Automated Burglary

o/~ there is unrest in the forest, there is trouble with the trees; for the maples want more sunlight, and the oaks ignore their pleas o/~

Sorry, couldn't resist.

*sighs*

How is agreeing with Coco that Customers should not kneel down and pray to the coders sowing seeds of prejudice and segragation?

Because that was never said in the first place; it was invented all in your head.

Ever heard the phrase "Credit where it is due"?

Okay how is agreeing with coco on this exchange sowing seeds of Prejudice?

It's your fault for making them have a sale price of L$0. If I had bought them, and you (or any other previous owner) IMed me and explained the situation civilly I'd give them back because I have good morals. But I mean come on, you can't complain about something where you're 100% to blame.

Well I think the thread has gone full circle now. "Moderator....keys please."

Because a) it isn't necessarily true, and b) not all customers agree on what the coders are doing right and wrong, and being divisive doesn't help.

and c) you're being snarky with me, so I am just returning the favor.

Actually I see no fault with that version. Not because that wouldn't be advertising (it actually would be, 'advertising' simply means 'calling attention to something', whether that something is a product or an opinion) but because this version leaves no room for mistake. You invite to a tea party as the name on a prim for sale, gives the impression that buying the box will get you a tea party (for example by giving you the items you would use for a tea party). That would lure people looking for a freebie tea set.

Your complaint about ESC cannot be interpreted as an actual product. Especially in the context of the search engine it is immediately clear what you are doing. And if that lures people looking for a freebie prim complaining about ESC: well, they would find exactly what they expected, wouldn't they?

Of course you might consider using the full version of your complaint: "Electric Sheep never asked me if they could list this, and I refuse to opt out." Then again it's your call whether you want to tell the whole truth, or want to focus on part of the truth.

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean.

Basically, you pretty much answered the OP with the original argument, therefore, maybe we have exhausted the topic......Actually it was more of a bit of sarcastic joke. No reflection on you.

Oh haha. Good call!

The statement that Im sowing the seeds of predjudice is stronger, than the reasons youve given to say im doing it.

How about?

Electric Sheep Never asked me if they could list this
And I refuse to opt out of something I never signed up for.

OK. Then nevermind. I'm sorry I said anything about it.

The original point was meant to be humorous anyway, hence all the smilies in it.

The coders are important. So are the customers. It's an important synergy to work together.

Can we? *offers claw*

This is a good point.

As long as once in a while - the coders have to compromise too.

Sure, seems fine by me.

(some missed responses because I missed a page or two earlier)

Learjeff Innis said: "If it was NOT THEFT, then the items would be returned graciously after the misunderstanding was cleared up."

No, no, no. If someone refuses to return a legally purchased item, it is NOT theft.

Brenda Connolly said: "By implementing "Indexer Bot" without our knowledge or consent, they changed the rules."

No, no no. Only lindens can change the rules. Esc changed the odds. It's the same horse race... with new horses. The existing rules aren't forbidding that change.

Susanne Pascale said: "please explain to me [rememberI'm a twit and an ignoramus so try to avoid polysylabalic words] WHY oh WHY doesn't ESC simply make it an opt in process OR make opting simpler, [e.g. going to their web page] ?"

Why? Because there's existing competition in the "opt-in" 3d party product search services. They wanted to offer something new, different, and google-like. They may be aware that it is exposing some people to additional risk... and they probably think the benefits far outweigh that risk, and likely have no intention to stop or change, unless forced to by failure, law or linden lab.

Chris Norse said: "If you aid a thief in stealing, you are a thief, it is as simple as that."

No, no, no. Even if a bug has left an object for sale after purchase.... Secondlife is AUTHORIZED to conduct a legitimate sales transaction on the behalf of the object owner.

For this to be theft... the thief would have to dup Secondlife into selling something it did not have authorization to sell. Accuse linden lab of neglect for allowing that bug to falsely authorize some items for sale or accuse the seller of neglect/user-error for falsely authorizing secondlife to conduct the sale. But the buyer was merely taking advantage of a legitimate and legal situation, rudely, insensitively and opportunistically.


Learjeff Innis said: "SL does not have a feature for "sell to individual" Because of this, builders are often forced to use the "sell" feature.""

There is always more than one way to skin a cat, other methods may be limited, require compromise and adaptation, but they are obviously more secure.

