Lindens can we stop this nonsense soon please....

Thank you.

I could not care any less about what is said in the forums Jesse ... I said that perspectives that attempt to get the way SL is run to be like RL should result in a banning .... or at the very least a warning.

as to the rest .... I DO fly around, quite often in fact. I simply do it at a MUCH higher altitude than most. I find very few people build their homes at 1,000+ meters in the air.

Granted, I'd prefer it if people would keep their homes on the ground (actual houses .... space craft like the one I used to use as a home are an exception) .... but that's not going to happen.

Sure, you have every right to be able to fly around for fun .... and you also have every right to create restricted airspace around your home if you so choose ... just do it at a reasonable height.

Got a skybox? find an altitude to put it that does not encumber the people that like to see the landscape as they fly .... and does not encumber the Low Orbit flight crowd either. Most LSO systems have a 96 meter range ... that's plenty of buffer space for a skybox placed at say .... 800 meters or perhaps 2,000 meters.

Nonsense, no one said anything about trying to force SL to be run like RL.

Here is Baloo's statement again:
"Someone's never looked up... you think pilots care whose "land they're on" with their airplane when they're flying?"

Where does it say anything about policy?

It is a simple statement and nothing more. The statement is true for either SL or RL. While you are flying around in SL, for every plot of land you cross do you ask yourself "OMG, I hope no one here doesn't want me flying over their land." Of course not, you simply fly and enjoy yourself.

Strictly speaking, property (whether of real estate or of objects) is a legal fiction. That is, it's what the law says it is. As a point of philosophical debate, it's a rich subject, with many different conclusions depending on the presupposed basic values or religious framework.

In the US, property rights do not extend infinitely upwards.

In SL, some property rights do extend upwards, and others don't.

It's an interesting matter to debate what changes should be made to SL, or what behavior we should expect of others. (In other words, just because you can do it doesn't mean it's permissible. An example of doable but impermissible is a neighbor's security orb that shouts at you when you're on your own property.

It's an interesting debate whether flying over others' land, and use of mechanisms to thwart it, while possible, should be considered acceptable. It's definitely in a gray area. Chris can shout all he wants that "it's HIS land", but that won't keep vehicles from passing. He can try to police it, but there's really no effective way, without using a horde of security scanners that would bring the sim to its knees.

Someone who wants to thwart vehicles can put up a number of invisible orbs, like mines. Would we consider that acceptable behavior? Personally, I'd find it reprehensible, yet rather amusing.

If someone posted clearly visible signs: "NO TRESPASSING, INCLUDING FLYING VEHICLES" all over would be creating a visual nuisance to the whole neighborhood.

Anyone who thinks this is a simple black-and-white, right-or-wrong issue is oversimplifying it. But I think that we should be able to come up with a consensus that's acceptable to most players.

Personally, I think that vehicle operators should be respectful of the rights of property owners by staying well above ban line limits and well away from visible skyboxes. And I think that landowners who take a vendetta against flying vehicles should consider finding a less stressful way to enjoy life.

Baloo- you said in reply to Maelstrom Janus -
You could always navigate around... it's not like NO ENTRY isn't plastered all over that badboy...

That's the whole point! You don't always get the chance to fly round - look at the example I gave where the owner allows 2 seconds to get off their parcel.

I totally agree with everyone that we are all entitled to privacy, but I still don't get how flying ACROSS a parcel constitutes 'infringement' 'encroachment', or any other words you'd care to use. I have no wish to invade anyones privacy - I try to respect that as much as possible. At the same time, I personally don't think that I own the sky over my land - I pay for the land- not the air.

I believe in Live and Let live - the minority will always spoil it for the majority. Most people seem to have problems with a few thoughtless idiots (as I have too) and everyone else suffers. I'm glad that the majority of SL users are proud of their lands and builds, and allow anyone to look if they want. Naturally these people have security where it's needed and the vast majority will always respect that.

But there has to be a better way of respecting our privacy than punishing those who simply want to enjoy the world and have no intention of disrespecting anyone else.

Just MHO, but I consider 30 sconds to be reasonable. Anything below that is questionable. An expectation of serveral minutes is very unlikely to be met, not even by devices configured by very polite people.

