1  2  3  4  |   Order by default

Nov 23, 1998, 6:41pm

Lol,

Good point, wishful thinking I guess.

Should rename this group.. 'In Your Dreams', all the best VR stuff is inside
your head.


Klassi

[View Quote] > Of course. What's the purpose of wishing when your demands are satisfied?
> :-)
>
> --
>
> Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
> ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
> fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com
>
> Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
> limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
> poor at I/O.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 23, 1998, 6:48pm

No way!...

If you managed COF would you offer to distribute the source code to anyone?.
Slow progress is one thing, suicide is death.

Why not code your own?..

Klassi


[View Quote] > O-P-E-N S-O-U-R-C-E-!-!-!-!-!-!
>
> --
>
> Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
> ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
> fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com
>
> Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
> limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
> poor at I/O.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 24, 1998, 7:03pm

LOL, Now that did make me laugh.. Netscape recently layed off 65% of their staff.
Rather like BT in the UK who now offer incentives to gain back lost customers or
keep existing customers, WHY because they are no longer a monopoly and have strong
competition, sounds allot like Netscape's story eh?.

Klassi

[View Quote] > Why not? Netscape did.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 24, 1998, 7:12pm

I use Netscape Communicator and Internet Explorer, problem is when someone owns
the tracks it is hard to run yours or anyone elses trains on them, the solution
is to use different tracks but then your choice of trains is limited..

Klassi

[View Quote] > Yes they did.
> And you can see the results of that:
> Every smart internetter has switched to.... MICROSOFT!!!
> Aaahh... then it musta been *really* bad..
>
> <no offence intended to anyone>
>
[View Quote]

Nov 21, 1998, 10:22pm

I wish that when you purchased the server software you could run more
than ONE world, buying the same software again seems OTT..

Klassi

Nov 22, 1998, 1:10am

Yes you download it but it is useless, much like the browser software you need
a name and password to become a citizen, in this case to run a world.

Guess I will have to view it as a license to use the software, still think if
you already run a world you should get a 50% discount on a second after all 50%
is better than nothing which is what I am paying for the second world I dont
have...:-)

Klassi

[View Quote] > you don't PURCHASE the world server software though - you download it :) or
> so I thought...
>
[View Quote]

Nov 27, 1998, 7:17pm

I did ask and was told I would have to pay again.. I expected to pay but not
exactly the same amount.. My world is running on a remote server so my PC is
totally free to run another, I wanted the second to try out objects that I would
have started making, being in the UK I cannot afford to keep a world running on
my PC 24/7 so I wanted a second world which would only appear when I was
online.. I did intend to work on fantasy creatures and scenes..

Klassi

[View Quote] > So ask them and maybe they will give you a discount on additional licenses.
> You won't know if you don't ask.
>
> Paul
>
[View Quote]

Nov 27, 1998, 7:34pm

Buy a car manual for $5000 and take the car free. I guess COF have to charge again
as some people would buy one and then strike a deal with a friend who wanted their
own world, which would mean that both would be paying 50% less for the world.. I
guess that could be one reason... I know many share their registered citizens..

Klassi.



[View Quote] > You get a license for the "free" software too. May you just didn't read it.
> As to say the software is free... like saying window shopping is free.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 28, 1998, 6:35pm

Well aware of that. COF don't do ANY discounts that I know about, maybe a few
behind the scene deals SO my calculations were based on a free second world,
that is what I was thinking anyway :-)....

[View Quote] > both 50%? If the first world costs 100% and the 2nd 50%, the average is 75%.
> :-)
>
[View Quote]

Nov 29, 1998, 7:12pm

Not many around seem that rich but I am glad they do charge or there would be
twice or three times as many worlds, ratio would be 3 worlds available per
citizen online.

Still you may get your wish as Roland did happen to like the idea of setting up
a service that could host thousands of worlds.

After the initial $69 dollars (one off) running a world on your own PC is very
cheap, infact it is virually free as you get a registered(or two) citizen thrown
in free, so for an PS8 world it would only cost you $3.95 per year extra...

I don't think that many people know just how cheap running a world is!....

Klassi

ps So when will we see Rolu world up and running?

