sent from one grid to another. 5. The grids are hyperlinked. Regions of one grid can appear on the map of another. It is possible to link from web pages to grid locations and back. 6. There is a sense of identity. I am the same avatar wherever I teleport. My hypergrid ID is unique like an email address. My inventory is persistent. Try traveling from WoW to SWTOR to see what I mean. 7. The platform is not proprietary. Its formats and protocols are open and "de facto" standardized. There is no limit to its scale. It can't be shut down. 8. The platform is decentralized. No one will ever know exactly how large the hypergrid is. You can run a grid behind a firewall and enjoy total privacy. 9. The software is cross-platform. Both the server and the client run on Linux. Turning a LAMP server into a LOM server is a matter of minutes. And I - and all others that actually matter here - are getting tired of you being wilfully obtuse. You are wrong - period and end of the discussion. Your opinion here does not matter - it is in utter opposition to reality and makes so many false assumptions as to be utterly laughable. Come back when you can read and properly comprehend what is being said.

16 wrote: Solar Legion wrote: Here's my moral code: Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto you. Do What Thou Wilt, But Harm None. (Etc.) define harm. without an appeal to universal morality. be as specific as you can edit: am just wondering really why you made a case against universal morality and then finish with a statement that is based on a universal moral "Do no harm" is not a universal moral - it is subjective on each and every level. The premise is simple: Do nothing which lessens humanity by means of severe physical or mental trauma. Do not kill, do not steal. Do not damage the next generation. These are not "moral" issues - they are survival issues. By killing others, you make enemies of those whom were once their friends/family. By steaing from them, you lessen their chances to continue on and at the same time increase the chance you will be stolen from. By damaging the next generation, you increase the chance that said generation will be the last generation. Severe physical or mental harm? That you should be able to figure out for yourself. "Morality" is subjective and always has been. It is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize away the means we as individuals and groups use to enhance our own chances of survival. In other words ... while there is no such thing as a universal morality ... there is a universal code for the continued survival of the human race. Sadly, some use "morality" as an excuse to ignore this code. This has been done since the first disagreement on "morality" occured and the first faiths began to disagree with each other. These two points are not intertwined ... they simply compounded the problem. In short - if you do what is best for the continuation of the species ... you don't need to worry to much about running afoul of too many societal "morals" as the largest of these still follow that code of survival. Oh yes, you'll end up running afoul of other, minor parts ... But then, that is unavoidable as different societies like to use "morality" to excuse the way they treat those who do not agree with them. And that's as specific as anyone can get without delving int the realm of pure opinion. One either understands it ... or they don't.

Gee, I see the usual types are here all over again to pounce on this rehashing of an old, resolved (as far as the ToS is concerned) issue .... oh and look! Some have brought up the concept of "universal Morality"! Now, one poster has already said much of what I have to say for me in regard to what two consenting adults get up to in their spare time. I'll restate a few things here before closing with my own commentary on "Universal Morality". Any person who would go out and molest (or worse) a real life kid .... is going to do so anyway. They're not going to peruse Loli Hentai (of any medium), they're not going to spend hours and hours role playing in a chat room. No - they're going to go out and actually do it. They're going to try to talk some minor into meeting them. Their PC will be filled with images of real children (and to take this a step further folks - and if you ignore this part, be certain that it'll be shoved into your face so you cannot miss it - any sort of illegal perversion). This is how they are wired. Like any "perversion" (and yes folks, that includes those that society accepts or turns a blind eye to), people are wired differently. For some, nothing but the real thing will do. For others, they never go that far because of therapy or other, non-harmful outlets. And if you think the only answers are therapy or being locked up ... you know nothing about the mind whatsoever. Newcomers to these forums, you can ask a few of those here ... I am this vehement about any form of play between two consenting adults. As another has already said: It may disgust me (and I could make a small list of that which disgusts me) ... But I'll certainly be vocal about allowing two consenting adults play with each other as they see fit (within reason mind you - there are two different lines for this for Online and Offline play). Finally .... "Universal Morality" does not exist, nor has it ever existed. All one has to do to understand this is to examine human history. What is perfectly moral in any one part of the world was once immoral in the past - the same for the converse, what was once immoral in any one part of the world is presently perfectly moral. Furthermore, there are quite a great many differences in morality in societal groups as small as one town to the next. There are precious few things which the entire world, down through the ages, have deemed to be immoral: Theft, Murder (on any level, of anyone, of any age), Betrayal (no matter if it is for the "greater good" or not) .... These are just three. Yes, at certain points in time, the abuse (in any form) of minors has been among this list. The sticking point has always been the age of consent. Before I get any more wordy on this ... I catch someone actually trying anything with a kid? There won't be a body left to find. The same can be said of a number of other things. Yep, it's explicitly against the ToS - Linden Lab didn't want to dabble in the grey area - and for the most part, current society doesn't want to either (a mistake, yes. People should not be punished for what they do with other consenting adults, within reason). Here's my moral code: Do Unto Others as You Would Have Them Do Unto you. Do What Thou Wilt, But Harm None. (Etc.)