"Convenience" and "Security" are rarely found together.

Cocoanut Koala said: "I believe the responsiblility for the whole thing is squarely in ESC's lap. It's also their responsibility to fix it."

*sigh* If it's not them, it WILL be someone else. If esc can not be forced to cease and desist... then their voluntarily removing this service will leave the playingfield without competition for the next group that decides to do it.

bladyblue Bommerang said: "But because the Sheep Bot was directly responsible for this theft we have this discussion."

No. no. No. NO. No matter how many times you call it theft that does not make it so. It was a LEGAL and LEGITIMATE SALES TRANSACTION.... perhpas not intended by the owner... I agree, but that does not constitute, by any definition of the word, "THEFT".

Ace Albion said: "Hey what happened with that guy who bought a sim for peanuts, because it was set "For Sale" on an accessible, just not publicised auction webpage on secondlife.com"

He used data that was NOT publicly available to fool the system into selling him that land.
He "picked a combination lock."

Using "sell-for-0-transfers" is like writing your locker combination on the outside of the locker door.

There is a difference.

Har Fairweather said:

No nevermind. I'm not replying to you anymore, until you can cite dictionary definitions of terms so that we can at least agree on what we're arguing about.

Ok, I will give ESC credit for producing a flawed and exploited piece of software that should be pulled from the grid ASAP. I will give ESC credit for imposing a BETA test upon me without my consent.

There, due credit is given.

Who is seeing benefit from this? ESC and those who wish to exploit others. I would think that any company with any sense of customer service would adopt the motto used by doctors, "First do no harm". ESC with their callous disregard for the privacy of others has caused much harm to some.

You also are big to point out that this conduct is still legal, that does not make it any less theft. Taxation is legal, but it is still theft.

(Sort of to Cocoanut, mostly to everyone)

On the topic of "COULD" vs. "SHOULD"


In reality physics makes a lot of illegal activity possible.

There's a lot of room within the law for legal but unethical behavior.


In secondlife, many laws and ethics have been put into the system... and the system itself makes it IMPOSSIBLE to break those laws or ethics.


So, when someone is lawlessly, or unethically doing "whatever the system allowed them to" with no regard to anyone but themselves.... they are still obeying the laws and ethics that could be made a mandatory part of the system.

Which is a heck of a lot more restrictive than RL.

First... I would think companies should adopt that ethos as well. I know darned well that many if not most don't. There's little expectation for any new ones to handicap themselves so when their predecessors see no reason to.


Clarification: Quite the opposite.

Supposedly, INCOME taxation is NOT LEGALLY AUTHORIZED BY LAW!
I'd call it blackmail, extortion or grift.... and call garnished wages theft, yes.

But Sales tax, property tax and the rest, if I understand the issue correctly, are all too painfully legal. You can consider it theft but the definition doesn't back that up.

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_arguments

I can't believe this thread is into it's 50th page.

How much time has it stolen out of everyone's lives?

(Camera 2 cut to Color Analyst, Steve, in the Sand Trap in three, two, one)

Thanks, Bob. The view down here in the Sand Trap is one of steely determination. Both Team Techie-Wiki and Team Luddite have trained hard for this and it really shows out there on the field. Neither is willing to give any ground, despite huge losses on both sides. Both teams have played spectacularly, making this clearly the “don’t miss” game of the year. Team Luddite’s first round draft picks have really paid off for them here and bringing a retired pro out to strengthen their bench was a good move for them that really rallied team morale.

Team Techie-Wiki does still hold the advantage of playing at home on a course designed by and for geeks. They are also helped by a clear history of the game commissioners favoring technology. Both teams are tied at the moment with no sign of weakness; this may be a long night at the SL Cage Match Nissan Dome.

As we move into the sudden-death overtime period, however, all eyes are on the referee who can call this game at any point and force both teams to settle for a draw. This one’s turning out to be a real cliff-hanger.

Back to you, Bob.

Good morals are never a handicap.

Sales and excise taxes yes, property taxes no.

This is a little bit of anti-tax fiction - Actually, there is supposedly some loophole involved that lets you opt-out, if you refuse certain federal services. (I cant remember the dodge and weave argument off the top of my head)

However Congress was given the power to collect income tax in 1913.

Amendment 16

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Prior to this there were times (such as the civil war) where Incomes were taxed , considered by many to be illegal - Hence the ammendment.