Here's an opposing view to that - 99.9% of the world actually isn't that interesting and I'd like to get to the interesting parts without having to fly for ages past the crud. As I said earlier I'd be much more likely to go and see something interesting, or explore somewhere I've heard about or found through Find if I could get there straight away. I bet people might be more inclined to go to events as well.
First of all, 99.9% is two orders of magnitude exaggeration--SL seems to follow Sturgeon's Law of 90% crap, 10% good stuff pretty closely. And second, the lower the percentage is, the *more* you need to be encouraged to explore and find the stuff you'll like, not just commute from known point A to known point Z without seeing B through Y.
OK, I don't quite know how to put this without coming across as rude, but that argument is on such pointless, shaky ground it really doesn't count. Can you jump up in the air and fly in real life? Can you take your wardrobe around with you in real life? Can you dive without breathing apparatus (OK, Big Blue fans, we'll ignore the obvious here)? Can you build airplanes or construct a building in an hour? Can you.... can you.... can you.... (the list is endless).
You see, this isn't real life, so why should not being able to do that in real life have any bearing over the argument as to whether we should be able to do it in Second Life. I can't see the thought process there.
You see, this isn't real life, so why should not being able to do that in real life have any bearing over the argument as to whether we should be able to do it in Second Life. I can't see the thought process there.
Indeed it's not real life, and I want Second Life to have its own idiomatic laws of physics, but Martin said he would "never understand anyone pushing the idea that we should be charged for anything that will enable us to view their product more easily." I provided an example that would help him understand this concept.