Point blank here (general response): 1. Pathfinding is in its infancy and real judgement cannot be passed on it. 2. The policies of Linden Lab back when they had a far more substantial Age Verification system were well within the law. Anyone thinking that having to hand over copies of their identification to Linden Lab should an issue arise wherein the initial information given to them has come under question constitutes a potential security breach ... needs to terminate all of their Internet accounts, e-mail accounts, etc, terminate their ISP services, unplug their PC, box it up and send it back to their manufacturer (after performing a full wipe of their data by any means deemed needed) and move into the mountains to become a hermit. 3. A Second Life/ OS Grid server is not a web page - period. This forum? It's a web page. SL/OSG servers? No - they're far more like a WoW/MMO/Online Game/Content Distribution server. 4. Content distributors must follow a certain set of laws regarding the distribution of copyrighted materials. If they do not, they risk serious reprecussions should they be taken to court. 5. Don't like any of what I've said? Tough. Welcome to Life. Get over it.

Mircea Lobo wrote: So many replies... hard to read all of them. But to look at a different side of things too regarding OpenSim: I wonder what the situation would have been if LL also open-sourced the Second Life server code. I heard there were plans to do that years ago, but they changed their minds (sad decision IMO). Although OpenSim is pretty much a SL server in practice (even if not in purpose), I think everyone would have been happier if LL went all the way with opening up their technology. But still, maybe someday... As great as it would be for others to take what Linden Lab made and improve upon it ... It was a very good choice on the part of Linden Lab to keep their server's source code closed source at this time. Think about it: In the time since they opened up the client code, they had to fight back the various clients designed by griefer teams to aid them in their antics. To utilize a different bit of software as an example ... Minecraft is fully java based client wise. The server code is handed out to anyone who wants to run a server. Both were obfuscated from the start but it did not take long until the obfuscation was broken on both sets of code. Griefers were able to do things on multiuser servers that they would not have been able to do if Mojang had not handed out the code in the way they did. The same would be trule if Linden Lab released their server code as open source. Yes, there'd be a lot of god that would come from it ... But the bad? No. Best not to give the more dedicated troube makers a new weapon set to use.

Mircea Lobo wrote: Gee, I didn't know it's so absurd to find it ridiculous that Havoc are telling LL what to do with their own code. Which is NOT the same thing as to WHERE you are allowed to distribute that work. Distributing is a different matter... of course the license can tell you where to do or not do that. But it's the first time when I see an external company affecting actual code development in another company's project directly, and clauses which are out of place being invoked. Not allowed to distribute any part of the Havoc libs in their open-source repositories? Sure thing... THAT is a normal licensing situation. Having to remove --loginuri is a totally different story however. But really, I don't care about drama right now... and I think everyone made their point and thinks what they will. No drama to be had - simply correcting your mistaken impressions. Havok is lisenced for use by Linden Lab only. Their official client uses the Havok client side code (some of which is free to allow into the open source libraries, some of which is not - IE: The pathfinding code). To remain in compliance with their EULA for Havok no client which utilizes the Pathfinding client side code can be used to connect to any system not owned by Linden Lab. How hard is that to understand? I'm going to be quite blunt here: I - for one - am quite sick and tired of people taking non-issues like this and treating them as if Linden Lab started the Apocalypse. I'm sick of people bleating on and on about Open Sim being harmed by this or that .... Open Sim is not owned by Linden Lab. Heck, if Linden Lab owns all the patents and copyrights to the server code and other factors ... Open Sim's creators are lucky as heck that the Lab didn't shut them down the moment they became aware of what they had done! The removal of the loginURL code is not a removal of support. Linden Lab never supported Open Sim. It is nothing more than Linden Lab acting to comply with the Havok RULA they were given. This is not an opinion here - it's fact. Linden Lab could not keep that bit of code in their official clients, nor in any of the distribution libraries after upgrading their Havok Engine. After all .... a great deal of Linden Lab's server code was reverse-engineered from the calls the client program has to make to the server system. If the Havok engine had more calls that needed to be placed in the client program ... how long do you think it'd be util someone managed to reverse-engineer a clone? With the present implementation of Pathfinding (and here is where the educated guesswork comes in), it is likely that there are enough calls to the Pathfinding system in the client program to make creating a cone of that subsystem a possibility. So - the official client has the loginurl code removed. It is removed from the libraries. It is quite likely only a matter of time before Linden Lab tells the Third Party Client developers that no third party client can be made to connect to other systems without first removing all pathfinding code calls. In short - no, it's not a different issue for the Lab to have removed alternate system connectivity from their code base.

