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

The strength of an analogy comes from how similar the elements are in the comparison. There is nothing similar at all in why the continued existence of ownership of the land extended to the periphery of the universe was no longer considered acceptable in the real world and why unlimited height in banlines should not be acceptable in SL. Simply saying that they are both "bad ideas" doesn't make the rationales any less dissimilar. If you want that to be the basis of the analogy you are drawing so be it but it makes it no less weak and inapplicable.

To keep my forum conscience clear, I changed mine to 30 seconds. FWIW, it only affects an area of 20m (my house which is at ground level) and only on my parcel. I could care less if you fly over me.

SNIP! Can't you and Argent just get a room? Or a skybox? Preferably at 2048m? With or without Causby?

White lists and black lists are both types of access control lists, either granting access when the default is to deny access, or denying access when the default is to grant access.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitelist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_control_list

That doesn't make much sense... why should you care if a plane is flying overhead? I live in a flight path in real life, less than a mile from the end of one of the runways at McNary Field. It's 11PM, and we just got buzzed by a large aircraft at low altitude on final approach. Really, it's not that big of a deal, even with the noise, since it's gone in a few seconds.

The railroad almost two miles away is more annoying since they have to signal with the horn for every crossing, and it runs right through the center of town with the horns ringing off the concrete and asphalt, carrying farther than it ordinarily would (you can hear 'em three miles away on the freeway, and normally train horns are only audible for about two miles). Even that's not a huge deal since the railroad does most of it's movements during the day when the sound of the horns is drowned out by the collective din of a city full of car engines.

Seriously, there's a lot worse things to worry about than someone silently gliding through the sky over land that doesn't physically exist.

We appear to be polar opposites. I defend you right to express your opinions, even if you are wrong.

*plonk*

LOL, I just VOTED!!!!!

Ok where's my "I voted" sticker.

@Baloo,

Ahhh, but we do worry about things that don't physically exist.

Many posters are worried about the ability to have unterrupted flying in airspace that physically don't exist. Other posters have different views regarding property ownership rights and privacy. All this on land and air let alone airspace that physically doesn't exist.

The openspace/homestead fiasco. Although it was about land that physically doesn't exist, ask those folks are they worried they may loose their homes if LL proceeds with the increase in 7/09. To them this is very real.

Ask the adult oriented businesses on mainland that will have to relocate to Ursula because they have non physical existing, adult-themed business. That's can be preceived as real to them.

Or, a newbie learning to create and finally just got it and he gets booted out. He's pissed over losing their new, first completed build and kicks himself because he forgot to save it. I would say that can be real too.

But this is Second Life and challenges like these are what makes Second Life alive and standout from others.

All that you describe that you hear in real life, no we do not hear that in sl. But that doesn't stop us from imaginating that we can. I know the person in my sl home physically is not looking at me irl. That doesn't stop me from feeling like they are. I have a home and land that physically doesn't exist but I care for my home and land as I do irl. Just because they don't physically exist doesn't prevent me from having a sense of home ownership pride and certain expectations that comes along with property ownership.

"Your World, Your Imagination."

I have zero sympathy for people who lack the basic English comprehension skills required to understand that they were buying park space, not space for development, in the first place.



And zoning laws are a problem how? See above, though this could have been avoided if the porn industry voluntarily segregated themselves to start with, a-la red light districts.



Perhaps it's time to unplug and take a vacation.

Linden Labs original rules for void regions allowed fairly extensive and high-physics events... to wit, sailing regattas. When I suggested that this level of usage might be too extreme, and limiting them to 10 avatars per region might be necessary, I was derided.

After they changed the name to OpenSpace and allowed:

* rentals
* private homes
* OpenSpaces not attached to full sims
* "light business"

and YES, they DID allow all these things, the whole idea that these were only for parks was completely compromised. This is not a matter of "basic English comprehension skills", this is a matter of Linden Labs explicitly, publicly, and unambiguously changing the rules.

I assumed they had done tests and discovered that the original prim levels and restrictions were no longer needed. In fact it seems that they didn't do any kind of testing, and had th haul back on the reins.

I do not blame them for increasing the prices. I do not blame them for adding restrictions. These were obviously needed. However I do blame them for telling whoppers about the intent of the regions use, and I am quite surprised that you of all people are honestly taken in by their shenanigans.