[View Quote] > I'd like to see the setup fee removed. That's all that is keeping me from
> getting my own world. I'm not that rich... :-( Why does that setup fee
> exist, anyway? Does it cost $80, just to tell the uniserver that it should
> accept a new world called this with password that? They don't even have to
> host my world... I think it would be less than 5mins of work to enable a
> world.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 30, 1998, 1:05am

Yes they were my thoughts more or less...

Klassi


[View Quote] > The discouragement, I believe, is exactly why they have the set up fee.
>
> In economics, pricing usually depends on the ability to provide a service to as
> many people as the company can afford to while making money in the process.
> It isn't how much it actually costs to start the world that they are charging
> for in the set up fee. It is to protect themselves from thousands of worlds
> being started by impulse buyers who will start a world and get bored with it
> after a few weeks. These worlds would have to be supported by company
> resources. AW is not powerful enough to host thousands of worlds (this is
> what they tend to forget to mention). Nor was it designed to.
>
> The impulse buyer would be more willing to support a $23 impulse buy, but would
> think a second, third or fourth time before dishing out the current set up
> fee. If not for the set up fee, the universe server would be flooded with
> such frivolous worlds and the quality of the product would diminish from the
> fact that the frivolous consumer wouldn't spend the time to make his or her
> world a place of quality.
>
> Even as it is now, I have seen worlds that have been purchased without any
> planning or theme in mind. Once I was invited to a world and was immediately
> set as PS and given ejection rights (without even requesting either) and told to
> start building this and that. I didn't stay long.
>
> If COF did not have to use their own resources to support each and every world,
> the set up fee might not be so high, but as it is now, they have to just to
> break even.
>
> If I am wrong, just shoot me, but I am not far from wrong, I believe.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 30, 1998, 1:09am

So you don't class yourself as an idiot but state in an abusive manner that
many are around, who made you god?.

I agree about the worthless worlds but most only visit them quickly , after
saying that some that seem useless to you are just what others are looking
for... horses for courses.

Klassi
[View Quote] > I'm *glad* the worlds aren't free. Like this only people who are seriously
> interested will start a world. If it were free every fucking idiot would
> start a world, and 3 out of 4 worlds you'd visit would be worthless...
>
[View Quote]

Nov 30, 1998, 1:12am

How many purchased a world on an impulse?.. Answer to the nearest 10....Also
answer why ALL the so called impulse buyers haven't sold their worlds at a
reduced price.

Klassi
[View Quote] > Although your reply is somewhat longer than mine ;-), i agree with you.
> Even if COF wouldn't really really need the money, I'd hope they kee the
> high setup fee.
> The number of 'impulsed' worlds is too high already now...
>
[View Quote]

Nov 30, 1998, 6:54pm

What you do is fine, what you think about others is fine, what you say about
others isn't if it is a general abusive comment.

You said, " Sorry but I have a big fantasy".. If you believe what I said was
anything but symbolic you misunderstood.

Obviously free worlds would result in more worlds, and more worlds would mean
more to sort through and many wouldn't be that good BUT lots would be. I have
always been against free worlds, but for a discount on a second and or third
world.

Klassi

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Nov 30, 1998, 7:04pm

My point is that you state many things from your point of view and state them as
facts, I was simply asking for the facts knowing that you couldn't possibly
answer the question/s.

Klassi

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Nov 30, 1998, 9:25pm

[View Quote] > Gimme a break, man!

Woman actually.. No cute remarks please..

> What the heck are you brabbling about? I said nothing abusive.
> And if u do think so, you have, as I said, a BIG fantasy.But don't get back
> on me for it..

You want me to quote you, "If it were free every fucking idiot would start a
world".

That is general and abusive. Thinking about it, it isn't so much what you said
but the way you said it :-)

> was
>
> I hope so... I don't believe in (a) god(s) so I hope I am not a god myself,
> cause that would mean..... ;-)
>

Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.. In english just plain nuts.

> mean
> have
>
> I am too, so why are we flaming if we agree.
>

I don't recognize flaming, if I don't agree with some of what you say, I simply
reply saying so.. Nothing personal you could be anyone and I would answer the
same.I guess I just feel more strongly about something's, that is what makes
individuals interesting, our diversity.

>
> I had already understood that that was your point.
> And indeed it's not a bad idea.

Add it to my wish list!

Klassi

Nov 30, 1998, 9:41pm

[View Quote] > As I now *do* understand what you want, here is a reply.
>
[View Quote] I didn't profess to know how many or state anywhere that I had any such facts...