In most cases, people are at the keyboard when crossing boundaries. Maybe Baloo's airship needs a pause button for those AFK moments.

And very rarely do they extend downwards to what is under your property as in mineral rights and water rights. In Texas there was a case a few years ago where someone had an artesian well on their land. Normally this is no problem and you could even build a pond with the water with nothing said. Instead he was wasting an obscene amount of water and hurting the aquifer and this was forceably stopped by the courts.

I agree 30 seconds in enough, and should be amenable to all parties. If you aren't at the controls of your ship and need more time then you should be on the ground. You're as bad as the people on The New Jersey Turnpike who drive a 50 MPH in the left lane with their left turn signal on constantly. *shakes fist*

once industries and economies are up and running in some of the other other virtual worlds which show a lot of promise and certainly more for the avid builder I just might.

As for insulting Lindens... I merely offered criticism of their policies as I would my r/l politicians...And lots of people seem to criticise Lindens every day ..I merely see it as consumers airing their views.

Are you the sort of customer who sits back and takes what you see as poorman workmanship or customer service I wonder ?

You seem to expect other people to.

Lol you clearly dont seem to appreciate flying or the 'skills' involved.

It's difficult enough shifting a thirty prim box out of the way (incidentally some of these ban lines are like glue - once you hi them youre stuck - log out is the only option) it certainly takes a lot longer to move than the time offered by many of these secuirty devices.

Ban lines you might avoid if youre not flying too quickly...so skimming over sl in a jet or anything faster is a bit risky .

As for boundary crashes well if youre flying a snail over sl or a tortoise you might just make it across.

I was being critical at all the hinderances to flight - and not just flight but travel of any form land sea or air - and it seems that ludicrous attempts at home security - and ludicrous is the best way to describe both the methods AND most of the reasons for employing it - add to those which currently seem 'built in' to the system....

Sorry - no. how YOU interpret his post is NOT how I interpret it Jesse.

The wording alone was enough for me to think his perspective is one that wants Second Life to mimic Real Life in terms of what is allowed and what is not: A stance and position I do NOT share and frankly wish would go away.

When I fly over a plot of land it is above 1,000 meters (usually closer to 3,000 meters actually) and thus WELL above the restriction limits and WELL out of range of any LSO. I don't HAVE to wonder or care - unless someone has placed an LSO near that altitude .... there is nothing to indicate that they do not want anyone at all flying over their home.

If I hit a place - at a lower altitude - where a ban line exists or an LSO is deployed that bars me from enjoying the few times I do fly to enjoy the scenery (instead of getting from point A to point B either in the same sim or a few sims over) I either go around or ascend to 3,000 meters until I am clear. No big deal at all.

I do something similar for any content I find objectionable that is NOT located in a PG sim: I avoid it in the future or simply refrain from going to that Sim again.

That's "life" (VERY loosely used) in a "world" where you vanish when the program is shut down.

What's your draw distance set to?

Doesn't matter: Half of my flight time is spent going from point A to point B. I'm not concerned in those moments with the landscape or the builds.

When I AM flying to look at all the pretty things .... I take hitting a ban line or some such in stride and either go around or ascend to what I consider 'cruising' altitude until I feel I have passed the trouble spot.

Note that I also ascend to that height for Sim Crossing as I have found that at higher altitude there is less lag and less of a chance for the crossing to fail miserably.

Mind you, I tend to use one of two craft for this: My Skymaster (doubles as a home if need be) or my Osprey. If I need to step away for a short time, I shut down the engines over a plot that allows scripts and build (especially important if using the Osprey) and head to the back (in the Skymaster) or set out the dock for a moment (for the Osprey). When I come back, the trip resumes (the Osprey's Orbital Dock auto-derezes when the engines come on).

The reactions I get from some when I arrive at my destination or end my leisure trip[ are always amusing ... especially if I'm landing in the Osprey. "Where'd you come from .... and how many troops did you bring with you" is about the tone there.

I'm not technical (entered retrospectively for understatement of the year) but how difficult would it be for LL to create a universally accessible "flight layer" between 700 and 1000 metres up, assuming that might be the optimum height to allow appreciation of the landscape?

