Kwakkelde Kwak

Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I am convinced that the pros outweigh the cons by a mile though. Hmm, I wonder what the weight of a mile is.. oh well....

Czari Zenovka wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Czari Zenovka wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: What's with the negativity here? The possibility to run SL in high quality on very low specs. Doesn't anyone see the bigger picture? (I do not like the $3 an hour rate, but for people who spend 4 hours a week in SL on the weekend and have no other need for a $1500-$2000 machine, it's actually very reasonable.) Ummmm...the PC I use to run SL cost me approximately $800 USD. That PC won't run SL on ultra settings with 200 fps, will it? Mine even doesn't (unless I'm on an empty platform), while it cost me EUR1500 excluding VAT. It's quite a bit faster than yours, especially the video card. That was one and a half years ago, but for a high end CPU you still pay ~$300 and a high end graphics card still costs $400 or more. I don't think you can buy a case, PS, motherboard, operating system, harddrive and all the small bits for the $100 that are left. You can wait for sales and get the number down a couple of 100 bucks, but that still leaves you without a monitor, keyboard and mouse. Now if either of us wanted the same specs, but on a mobile device, the price would go up some more. Anyway, the point wasn't the exact price for good hardware, it's the fact some people aren't willing to invest in hardware just to run SL. Your point appeared to be that one needed to invest $1500-$2000 for a PC just to run SL for 4 hours a week. THAT is what I was addressing, not how many fps a PC gets, which you later threw in. If you change what I had in a microfont (for a reason) into superfont, it certainly appears that way. My point (in normal font size) was that itś now possible (for some, in some places) to run SL is high quality (which includes high fps) on a low specced machine. According to the claims made by the devs, higher quality than what my EUR1500 machine produces. If you want to buy a computer just for 4 hours of SL a week, you would be either pretty well funded or pretty stupid if you'd buy what I have hiding under the desk. Personally I'd settle for something a lot cheaper than $800. I was content (nothing more than that) with my med specced one from 2007.

I didn't want to give the impression that I didn't understand the connection between people not wanting to pay for one thing and not for another:) I know I litterally said it, just thought that was so obvious there might be more to it or something. I simply thought of some scenarios where people might be interested in SLGo. I can think of more and I'm sure there are plenty I can't think of .The biggest potential market is somewhere I never expect it to be probably. What I certainly hope is that people have a good first impression of SL, for themselves and for SL as a whole. Everybody knows the poor souls wandering around "how did I end up here", "why is everyone gray", "I can hardly walk" etc. A full experience without any hassle might help. Still, as I said, I'm curious where this technology is headed.

Cully Andel wrote: but I'm guessing that the vast majority of users (just read this thread) wont be using tablets to access Sl so no it's not. Point is we need this on the viewers we have - not on tablets So this might be a first step? Rome wasn't built in a day...

Innula Zenovka wrote: Furthermore, I don't see what's wrong with regulating the drugs trade in the sense that I think laws about product labelling and purity, sale of goods and so on should certainly apply. That is, if someone chooses to buy some morphine at n% strength, that's what he should get, and not risk (as is the case at the moment) ending up with some wierd and wonderful cocktail of unknown ingredients. I can see the ethical issues there. It's certainly a difficult subject. Here in the Netherlands we (used to) have free testing of drugs at house parties. I think that works pretty well. I don't think that was government controlled, but it was a layer of "protection from above" nonetheless. Completely regulating drugs can be seen as a form of approval, I don't think that works really well. On the other hand, free trade in drugs, including quality issues, won't work very well either. Did I mention balance already?

Sassy Romano wrote: The connection is for the faction of users who say "I can't afford to upgrade my PC", they're probably the same group that won't be prepared to pay by the hour. But you overlook all the groups I mentioned. The people that aren't willing to pay for SL (by investing in hardware) obviously aren't in the target market. Given the fact we're talking about a company, not a charity institution, the devs expect to make a profit, or at the very least are willing to take a gamble on that. I'm pretty sure they weren't looking for customers that don't want to pay for anything. I honestly don't think the market will be very large and I certainly won't be part of it. I'm just intrigued by the technology and its potential for the future. Imagine a SL without any whining about performance or questions about settings every day in the forums..oh wait, maybe that would be too boring:)

Medhue Simoni wrote: My point about not being about to go with my dad today is that the tools were dangerous. We used air compressors and air tools. I wasn't just handing him tools. I worked all day with him out on the road. Imagine how tired a 9 year old can get moving around tires that are larger than him. There would be many things for some do gooder to object with. Yet you were allowed to do it and would still be allowed to do it today. I guess either that do-gooder hasn't been around for all these years or maybe just maybe the so called do-gooder used his brain and made sure the law didn't restrict cases like yours, but did restrict minors being exploited. That is the point again. The law is arbitrary and made up of opinions As I said it's about finding a balance. That by definition means nobody will be getting exactly what they wanted, some will think it's too strict, some will think it's too loose a rule. At the end of the day we luckily do not have the scenario where most people have the exact opposite of what they want. What if a father wanted to have his son to goto school half the time and work with him the other half? Why is that bad? Because some people have different opinions? Should we really allow people to write laws for our own good? Is it even possible for them to know what is in our interest? That's bad because we need a certain level of education to be able to keep up with the rest of the community. Laws aren't in your best interest directly, but they are in society's best interest.