>
> Because if you buy something and sell it for reduced price, you lose money.
> DUHH!!
> That's one of the first rules of logic I guess..
>

But buying something and then not using it is a bigger waste of money than
buying something and recouping some of the outlay by reselling it.. Agreed?

Klassi

>

Dec 1, 1998, 6:49pm

Guessed it was the initial fee. Hope you manage to get the money as I have a
feeling you will produce an interesting world..

Klassi

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Dec 1, 1998, 7:20pm

A Real WISH.........

All this taking about worlds made me think of something.. When trying to select
a world the list often scrolls back to the beginning or moves just as I click on
a world, it would be nice if the list was made static..

[View Quote] > Abuse to whom? :-)
> I asked nobody to feel spoken to. I just claim there are fucking idiots out
> there, which is very likely to be true. And some of these fucking idiots,
> that are (as I said) very likely to exist, would buy a world if that was
> cheaper.
>

Do you need to swear?... So in other words, there are rich and poor idiots, and
you don't want to see the poor idiots buying worlds. One thing I have learnt in
my time on the 'net' is that not many idiots have the intellectual prowess to
comprehend the intricacies of computer communications.

I personally couldn't careless who buys what, I think there are too many worlds
now, but
like most people I find worlds I like from the list and visit them.

Klassi

Dec 1, 1998, 7:38pm

> Yep. But what the heck does that have to do with this issue?
> Someone buys a world. Once a month he adds something. But generally he
> doesn't have very much time. Why would he sell his world? *He* enjoys it..

My previous reply was based on the assumption that the world was an impulse
buy, obviously if someone enjoys owing and running a world they wouldn't sell
it.

Want to meet in AW?.....

Klassi

Dec 1, 1998, 8:09pm

Hiya Dean,

[View Quote] > Umm, this argument is getting pretty pointless. You are both right, okay?
> For one thing: Some do buy worlds and build only sporadically on occasion and
> don't mess with it much otherwise. And, yes they do enjoy it. But, not
> everybody would buy a world and build in it even once a month, especially if the
> prices were much cheaper.
>

As everybody is different it figures that they wouldn't do the same things, probably
why discussions like this are pointless.

> Another thing: Yes, the owner would be losing money if he sold it for less
> than he paid for it, but if he doesn't want it anymore and wants to sell it, how
> many people would pay more for it than for a nice fresh clean world that they
> won't have to pay an extra fee to change the name on? You can only sell a
> product for as much as a person is willing to purchase it. You won't have many
> takers if you try to sell a used car for more than you paid for it new (unless
> it is a classic in good to mint condition, but that is the exception).
>

Very few would pay more or even the same amount unless they lived in the UK (for
instance) and wanted a pre-built world as building one online would cost 5 to 10
times the initial cost of a blank world, phone charges are a killer. In the past I
have spent more on the phone in three weeks than my world cost to buy and run for a
year!..

If I wanted to sell my world<which I don't> I would simply give it away, I have
spent alot more money in the past doing other things and enjoying myself less, so
having a world has saved me money, the fun it provides per hour/dollar is very good
value.

Klassi

Dec 1, 1998, 9:27pm

Good point in an otherwise seemingly pointless news group.!

[View Quote] > Maybe it's as pointless as this newsgroup which isn't obviously read by those who
> should.:)
>
[View Quote]

Dec 2, 1998, 10:01pm

Yes did mean Active Worlds...

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Dec 3, 1998, 7:26pm

[View Quote] > Ok.
> BTW:
> 1) Awprime is backonline and reachable for most of us I think.

Yes I know..

> 2) Why not just go to AWgate?

Don't like standing around at AWgate, much nicer places to stand in.

> That's a lot easier way to appoint, I think :-)
> Are you in active worlds at regular times?

Not really the same times, I visit once,twice or three times a day for 5 minutes
or many hours..

> If so, i'll just check to be there the same time as you some time. :-)
>

Just stick me in Contacts I will pop up...

Klassi

Dec 5, 1998, 6:55pm

Ok thanks for the info...

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Nov 23, 1998, 7:18pm

This thread seems to have lost it's way..Is there a Psychologist in AW?...