Pep (Below that the execrable banlines could be left in place if desired, above it the airspace could still be used by the landholder with no banline security)

PS I would have said I was waiting to be shot down . . .

PPS . . . but that would be a *terrible* pun

I'll agree with this. I am not interpreting his post at all and you sure are interpreting a lot into it.

I suggested something like this on a thread ages ago.... I think its a great idea...
beyond that a layer with the linden moon awaiting SL's on Neil Armstrong and a mass of lunar colonists....

That would only address flying for the sake of flying and that gets boring real fast. SL will never be setup so that it mimics flying in a video came for example. It does not take into account flying because you like to look at the builds. No way to really describe just how pleasant it is to just drift along with a couple of friends, chat and look at the wonderful work that people have done. Nor does it address the problems of banlines that block navigable water or encroach on roads. Fortunately it is the minority in SL that wish to throw up the ban lines and short fused security devices. But it is still enough to ruin the experience for the majority.

Taking a person's post at face value is something I just don't do .... There is no way to convey thought, emotion or any such thing over a forum without relying on someone else to read what you wrote with the same frame of mind you had when posting it ....

That said, it is second nature to me to look at what is being said, HOW it is being said, the CONTEXT of the thread, the choice of wording, punctuation .... WAY too many factors to list really.

As such I often do (and I freely admit this) read too much into a person's post. Sometimes this is a good thing (I end up being the one to tell someone that they are conveying a message to some that they never intended to convey), other times it is a bad thing (wholly misinterpreting what a person is trying to say). There have even been times that I have reread the same post many times over, trying to figure out what the poster is meaning to convey .... and then I'll just respond to all the likely meanings (confusing as all hell to everyone who reads the reply)!

It's reasonable to fly over the ban lines currently, though it's still harder than it used to be. If Chris Norse's wacky scheme was implemented, you wouldn't be able to fly anywhere at any height without hitting ban lines ALL THE TIME.

700 meters is far too high to even see the landscape. Under 150 meters is more optimal for recreational flight.

On the other hand, over 700 meters is probably a pretty good place for individuals with delusions about how fascinating their second lives actually are to build their fortress of solitude. They won't need banlines, and their obnoxious security orbs won't bother anyone just passing through.

Pserendipity - I think that's a pretty good idea - or at least a good place to start.
Like Solar (I think it was) I have to modes of flying - from A to B - in which case I don't care what's around me - I just need to have the map open to navigate. (Which btw restricts my view of those little blue security boxes that come up!)

The other times I like to explore the sights of SL and on these occasions restrictions and security are taken in my stride. Some sort of 'airspace' would be a good idea.

Use the mini-map, Cully - it's smaller and a bit less intrusive to use.

Also, try staying above 1,000 meters and you'll have few problems with the A to B flight.

Letting people have real privacy in SL would make most of the orbs and ground-level ban lines vanish overnight.

http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/svc-205

Causby was about the effect of a planes flying with great frequency and low altitudes over ONE property versus the vast interests of an ENTIRE NATION in facilitating commerce, travel and national security. It had NOTHING to do with the interests of any other property owner other than Causby and those similarly situated, i.e an overwhelming MINORITY of property owners who own land in proximity to an airport.
That is true in real life but false in Second Life, which again shows why this is a weak and misleading analogy. Individuals who choose to exercise their rights and put up security devices or banlines to impede access to their land have not DESTROYED the value of air travel. Residents continue to enjoy air travel all over Second Life. Additionally in Causby it was not "merely because..." Causby "..considered it to be an invasion of his property." The Court in its opinion not only acknowledged that it was an invasion of his property but stated that such invasion of privacy could rise to the actual level of a taking. Pretending that Causby was about something that it was not so that it seems to be a good analogy to Second Life air travel "issues" only spotlights the fact that it is not analogous at all. It's not even like comparing apples and oranges. It's like comparing apples and airplanes.
Right back at you.

I dont get what's wrong with asking someone whos intruding on your land to leave and if they dont applying a ban... why set up ban lines or orbs which inconvenience everyone indiscriminatley and don't stop people spying on you anyway ???

If everyone applied ban lines it would begin to reduce your horseriding etc quite a bit....