More Telehubs In Snow Sims Please!

As the CEO of AMDC, I would like to ask the Lindens to expand the telehub system in the snow sims. Currently, there are half the number of telehubs in snow sims as there are in the older, warmer sims and this has greatly affected, no only development, but also land sales/purchases.

Travel around and you will see all of the land for sale and has been for sale for weeks by the same sellers, all because you have to travel a kilometer (for all of those not fluent in the metric system, a kilometer is 1000 meters) or more from a telehub to get to them.

This has created a lack of economic vitality required in SL.

ADD MORE TELEHUBS IN THE SNOW SIMS!

I DO NOT agree with this suggestion or call for more telehubs. Speifically, I do not agree with the reasoning above in calling for more telehubs - it is flawed on its face. There is no lack of economic vitality in SL and that there is land remaining for sale inthe snow sims for longer than a week is a function of far more than any single issue; to even posit that it is rekated to merely a single issue is stretching things past any breaking point of rationality.

The large infusion ofland, both in the snow sims and elsewhere, I believe, has as much to do with the increased time to turnover land int he snow sims as anything else.

One of the attractivons in the snow sims, to me at least, is the lack of telehubs, in effect encouraging me by force to fly (either with or without vehicles) and actuallly explore. Telehub travel may be beficial for business owners.. but if it's a store I want to visit - I will getthere regardless of the difficulty or method required to do so.

I repeat.. I am against the suggestion of more telehubs in the snow sims being implemented.

Korg,

To call my reasoning flawed is just short of nuts. Not by much mind you.

I study the trends of SL relentlessly and have been studying the lack of economic vitality in the snow sims for over a month now. I have done the charts, the graph and the models and it all relates.

Yes, I was remiss in not mentioning the MASSIVE influx of land for poor land sales, but the crux of my request is not regarding land sales, it is about the overall economic vitality in the snow sims.

As a mall developer, I want was best for the land owner and if I see that more telehubs would be beneficial that I call for them, as I have.

I didn't mean for anything to be taken personally Alexander. Your reasoning, however, as I noted,is flawed - and IMHO, in a matter which does border on irrationality. Your making an equation where "posicitve economic development" is a result of the presence or absence of a telehub is flawed on its face. Using land sales as the sole measure - as evidenced by specific plots going unsold for a week, omg, a whole week - is equally fallacious.

While your concern may be "about the overall economic vitality" of both SL and the snow sims in particular, I dispute your logic again. First, I see no lack of evidence that the snow sims are thriving in their own way. Each time I fly through or over the snow sims, I notice new builds, new developments. That yours is one of only a few malls or shopping areas in the snow sims is not an accurate measure of economic development for the area as a whole. I constantly notice small plots being used as points of sale, some as stores and others as homestead/store combinations.

Regardless of your study of charts and graphs and god knows what else, I merely constructed a rhetorical argument to dispute your position and state my opinion with respect to your suggestion. I repeat, I am against it. That simple. Nothing personal. Your goals are different than mine and, as a mall owner, obviously your perspective is going to be different than mine.

hehe in the name of malls? and as the amdc chairmen lol you crack my little ass up but hey whatever works i guess.

God no. I think the whole telehub concept is stupid. We should just fly around and landmark general areas.

"The number 65,536 is an awkward figure to everyone except a hacker, who recognizes it more readily than his own mother's date of birth: It happens to be a power of 2 -- 2^16 power to be exact -- and even the exponent 16 is equal to 2^4, and 4 is equal to 2^2. Along with 256; 32,768; and 2,147,483,648; 65,536 is one of the foundation stones of the hacker universe, in which 2 is the only really important number because that's how many digits a computer can recognize. One of those digits is 0, and the other is 1. Any number that can be created by fetishistically multiplying 2s by each other, and subtracting the occasional 1, will be instantly recognizable to a hacker.
[...]
You can't just materialize anywhere in the Metaverse, like Captain Kirk beaming down from on high. This would be confusing and irritating to the people around you. It would break the metaphor. Materializing out of nowhere (or vanishing back into Reality) is considered to be a private function best done in the confines of your own House. Most avatars nowadays are anatomically correct, and naked as a babe when they are first created, so in any case, you have to make yourself decent before you emerge onto the Street. Unless you're something intrinsically indecent and you don't care.
If you are some peon who does not own a House, for example, a person who is coming in from a public terminal, then you materialize in a Port. There are 256 Express Ports on the street, evenly spaced around its circumference at intervals of 256 kilometers. Each of these intervals is further subdivided 256 times with Local Ports, spaced exactly one kilometer apart (astute students of hacker semiotics will note the obsessive repetition of the number 256, which is 2^8 power -- and even that 8 looks pretty juicy, dripping with 2^2 additional 2s)."
- Neil Stephenson, Snow Crash


Sounds reasonable to me.