Mircea Lobo wrote: I didn't say it's not part of it since I don't know about that. Problem is that until now, I've never heard of any project where including an external library gives authority to its developer to tell you how to code your own project, among the "rules" to distribute their library. For the Xbox example mentioned above, that is at least related to what platform you distribute your library on so it makes sense. But here, I don't believe any of the people at Havoc know what a simulator is or how SL even works. And to impose the removal of a parameter as simple as the --loginuri in that circumstance is silly. What would keep them from also telling LL "You can't use the latest Havoc code unless all physical objects affected by it are colored green", then Linden actually adding a limit for that in the viewer? If I were Linden (which I'm not), I'd drop Havoc and switch to BulletX or ODE, which work great with SL (confirmed on OpenSim). The SL viewer is open source either way, so this would make sense. Bullet physics are used by commercial projects as well, and I'm pretty sure there are pathfinding systems for these also. But that's one of the last things that would qualify as a priority now, so nothing to hope for anytime soon. Gee - from this response alone one would assume that you somehow thought Linden Lab had a direct hand or stake in OpenSim development or were somehow obligated to provide "support" (no kids, adding a bit of code to a client program to allow connection to "competitors" systems is not support) for them. Further, it is quite clear that you don't have a clue how software lisence agreements of the sort Havok has ... actually work. Linden Lab is not allowed to distribute any part of the Havok code that is proprietary (or considered such) through their open source depositories. Your statement concerning Havok making additional stipulations is utterly ridiculous. That is not how this sort of thing works. Look, I get that you are irked about this but seriously? Stop being utterly absurd. Linden Lab actually following their EULA from the purchase of Havok is not the end of the bloody world.

And just in case anyone tries to say that Pathfinding is not a part of the Havok engine .... I direct you to this technical document.

Mircea Lobo wrote: @ Solar Legion: When OpenSim support was dropped, Linden specified that the reason they did that was because "The owners of Havoc would no longer allow them to connect to custom grids". Sorry, but am I the only one who finds that the one of the silliest claims in SL history? Havoc does not work at Linden Lab. They make a physics engine library for games, which they then sell to game companies that wish to use them. They normally have no authority over the development of SL or what the SL code does. I'd be amazed if anyone over at Havoc even knows what Second Life is in detail, what a simulator is, what --loginuri does, etc. Sure, the owner of the Havoc library get to say "You can include my work with this project or not", but I've never heard of an external person having the authority to give orders to a project they don't work at or know anything about, even in order to allow usage of their library. I still tend to believe this was just an excuse to cut OpenSim because it was ruining SL grid business. But in case I am wrong and what LL says was true behind closed doors, LL has was a very naive company to give authotiry to other corporations in the development of their project. Personally at least, I never heard of such a thing before. But as far as I'd understand, this makes Havoc part of the SL development team in that case. Apparently you missed the part where Pathfinding is a part of the newer Havok Physics engine. In short - you're barking up the wrong tree.

