P2P - landowners decide. Change "teleport to me". Privacy secured.

Since "no-fly" is already an option, I'd say the standard is already in place. I'm saying we should fix it.


Flight is a mode of transportation within the world. Prims are the very thing that the world is comprised of.

In other words, apples - oranges. One is the world, one is a way to explore the world.


....


And for all you fly-should-override-land people, what is your concern? That you won't be able to travel places?

With what I've proposed, the most flying you'd have to do from most places will be a short hop from the landing point of a person's land to somewhere else on the land. That's certainly better than the long-distance travel from telehubs that some places can be.

And bottom line - if I don't want to see you flying over my land, then there should be a way to accomodate that. I think landing spots with P2P is an excellent solution, though I'm open to alternate ways - like making people mutually invisible while flying through a no-fly area. But I still prefer the land-owner-favoring solution because the bottom line is that landowners are the ones who actually pay for the land and should have the rights.

Why is it in any way "natural" that the owner of land can control what others do with their own bodies while on that land?

Flight isn't just a mode of transport in SL. It's an important part of the psychological experience. The idea of living in a world in which people can fly instantly tells you that this is a land of dreams. That feeling is instantly shut down in no-fly zones, and I'm sure that many of the objections stem a lot from that loss. On a technical side, walking is also slow and prone to lag.

First of all, they aren't bodies. They're avatars. This isn't some abortion / human rights issue. You travel to the server space that I pay for with your piece of software - then you play by my rules. Period.

Because the real rule is "Money" - someone has to pay for the servers for this wonderful world to exist.

If you want to do whatever you want, pay for your own land.


Right, and plenty of landowners might not want the feeling of "the land of dreams" on their land. They maybe want other feelings.

Take Snakekiss' Hiroshima tribute in the last Burning Life. Is that "The Land of dreams". No, it's a representation of a horrible event.

How about if I make a 1st person shooter? Do I want people flying to parts of the board? No. If I want a 1st person jet-pack shooter, I'll make one. Else, I want to be able to ground people.

How about if I want to simulate ... say ... anything in the real world?

Flight is a cool feature, but when landowners want it off, they should have the right.

How far can you see?

Hey, I have an idea.

How about instead of not letting people fly over your land, simply not displaying avatars flying over a no-fly land?

How do you stop them? Disable vehicles, llApplyImpulse(), llPushObject(), llSetPos(), targeted ballistic objects pushing the avatar around by reaction? Pure-physics avatar trebuchets sitting just off your land?

That is correct "pay for the land" not the sky. This argument was settled in real life that no one owns the sky. The same standard should apply to Second Life. Put up your little red bars if you don't want people coming to close but the sky should stay open.

I find this all rather silly. What are you afraid of? Someone might see your cartoon character dancing in it's underwear or you have a top secret lab researching the perfect poser ball Threads like this keep SL insteresting and amusing.
Keep up the good work


Rox

Here is a GREAT idea....If its not broken dont fix it. I personally think they should fix whats broken before they decide to break something that works fine as is. I dont really want to go thru endless patching cause they decided to do away with a perfectly good system. LL should use the time to fix what we all have issues with now and leave the hubs as they are