Medhue Simoni wrote: I'm not the 1 believing in magic spells, which are basically laws and regulations. The free market inheritly has regulations, and they are much better than almost any you can come up with. That is the point. Yet you fail, for some time now, to give even a single example or any evidence of any of that. The difference is that an educated person can make their own choices. As soon as you artificially distort the market, your choices drop. The major difference between you and I, is that you think using force is valid, and I do not, unless I've/you've been agressed against The problem is that a lot of people, educated or not, make choices that hurt others. Having slightly less freedom to do as you see fit is a small price to pay to put a halt to that if you ask me. Most laws and regulations are completely abitrary. They are just opinions. So, you are forcing other people to adhere to your opinions on what is better, or for their own good. This ideology is extremely dangerous, as it can lead to any kind of evil possibilities, not to mention all the corruption it invites. If you don't allow for arbitrary and excessive rules and regulations, then the politicians have nothing to barter with. Most laws are arbitrary? Up to a point, yes. Say the speed limit is 65 mph. A lot of people would argue they wouldn't hurt anyone driving 70 mph, some would argue they wouldn't hurt anyone driving 200 mph. The fact is with a 70 mph speed limit, there would be more casualties, with 60 mph less. Arbitrary? Kind of, although I'd say it's more about finding a healthy balance between freedom and safety. They are by no means "opinions". The drug laws are a prime example of the corruption that goes on, and how devistating it is to allow for such social controls. Yet, the laws still apply, and people have been put into cages for many decades now, destroying an untold amount of lives. Despite all the evidence about how bad these laws are, we sit here and have to debate with people about how these laws are for our own good. What I read is: "drugs laws are bad, drug laws are bad, drug laws are bad." Not something easy to reply to. I don't think you mean the corruption leads to innocent people behind bars. Maybe you do, but it's not clear to me. I certainly don't agree with how the US treat the average pot smoker. I can't understand how it's possible a civilised country has 1% of its population in jail. Maybe that's proof the country isn't civilised at all. I know there is corruption in every layer of civilisation, but that's the case in a communist as well as a pure free market society, so that's a non argument to me. See, you seem to think that ONLY good laws and regulations will be enacted, but the true reality is that the only good laws are those that people adhere to voluntarily, and every1 agrees to. Not at all. I am convinced that the pros outweigh the cons by a mile though.

So according to your first post we're better off without any laws and according to your second post we would be better off without education? Really? REALLY?

Sassy Romano wrote: Although the same ones who are unwilling to invest in hardware are also probably as unlikely to see any reason to spend at an hourly rate to be in SL. I don't see the connection between those two. Some people have absolutely no need to have a full size computer sitting on their desk 24/7 when all they want is to access a service on a limited basis. There are also people who don't want to fiddle with a gazillion graphics settings, just to find a somewhat acceptable match with their computer specs (only to find out their router had to be reset or the viewer needed an update or they have to start over when they teleport to a new sim with a different amount of objects, textures, avatars etc). Some people simply like to use their tablet for SL, either on the couch or on the road. I don't think people will compare the two options of investing in hardware or using a paid service. All I said was the price seems to be reasonable. The OnLive platform doesn't deliver 200 fps either. That's what I read, so it's all I have to go by. I don't have an android phone or tablet to test it. 200 fps is useless anyway, since that's a lot higher than the refresh rate of those devices. It does indicate you get high performance on very low spec devices, apparantly higher than I get on a high end desktop. Maybe the hardware and viewer they use produce 200fps which is then used to make a 25fps movie, fps don't say a whole lot when you compare local rendering to watching a streamed movie. It's an access method but not a substitute purely because not all features can work. Unable to upload content limits use for creation for example. I don't think it's either meant or advertised as a substitute, that would be pretty stupid.

Cully Andel wrote: Not really. not when you have trouble running it on a full sized pc already Isn't that the whole point? Users not having to worry about local performance issues.