Mircea Lobo wrote: @ Phil Deakins: The only "support" they gave to OpenSim was allowing the --loginuri parameter in their viewer, and usually no one ever asked them for more. But now they removed that as well... though thank god the SL viewer is open-source so there will always be viewers with custom grid support. Still, it's sad. Hence my colder attitude about path finding support, considering it likely wasn't a very crucial feature either (and they could have found ways to implement it without making up crazy and silly licensing claims). Linden Lab did not "make up" any sort of "crazy and silly" claim. The makers of Havok are the ones that reminded Linden Lab of their agreement/Terms of Use for the Havok engine. Sorry but ... that is something I could not remain silent on any longer. Make sure you have your facts straight before launching into a diatribe over a loss of "support" that was never really there to begin with.

Phil Deakins wrote: Solar Legion wrote: And no one here has to come up with a single ting for you Phil - that's for you to do. Good grief. Coming up with the thing, instead of imagining that it exists, is for you to do - not for me. It's you who wants people to believe that it exists, not me. I don't know one way or the other and I'm happy with that. You want me to believe that it exists, so you show me. Let me say it again, although I'm doubtful that it will help you... It is not possible to prove that it does not exist. It is only possible to prove that it does exist. If it doesn't exist, I can't prove it - nobody can. You are the only one who insists that it exists. I am not going to prove it for you. That's for you to do if you want to be believed. And if you're not bothered whether or not it's believed, why on earth are you going on and on about it? No one here is "keen" on anythjing - we've simply been explaining to you how the real world works (started doing so shortly after you claimed that no country can enforce its laws across international borders ... that alone is a false statement and has already proven to be such). There is no "we" about it. You are the only one who insists on its existance - and without any evidence. Nobody else here does. Apart from you, the very few people who have even mentioned it in this thread - maybe just one or two - have suggested it as a possibility. You're alone in believing that it actually exists. It may exist, but you're alone in actually believing it. Oh, and no country can create laws that people in other countries have to abide by. That's always been true, and nothing has been proven against that. You are making the simple mistake that, just because a country can do what 16 described, it forces people in another country to comply. That's absolutely untrue. I'd be gobsmacked if you can't understand that simple fact. Actually, in your case, I don't think I would be gobsmacked because you've very clearly shown the ability to get things wrong. Are such things the only way? Nope! Is anyone here required to go tracking down every little shred of law and present it to you until you understand? No. I said before, it's not for me. It's you who wants it to be accepted, so it's you who needs to find and show it. You're the only one in this thread who actually believes it exists and you seem to want people to believe it too, so it's up to you to show it. I'm perfectly happy to sit on the fence and only believe it when I see it. If you want me to believe, show it. If you don't want me to believe, shut up about it. But as long as you keep on about it the way you have been, I'll keep on shooting your arguments down in flames - unless you can show that exists, of course. Better things to do - one of the reasons I've stopped being s polite. Naa. The reason you stopped being polite is because you can't handle someone disagreeing with you. That's my opinion, anyway. You can further waste everyone's time ... or, if you truly want to know, you can do the homework yourself. I'm happy the way things are. It's you who is standing alone in your belief, and who wants to change my mind, but you're not doing anything about it, except saying words to the effect of, "believe it because I say it's true". Sorry, but nobody in their right mind would swallow that.. I do have a question for you though. How did you arrive at your conclusion that there really is a treaty for it? There's been nothing in this thread that would cause such a conclusion, so I'm curious as to how you arrived at it. Now you're really starting to piss me the heck off Phil. I'm not telling you to disprove anything. I'm telling you to do your own frelling homework. You want to know which specific documents affect international commerce of a specific type? Go. Look. It. Up. Yourself. I have done nothing but restate what others have said and added into the mix, another component of how the real frelling world works. Your belief would cause 90% of all international trade to cease. No country is going to do business with another or allow its own businesses to do so within another country if they cannot enforce their own laws there to some degree. They will not allow businesses from outside countries to do business with their citizens without being able to enforce their home laws either. That is how it works - deal with it. Demanding to be presented with the exact documents which show how these things work is frelling insane. You want the exact documentation, you can go after it yourself. And just once, stop being so thick when you're told: I asserted no such thing, I simply added in another mechanic for how these things work and mirrored what others have said. I have no issues with people disagreeing with me - I do have issues with simple minded buffoons that demand information they can just as easily track down on their own concerning the day to day workings of the bloody world. I stop being polite when someone is being willfully obtuse. No, I'm not going to respond to you further on this as I do not have the time to waste on someone who wants information handed to them on a silver frelling platter.