Try as I might, google can't find this announcement. Could you post the URL or IM it to me please?

Have the last word and enjoy it. Have a quality day, troll.

Perhaps you should ask all the worlds space agencies to stop flying satelites over your RL home too...

lmao...thats a great line!

All the links I get from google are to pages no longer available on Linden Labs servers, I assume they were clobbered when they changed the blog software, but I can point you to the JIRA where I recommended reducing the number of avatars http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-2627.

Some of these were not in the announcements, but in Q&A sessions and in discussions in the blog comments, but multiple Lindens did state repeatedly that it was OK to treat OpenSpaces as low-prim regular sims, with everything on them that the Homestead product now provides.

actually they DID voluntarily sgregate themselves, based on LL's structure... into [M]ature sims. LL's poor pre planning made that mess, and it was noted quite quickly after SL went public.

Maybe I missed it in all the pages of posts but I was expecting someone to complain about the parcel full message when flying, that is just as effectie at killing a plane as ban lines are, maybe we should make it a rule that everyone leaves 31 prims free on their land so others can fly over, who cares that you are paying for those 31 prims, others should be able to ejoy what ever they do in sl </sarcasm>

This should never happen, but Argent found the bug that causes it: http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-22. Please vote for getting it fixed.

Maelstrom ....

One can 'keep going' once they get the message concerning an LSO.

Leaving another person's parcel does NOT require you to turn around OR figure out boundaries UNLESS the parcel is at the edge of a Sim or holding one heck of an irregular shape.

In addition to this, bringing up point to point flight, as you did for the person you responded to, does not help your case any as point to point flight can be done from as high as 1-4 thousand meters with ease ... provided you use the mini-map.

Your viewpoint is one that is shared by some ... but not by all, no one is REQUIRED to let you fly, drive, swim, coast, sail or any other method of movement, through their parcel.

That's just the way it is Maelstrom.

Might as well accept that.

Actually, it was Kelly Linden who found the bug... and it's something harder to fix than a bug, it's a design flaw in the region handoff code. Whether it gets fixed or not is going to be a matter of getting enough votes to get them to go in and rework the design.

Seriously: It's not Real Life and some Real Life comparisons need to STOP .... as of three years ago for that matter.

Users have every right to prevent people from cutting across or through their parcels .... However, unlike Real Life, not even a 'pilot' has the right to demand passage.

There is a fine line between expressing an opinion and comparing things WITHOUT a VALID comparison .... or for that matter showing a desire to have Second Life operate exactly as Real Life does concerning specific topics.

Intended or not, you come across as wanting exactly that.

Solar, you are absolutely correct that is exactly what that poster is doing. That is why I just stop responding. That individual totally disregarded the intent and points I was making with my posts. IMHO, I believe he is intentional or not, derailing this thread.

This problem of in-/appropriateness of RL analogies is trickier than it seems.

One place where such analogies fail is the assertion of "rights" or "freedoms," as if the RL property inhered to the SL analogue by some moral imperative. That's simply confusing levels, yet such arguments are made all the time.

To the debate in this thread, it's pointless to argue that SL agents should have the right to fly over another person's parcel because in RL those rights have been established for Civil Aviation, etc., and otherwise such established rights would be unjustly abridged. It is, however, just as invalid to argue that SL "property rights" need to have any relationship to those in the real world: "owning" a hunk of virtual land grants precisely those rights established in the ToS, with no regard whatsoever to any rights RL landowners may enjoy.

On the other hand, dismissing all RL analogies destroys the "worldiness" of a virtual world. At one extreme, we'd end up with a hosting service for streaming raw bits, or maybe an IRC or QQ network. The SL design philosophy takes it quite far toward the other extreme, for example disallowing portal-based geography in favor of the contiguous grid for which there is a real life analogue. (This philosophy of RL similarity is to some degree represented in the ToS, and much more in the software implementation.)

Returning to the thread debate, a valid argument has to be one of utility, not "rights" per se. The objective function to optimize is that balance of the abilities of landowners and vehicle operators which makes the most customers the most happy--where "happiness" corresponds to willingness to generate revenue for LL.