Czari Zenovka wrote: Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: What's with the negativity here? The possibility to run SL in high quality on very low specs. Doesn't anyone see the bigger picture? (I do not like the $3 an hour rate, but for people who spend 4 hours a week in SL on the weekend and have no other need for a $1500-$2000 machine, it's actually very reasonable.) Ummmm...the PC I use to run SL cost me approximately $800 USD. That PC won't run SL on ultra settings with 200 fps, will it? Mine even doesn't (unless I'm on an empty platform), while it cost me EUR1500 excluding VAT. It's quite a bit faster than yours, especially the video card. That was one and a half years ago, but for a high end CPU you still pay ~$300 and a high end graphics card still costs $400 or more. I don't think you can buy a case, PS, motherboard, operating system, harddrive and all the small bits for the $100 that are left. You can wait for sales and get the number down a couple of 100 bucks, but that still leaves you without a monitor, keyboard and mouse. Now if either of us wanted the same specs, but on a mobile device, the price would go up some more. Anyway, the point wasn't the exact price for good hardware, it's the fact some people aren't willing to invest in hardware just to run SL.

What's with the negativity here? The possibility to run SL in high quality on very low specs. Doesn't anyone see the bigger picture? (I do not like the $3 an hour rate, but for people who spend 4 hours a week in SL on the weekend and have no other need for a $1500-$2000 machine, it's actually very reasonable.)

Freya Mokusei wrote: SL will only use 512Mb of VRAM max. Your Mac does not have 8Mb RAM. SL will only use a maximum of 512MB of VRAM for textures. In certain sims/situations the total VRAM use can be a lot more. And I don't think this.... or this.... will be able to run SL very well.

Medhue Simoni wrote: You seem to be making my points for me. The free market is not the holy grail, and this would imply it has some kind of magical power. The free market is akin to the scientific method. Yeah, you could use other methods and possibly come to similar conclusions, but this is the best way. The holy grail is mythical, something people believe in without any evidence. The term seems to fit perfectly on how you view the free market. I really don't understand how you can call free market akin to "the scientific method". I have seen all your assumptions, but haven't seen any evidence in anything you write. In science you observe, analyse, then draw conclusions. You skip the middle part of that, if not the first and middle part. Gosh, you can throw the ball a bit harder than child labor. This should be obvious. When I was a kid, my dad used to take my on calls to repair tires on big semi trucks. The tires were larger than me, but I could still help him with little things and hand him tools. He paid me almost nothing, but I got to spend time with my dad, and I learned alot. Today, he could not bring me along because of child labor laws. You already are unable to catch the ball here and I'm not exactly throwing curve balls. According to what you write, something changed between the time you were a kid and present day. Something that would allow you to work then and doesn't allow that anymore. That either means you were handing your father tools before 1938, or that you weren't allowed to do it when you did in the first place (which isn't true), or that you are simply mistaken altogether, since you would still be allowed to do it. What your father wasn't allowed to do, and still isn't, is to employ a child. That doesn't mean he can't take one to work. The abuse of child labor was not a very large problem in the states. They were isolated incidents. When you restrict children from doing any work at all, you deprive them of the learning experience, and the pay they would receive. When I was young, many kids in the poorer families had to work to help out. By restricting their employment, you are further hurting the poorest families. Assuming you weren't handing your father tools around 1935, but around 1980, I hope you are referring to that later period. Before there was any regulation on child labor in the U.S., up to around a century ago, (ab)use of child labor was rampant. Millions of underaged children were working in factories, making 70 hour weeks, losing limbs and missing out on their childhood and education. Of course the extra income was welcomed by the family, but a good education and lively childhood, made possible by (among other regulations) minimum wages for the parents, would most likely provide a much better future for them. Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, give him a fishing rod and he'll eat forever, right? The only reason why you seem to think there was never a big issue with child labor is because it was regulated as long as you can remember. If you go back and look at what group supported those child labor laws, it was the trade unions. Again, along with minimum wages, the trade unions used the government to further secured their place in the labor market, and restricted any and all forms of competition. Why drag unions into this discussion? That's a bit out of the blue, not to mention completely irrelevant. The laws on child labour were pushed by the National Child Labor Committee and The National Consumer League. The reasons were the poor working conditions and lack of education. As a parent, I think I'm going to care about my child's interests quite a bit more than some government agency and I don't need, nor want, government to get in the way of my child's progress or opportunities. Your view is a bit narrow here, maybe you are able to protect your children and make good decisions for them. History shows this isn't the case for a society as a whole. Look at the difference in well being, wealth, and wealth distribution between western countries (where most things are regulated nowadays) and third world countries where pretty much nothing is regulated. Those countries are exploited from abroad and their citizens exploit eachother. I think you are confused. See, I'm not the 1 saying I can foresee anything, other than, that the government solution is inheritly inefficient, and can not possibly know all the negative consequences, hence leading to a worse outcome than any other solution. It's government that constantly thinks it can know things that are impossible to know. What I, and Hayek, are saying, is that you can not know what the right solutions can be, and it is only the market that can figure that out in the most efficient way, using the least amount of resources. That's a classic case of warped logic. So the government cannot foresee the consequences of regulation, yet you and Hayek can foresee the consequences of a total lack of regulation? The one outrules the other.