And no one here has to come up with a single ting for you Phil - that's for you to do. No one here is "keen" on anythjing - we've simply been explaining to you how the real world works (started doing so shortly after you claimed that no country can enforce its laws across international borders ... that alone is a false statement and has already proven to be such). Are such things the only way? Nope! Is anyone here required to go tracking down every little shred of law and present it to you until you understand? No. Better things to do - one of the reasons I've stopped being s polite. You can further waste everyone's time ... or, if you truly want to know, you can do the homework yourself.

Get over it Phil - reality does not work the way you want it to - period. It's been explained countless times to you, and each time it is, you stick your fingers in your ears and demand that everyone do legwork that they have no reason to do. The facts have been laid out on the table for you. Enough is well and truly enough. Being utterly daft is not an excuse to cling to an opinion that has already been proven to be utterly wrong by the mere fact that this is how international businesses operate. You want the exact agreements and treaties? Find them yourself. It is enough that everyone else knows they bloody well exist.

Syo Emerald wrote: Pussycat Catnap wrote: Syo Emerald wrote: I disagree that you can't judge someone by the avatar. My you can't but I can pretty clear get a lot information from someones avatar. When I see their profile I already have enough to know if I better avoid them or not. That's the profile though. Not the avatar. ANd I've even found my assumptions about someone based on their profile to be wrong once I was stuck in a situation dealing with them. But the profile is a better indicator than the avatar. Some people's avatar choices annoy me - others draw me in; but I've learned to realize that its not as reflective of who they are than I would have thought. Most of the time both (profile and avatar) match, but often the avatar can give a great hint on what kind of person you are running into. There we have the "Non careing male newbie-look a like", who can be here for ages but still looks like he wandered out of some freebiestore around 2007. Mostly is profile isn't even filled out a bit and his attempt to chat start with "hi", a long silence following...if you have are on a adult sim he then starts to hit on you. Then we have the invisible pony rider girl with a fish face. This kind of avatar has turned out to be quite popular among a specific kind of user. If they wear clothes they only wear mesh. Hair is from Magika or a similar brand, also only mesh. They often gatter in a specific kind of club and spend their time dancing and spamming gestures. If you open their profiles you can easily spot a use of odd fonts, mean blablabla and at least one sentence that underlines how great they are. And that are only two examples. Oh and speaking about tolerance here.....SL will never and was never a place of tolerance, especially when it comes to all that is not human. You can look like an hoe on crack, but don't you dare to wear a tail or anything else not human! Then you are not allowed in ballrooms, not allowed on roleplay sims, not allowed on many adult sims.....Oh, and nobody will hire you anywhere for anything! Boy, you've had a rough run there! I've not had many issues with people being intolerant of my own appearance choices .... and mine run the gamut! Most of the time though, I am to be found in one Anthro form or another .... Never had an issue with getting a job, being on sims ..... There's even a few "ballwoom" type places that don't mind one bit! That said .... my advice to new users? That's a start: You're a user, not a resident. Most of the rest has already been covered here .... though I'd tell a new user not to judge anyone by their appearance or by their profile or by the way they post in the forums. Base it on how they act while logged in.

