Stay Off My Property!

I read the math problem Conan described as


175L/0L = Infinite larger price.

The reason Computers cant divide by zero is because the result "approaches infinty" right?

That's the point I was driving at. But it can be summed up as this; 175L for a security system is 175L more than is necessary.

...and Collette wins the thread

Who made you referee?
This thread is now about the value of zero and the nature of infinity.

That's the spirit

Considering
- the cost of a PC with enough poke to run SL
- the up-front cost of SL land
- the continuing Premium fees
- the continuing tier
Anyone who can't shell out a once-off US$1 or 2 (or around a single week's stipend) to avoid being a jerk to neighbours has something seriously wrong with their soul.

Like it not existing. I don't need two newspapers every day, so I only buy one. They cost even less.

Some might say that your position on the cost of a security system demonstrates a knowledge of
- the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Infact really it just demonstrates a knowledge of the price of a security system (175L) and the value of a security system (0L).

I'll buy this argument. It's not necessary. It's the nice thing to do, but you're right; it's unnecessary.

Your arguement is a deontological one. I need to hear consequentialist arguments.

Hey! I'll buy it too. The man has a valid point.
It's not necessary to avoid being a jerk who craps over the neighbours enjoyment of SL.
It's only necessary to avoid being successfully ARed - and strictly speaking, that's not necessary either.

But being a jerk who is so obsessed with what their neighbours are doing to their own land is perfectly okay. Anyone whose enjoyment of SL is spoiled by ban lines desparately needs to get laid in real life.

I see you trollin

PLONK!

ooooo! Big words. You would have achieved the same meaning by taking the "ist" out of "consequentialist" and what does my dentist have to do with all this.

/me digs through his mental list of really, really long words, then decides it's too much trouble.

In a purely Willistonian four-corners argument, the use of ban lines falls within the terms of the agreement and it is not necessary to use some sort of parole evidence indicating the particular mens rea of the contracting parties, in this case, the corporate entity and the virtual landowner. However a more modern approach would be to look to the intent of the parties with regards to conditions not present in the corpus of the documentary evidence...

blah, blah, blah ban lines are perfectly legal, do whatever the F you want. nobody can MAKE you stop being a jerk, you have to go to some sort of 12 step program, which, by the way is a good deal. they have cookies and coffee and it's a good place to pick up chicks.

I still think L175 isn't too much to pay to be a good neighbor. Anybody who is so wrapped up in themselves to the point where they can't drop L175 to do something nice for their neighbors desperately needs to get laid in real life.

I'm not so sure that they need (even not desperately) to get laid.
It's not necessary.
They can just breathe a bit more loudly and rapidly in their mother's basement

It's way cheaper.

LOL well he did say the quality had to be the same ..

So it would depend on the quality of the RL sex in question as to whether it was of equal value to just breathing exercises in said Mother's basement.

Would heavy mouth-breathing in his Mother's basement qualify as oral sex?

well that would depend on how bad the oral sex would be that the heavy breathing was to take the place of.


Lets say the oral sex someone could have if they had real partner A was a 2 on the good scale ..

While heavy breathing alone was a 3 on the good scale ..

Then certainly the heavy breathing would be a better value.


But if the oral sex was from say Person B, who is a 5 on the good scale then of course it certainly wouldnt be better.

But since Person B is actually a Prostitute and Person A is the basement dwellers friends weird spinster Aunt .. And basement dweller only has $1.25 to their name.

You see how complicated this is?


===================
Just a reminder I am not referring to Conan as a basement dweller - the basement dweller in my example is entirely hypothetical - no matter how much said basement dweller might resemble many SL residents.

Nope.
It's really very simple.
For this guy, the cost is the overriding factor.
He won't spend the money that he would have to in order to get himself laid.
He'll always go for the free/cheaper option.

but you missed the "equal value" part.

Conan argued that a security orb and banlines have equal value ..

Thus the security orb is over priced.

----------

Maybe they don't have equal value.

But if they do, then sure a security orb is over priced.

==================

In your last example ---

Breathing exercises and actual sex may or may not have equal value. IF they do and the actual sex costs more -- then the actual sex is overpriced

Its when the value isn't equal, and the budget is limited that it becomes more complicated - like in my example.

thats it im a lesbian now >_<!!!

*For those who haven't read this entire thread, here is a recap of this and the 100 other threads like this:

A: Ban lines are evil.

B: No they're not. They are my right.

A: They are ugly and don't give enough warning for people exploring until they smack into them.

B: They shouldn't be intruding where they aren't wanted anyway.

A: Security orbs are better.

B: Are you going to buy me one?

A: Only if you'll give me time to get out of the way. Maybe 15 - 20 minutes?

B: 2 seconds is all you need. Any more than that and you could grief me.

A: If you don't take your ban lines down I'll build a big ugly wall with a giant picture of Carrot Top facing you.

B: That would be hypocritical and a giant picture of Carrot Top would be the worse form of griefing.

A: Why do you need banlines up on an empty piece of land anyway?

B: I don't need to give you a reason. It's mine, mine, mine!!!! Damn you! I live in the US and it's also my right to own a gun. Try to get on my land and I'll blow your head off.

A: If you can afford an expensive gun then you can afford to buy a security orb.

B: Not true. My grandpappy gave it to me. He had banlines on every inch of his farm.

C: I think it's time for some pie!

A: Why do you want to be such a jerk, B. Don't you care about other residents?

D: Hmmmmm, I'll have some pie. Can we have chocolate cream?

B: I'm a jerk because I can be. LL gave me the right to use banlines and I'm using them.

E: I'd prefer panties over pie.

C: Hmmmm, chocolate pantie pie.

A: If you can be a jerk with your banlines I can be a jerk with my Carrot Top billboard. It's my land and I can do what I want works both ways.

E: Eating chocolate pantie pie in a seductive pose will give you a good Trout rating.

F: I wonder if Hitler ever ate chocolate panty pie?

* We haven't gotten to the pie and panties yet, but just give it time.

THA WINNAHH!!!

They don't have equal value, no matter from which side you look at it, and from what altitude.


Up to 50 metres AGL:
For someone who doesn't care about the effect on others, ban lines would be far more valuable than orbs even if there were no price difference.
- Ban lines stop people at the boundary. Ban lines can be turned on with a single check box in About land.
- Orbs allow someone to cross the boundary once-only for however many seconds they are set to scan for. They can ban an intruder after the first eject and the intruder can never enter the parcel again. They do allow a brief one-time entry to someone not already on the parcel ban list.
- Orbs involve reading documentation and setting up the device properly.

For someone who cares about others in general
- Ban lines have a huge negative value, even though they are free.
- Orbs have a value if the person wants to exclude others



Over 50 metres AGL:
- General ban lines don't work. They have zero value.
- Orbs have a value against which their cost may be judged.











In the concrete example of the cost v. benefit of security orb:
If the budget can't rise to a once-off spend of about one week's stipend, then I'd say that the deficit is in the soul and not in the wallet.