The Vicious Cycle

I think this gives great insight into what I percieve, and i think I hear others saying, is the flaw in the Linden model that does not bode well.
First, viewing SL from one type of SL user's perspective, a consumer, consumers have certain expectations. Things like quality, value for money, enjoyment. If a product doesn't adequately provide such things, it stops selling.
Second. Looking at it from the perspective of someone involved in SL commerce (and these people of course, are also consumers of SL's product)... investors and business people look for guarantees and risk reduction. They look for regulation that safeguards their investments. Business will not thrive without this... and from what I see, the SL economy is a big part of Linden marketing.
Currently, people from both these groups, correctly or incorrectly percieve that issues like the signs conflict with the above requirements. In any business/economy, a loss of faith, consumer/business confidence is inextricably linked to sales/performance. Therefore these perceptions will translate to at least some measure of decline in Linden's revenue/SL's economy.
And a side note: Laissez-Faire is sooo 19th century!

You have a point about personal desire, but that's not something to discredit by any means. The issue never goes away or becomes any less important. In fact it grows even more important as SL gets larger. The reasons for SLs growth are far more to do with free accounts and the "promise" of virtual riches than anything else. And you shouldn't forget SL is currently unique, a position it's not likely to hold forever.

Thanks for the memory trigger. There was a doctrine of property law in England, established in the 17th century, called "Ancient Lights". This principle was adopted in a rapidly urbanizing nation to stop the deprivation of views (and sunlight) long enjoyed by a property holder by the construction of an overshadowing building. So this issue is hardly new and was enacted under conditions of growth similar to that which SL is experiencing now.

I have to guess that this principle has been since abandoned or modified in the intervening centuries, but I do know that it was one aspect of English property law that was not imported into the American colonies as it was thought to stultify growth and development.

I'm not sure what, if any, lessons can be derived from this but the conflict of property "rights" is only new here.

Then what has to be fixed, is the "shared in viewer" issue. A.K.A the "possibility to render world on a per-parcel basis".

Not nessecarily.

This could be done purely clientside. SL most likely (very very likely) has a local objects list when running. It's a bit of RAM which stores all the objects your client is rendering, it's shape, and probably an OpenGL display list for the object.

This is probably doable, by looking at the 'add object to your local list' packet comes from SL, to look at the owner. If it's on the client-side do-not-show-list, then the SL client can ignore that prim and not add it to the display objects list.

I actually suspect this might be easier than people think.

LOL! I agree completely. Apparently the ultimate social evil comes in one-prim, textured packages these days. Damn, I am always a day late and a dollar short. I should have planted my "David Valentino is your God" signs all over SL long ago.

I mean really guys. Just turn your head or build a wall or something. They are just signs, with no nudity, racist comments or farting sounds. And they are on his land....

Heh, when Kathmandu Gilman and Cid Jacobs showed me how to nuke the foot shadows from under my feet, I was freakin' overjoyed. I was also wondering, "WHY WASN'T THIS DISCOVERED SOONER?"

I dunno if there's a way to put some sort of intermediary proggie between SL and your Internet connection. I was thinking, well, firewalls can block SL from working right, so can't something inbetween more selectively filter out what you don't want to see?

It's doable. No doubt for me there - but it would probably require going deep into violating-the-TOS-regarding-reverse-engineering territory.

Shame really.

Yeah, I wouldn't want anyone to get into trouble trying to help out and having to violate the TOS to do so.

Ack... it's almost in sight.

Dunno about that, actually. LL never yelled at qDot for his experiments with "Hooky" and the exercise bike thinger. Hell, Hamlet embraced it with open arms.

I would ask that question expressly to a Linden. I went over the same thing a year or so ago worrying my Blender tool might be seen the same way. Saved the email of its concept being approved, to boot.

To those of you who have stayed on the mainland, as I have, what do you see it's future being should LL make a go of the platform thing?

Well, Hooky just wraps around your keyboard; there's no analysis of how SL works involved. It's just plain - grab application handler by window name, and send keyboard inputs. You dont need to know anything about the application to do that.

I totally agree with Introvert's entire analysis, excerpted above, and with Fade's comments on it also.

Regarding people's recounting of being mad about the signs, I was never mad about them, and I'm still not. I totally ignored the stupid sign that popped up next to me, extortionary prices and all. (Probably easier to ignore cause it was next to a satellite shop, not my house, but still . . .)

It was only when I realized what was going on that I realized this was a growing problem. Introvert's take on it is pretty much my own take on it, and I think speaks to the most important aspect of the whole thing.

coco

Wrong, based on what I've read. The OWNER of an object is NOT sent to you by default just because its been rendered. This WOULD require a change and increase traffic dramatically. I could be wrong but I've seen people say owner is not sent by default.