I'm on my way to bed so will answer tomorrow. In the meantime you should read up on child labor law which still allows you to hand screws and other bits to your dad while he works. Regulation on child labour does not mean children can't do any work, it just means it is regulated.

Coby Foden wrote: Why to continue the trend of making things randomly bigger? There is no inherent need to make everything bigger in SL, except for the oversized avatars. Most things in SL are oversized. Not randomly though, things are sized according to the things around it. It's not just avatar size. For example, a RL corridor as narrow as one meter feels quite comfortable, as long as it's not too long. This is not the case in SL, or any virtual environment. So if you build a chair to your RL proportions and scale, most people will scale it up. As a merchant you'll get a lot of complaints if you say your object has a LI of 3 and it turns out to be 5 when scaled to the average SL environment. Instead of selling it slightly bigger, you could also show the different LI's for the different sizes.

The scale of your objects is up to you. A lot of SL avatars are well over two meters tall. Some are made to resemble RL meters. Since you're building in mesh, I'd say it's best to make your furniture a bit bigger in SL meters than it would be in RL meters, maybe 25% bigger. People can then scale it down without an increase in download weight. So make sure your furniture is scalable. Also watch the physics weight when you scale down the furniture, it can increase as the model gets smaller. Of course you could do the obvious and see for yourself what scale fits SL best.

You were clear enough, maybe I wasn't. By medieval I meant the small communities and lack of knowledge, not charging knights and screaming maidens. For some reason you seem to think you can oversee all potential hazards around you, I know I don't. For example, if it wasn't for regulation, your tap water could possibly kill you. You could search all over the internet on how the water came from the sea to your sink, but you will never know what happened behind the water company's fence. With regulations we still can't look over that fence, but at least we know someone does. It's extra protection and protection with a good oversight. Of course with regulations, you can still do your own research. Could you define a group? Is that 328 people? Is that all people in a 20 mile radius? Is it all people on your side of the track? Is it all people you can have a fun night with? What if 51% of the group was not agreeing with you? Would you form a splinter group?

Medhue Simoni wrote: It's an interesting report to say the least. I giggled a little. It basically admits that there can be significant negative impacts to ALL regulations, which is dang close to what I said. No it's not. Admitting that there can be negative impacts, even to all regulations, is not nearly the same as your claim that regulations are counter productive. It even leaves room for the exact opposite. Where I differ, is the amount of negative impacts. The government seems to think it can calculate it accurately. I do not agree. The numbers speak for themselves, they are from 2002 to 2012. It's 2014 now, so there is no question about how high the inflation was. The government doesn't "seem to think it can calculate it accurately" at all. The article clearly states some things can't be directly translated into monetary values. Also, the numbers for both benefits and costs have a huge error margin. Who would have better insight? The office with all the available data, or you with, from what I have read so far, just your opinion (that a free market is the holy grail)? Where's your explanation of how regulation on child labour is counterproductive?

Medhue Simoni wrote: To me, in the new world we are living in, we need to take responsibility for our own protection That doesn't sound very "new" to me, it sounds medieval at best. It's certainly not the world I am living in and I am glad about that. Have you ever considered the fact that there are people who are not able to protect themselves? Did you consider you could be one of them tomorrow?

Medhue Simoni wrote: Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive. I wasn't talking about productive, being part of a society is about so much more than that. As I said I can come up with countless examples (which will probably be pointless), but I think child labour is a good one. EDIT I dislike dumping large, boring documents on people as much as I dislike reading them, but you might want to give this a quick look, scroll down to page 11 for an overview.

I use an MX518 from Logitech which I probably will keep doing until it breaks. It's no longer for sale, so you might want to look at its successor, the G400. You could also look at the G500, which is slightly more expensive. If you want a more futuristic one, like the Mad Katz mouse, you could look at the G700s. I don't like the looks, but it's rechargable and you can use it wired. For certain tasks I use a bamboo pad, but never when I am inworld.

Back on topic.... Mt. Gox Files for Protection

Indigo Mertel wrote: Is this the proper way to resolve shading issues? Does this technique increases the LI of models? Which shading issues? The ones that are the result of trying to bake rounded edges somewhere not on the edge of UV islands? The technique of using smoothing groups instead of split edges makes no difference at all. A vertex that's shared between two smoothing groups has two vertex normals, one for each group. SL doesn't support multiple vertex normals, so the vertex is split by the uploader. For example, a mesh cube in SL is not a cube at all, it's six squares pushed together at the edges.