Klassi

[View Quote] > Dont acte. 17 or 14, alas I'm now not sure to make the whole difference. It
> doesn't change anything in my arguing, I think. Now don't take it as too
> personal. I could see in other posts you are able to be sensible. Just this
> "age=so" argument, full point, sounded to me a bit limited. But I understand
> there are moment we don't feel like arguing. That's the drawback of age.:)
>
[View Quote]

Nov 25, 1998, 9:16pm

I don't need one myself!...

[View Quote] > Yep. Me. Heheh... Still interested? :)
>
> --
>
> Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
> ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
> fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com
>
> Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
> limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
> poor at I/O.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 26, 1998, 7:42pm

Not bad as guesses....

One point most seem to forget is that Custom Avatars will be available to
REGISTERED citizens, if they abuse and misuse them under the COF terms of
contract their registration can be terminated.. So yes they can do what they
like but will cease to exist if they do!...

Klassi

[View Quote] > Ok I have been reading this thread for the last couple days, its pretty
> funny but let me try and get it a little bit more on track......
>
> Custom avs? I believe they ARE coming. And about Josh's first comment
> about them perhaps not being implemented because they could lead to obscene
> nature and material in AW...That could and probably will happen, (obscene
> avs) but you need to remember that AW DOES have that kind of material all
> over it. If you notice some of the signs by Ground Zero they basically
> state that viewer discretion is advised.
>
> And here is a brief summary of the way custom avs MIGHT work according to
> Roland:
>
> 1, they will be located on the users personal web server
>
> 2, they will go through an auto screening process by AW browser when they
> download to insure that they meet specific guidelines, E.G., file size,
> Geometry size, and vert/polygon count.
>
> 3, they WILL be aloud in ALL worlds, because what is custom avs if they work
> in some worlds but not others? And I believe this would be hurting the
> worlds that disallow them anyay, I mean would users want to stay in a world
> where they could not wear what they want? So it is going to be a setting
> that is in the UNIVERSE box, not the world.
>
> Alright thats about it, catcha later. And stop squabbling. Buh bye then
>
> -raiven-

Nov 26, 1998, 7:46pm

Free from Obscenity... Fat lot of chance if you live on this planet...

[View Quote] > Your freedom seems to be some christian freedom. If you feel you need to be
> free of obscenity, you just shouldn't enter this universe. Maybe it's an
> idea to add an option to the browsers that will give the viewers control
> over whether or not custom avatars are displayed as such.
>
> --
>
> Fluxen Dean-Christian Strik
> ICQ: 11760568 ISG RhinoSoft
> fluxen at bigfoot.com dean2 at bigfoot.com
>
> Real computer scientists despise the idea of actual hardware. Hardware has
> limitations, software doesn't. It's a real shame that Turing machines are so
> poor at I/O.
>
[View Quote]

Nov 26, 1998, 7:51pm

Hiya Scott,

Very interesting points.. Just shows how a graphical representation can totally
change the whole of the AW Community, no wonder COF hasn't implemented it. (yet)

Klassi
[View Quote] > Lame argument Fluxen;
>
> The real world works exactly the way Dean suggested. Show up under dressed
> or over dressed just about anywhere in RL and you get censored. Show up in
> Saudi Arabia wearing the wrong thing and you get arrested. Show up at the
> beach in Rio (Brazil) wearing the wrong thing and you are viewed as a
> tourist, idiot, or prude. What is wrong with the idea of wanting to
> control the use (allow or disallow) of custom avatars in one's own world.
>
> Because different worlds have different "ratings", it may be possible to
> to tag an avatar with a rating as well. As long as the avatar's rating is
> lower or equal to the world's rating, it is allowed to be used there (if
> custom avatars are allowed in that world). The problem is that the rating
> of the avatars must be voluntary.
>
> Perhaps there needs to be a way to visually "mute" an offending avatar --
> turn it into a "tourist" avatar.
>
> ScottyDM
>
> --
> Please send all SPAMS, FLAMES, and CONSPIRACY THEORIES to
> scottydm at cwia.com
> Send all other IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE to scottydm at codenet.net
> ___
> /////\\ Digitally Enhanced Portrait of:
> {|-0-0-|} Scott D. Miller,
> | % | Silicon Mercenary
> \===/ Freelance Chip Designer
>
> always #5 FOO = ~FOO; // the sound of a beating heart

1  2  3  4  |   Order by default