Phil Deakins wrote: Solar Legion wrote: Phil - they can, and do all the time under trade agreements. End of story. Reality is what it is - you don't like the reality, and that's perfectly fine. Stop presenting your view as if it is a fact. It's been explained to you numerous times and in a rather polite manner by several people. I'm not going to be polite any further. Engough is enough. What trade agreements? I already said that it would be different to what I'm saying if a trade agreement for U.S. companies to collect VAT existed between the U.S. and the EU, but where is it? You say that it's been explained it to me numerous times but it hasn't. The idea of a trade agreement has been mention quite a few times and I've agreed that it would be different if one exists, but, unless one actually exists - so that U.S. companies must collect VAT from EU customers - then it's just been nothing more than possibility and imagination. So show me this trade agreement. If you can't, I'll continue to believe that no such agreement exists and that what I've been saying is true. Incidentally, if no such agreement exists, then what I'm saying about one country imposing laws and rules on other countries IS fact. So show me the trade agreement or accept that you've either been mistaken all along, or you just don't know one way or the other. ETA: There's no reason for to you become impolite. It's no good getting nasty with someone just because they don't agree with you. Nobody is always right, including you. Anyone doing that just shows themselves up. Either continue to discuss politely, or discontinue, but don't become impolite when someone doesn't agree with you. In this case, if you can't show a trade agreement, then you've lost the discussion anyway, so becoming impolite would be really silly. If you had bothered to actually read what others have said, you'd not be asking me "what trade agreements". Go back, read. I'm not going to do your legwork (and reading comprehension brush up) for you. And yes, there is a need to be impolite atthis point. You're plugging up your ears and saying "lalalalalalala". Enough. Linden Lab collexts VAT - if there were no laws being influenced by trade agreements and other coalitions (which have been linked in by others earlier in this bloody thread) then Linden Lab would not be collecting it anymore. Honestly ... if they could get out of it, they would have by now. It is that simple. Linden Lab has shown they're not going to do any more than hte bare minimum when it comes to covering themselves in any given legal situation. The moment collecting VAT becomes "voluntary" - they'll cease collection. They will have no reason to collect it anymore, seeing as any that is collected leaves their pockets at once. Frankly, I'm rather sick and tired of people making assu,ptions concerning the enforcement of laws from one country to the next. The simple fact is this: It happens all the time. If you have an issue with it, take it up with the UN.

Phil - they can, and do all the time under trade agreements. End of story. Reality is what it is - you don't like the reality, and that's perfectly fine. Stop presenting your view as if it is a fact. It's been explained to you numerous times and in a rather polite manner by several people. I'm not going to be polite any further. Engough is enough.

Coby Foden wrote: Solar Legion wrote: To sum all of ths up for those catching up: Yes, Linden Lab is required to collect VAT. No - saying over and over again that it is a choice does not make such an opinion the truth ... Bottom line: LL collects VAT - end of story. I tend to agree after reading this: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/e-services/article_1610_en.htm

Phil - I've already said it once: Repeating your opinion on the matter doesn't change reality. You've been shown by others already that they are required by some of the EU countries their customers are in to collect VAT. That's the reality and nothing's going to change it. If no other countries had to abide by the laws of any other country .... The US could not enforce its copyright laws anywhere else nor could we use "Human Rights" as a reason for military action anywhere in the world. Sorry, that's the real world for you.

To sum all of ths up for those catching up: Yes, Linden Lab is required to collect VAT. No - saying over and over again that it is a choice does not make such an opinion the truth ... And quite frankly the idea that a country cannot force other countries to abide by their own laws/rules went out the window the first time the US (and any other UN country) invaded any other country over Human Rights violatilons ... Oh, and lets not forget the recent actions over the last decade where copyright is concerned (spurred on by RIAA/MPAA). Bottom line: LL collects VAT - end of story.

Deltango Vale wrote: You didn't read the article either. I challenge people to actually read the article. I challenge you to accept that people can have a dissenting opinion. Here's your clue: Linden Lab isnt going to alter their prices to make it any easier on those who have to pay VAT - they are not the ones demanding it be paid either. You want to complain? Complain to the right source. Until then? Either accept that people have a differing opinion .... or keep quiet.

I went Premium at a point in time where I could no longer afford shopping around for private island land that was "affordable" while still finding a landlord that would be around in three months time. I am at a point where I can now afford the 24/25 bucks a month to rent the over 8k meters of land that I do use ... while maintaining the Premium account and Linden Home as a backup in case the fit hits the shan. All that said ... the way I decorate, even using lower prim items, I still ened the prim limit afforded by the far larger parcels to gain the effect I am looking for. This is in addition to being a nice guy and maintaining a skyboxish guest house for friends to use as well as a smallish build platform to preview items.

The makers of SAM have a Winamp DSP that works very well - I used it myself when I still had the time to DJ. Downside is ... it's not free. You'll have to purchase a lisence.

I'm only going to say this once ... The button you are raging over simply looks up positional data and inputs it into a far more standard teleport command which functions similarly to standard warp teleport arrays. They don't ask for your permission nor should they. Sorry - the function was aded in as a means to aid estate managers, group security for malls/clubs and other cases where the ability to teleport to the exact coordinates of a paticular avatar far outweighs the issues you're facing. Someone griefing an estate or any other venue isn't going to grant permission to be teleported to. The function is here to stay as it is presently implemented. Take measures to counteract those who abuse it and move on.