ough -- that's their
issue.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Lear Cale wrote:
> FYI, Whoever wrote this is ignorant of US copyright and trademark law.
> In the US (and most countries), you have an implicit copyright
> whenver you render an original work in any fixed medium. I.e., if
FYI, Whoever wrote this is ignorant of US copyright and trademark law.
In the US (and most countries), you have an implicit copyright
whenver you render an original work in any fixed medium. I.e., if you
sing a song you made up, no implicit copyright, but if you record it
or write it down, you do
I agree with Jacek -- at least for 1st cut, make it so that flexi hair
doesn't pierce anyone's body, but no effect on collisions.
This would keep it simple and fix the biggest issue for most people.
On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Jacek Antonelli
wrote:
> Personally, I would keep soft body effe
Oops, never mind -- yes it did. My mistake.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Lear Cale wrote:
> The previous patent clause did not do what you claim it did.
>
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Jonathan Bishop <
> bish...@bishopphillips.com> wrote:
>
>>>
The previous patent clause did not do what you claim it did.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Jonathan Bishop wrote:
> > Simon Disk:
>
> > Could be wrong but I read the new ToS as lumping patent rights under
> Intellectual Property Rights and then compelling the user to grant a license
> under
This was never prohibited by the old patent clause, which applied only
to the patent holder's content.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Jonathan Bishop
wrote:
>> The new TOS does not include a section on compulsory patent licensing.
>> I hope that this omission was unintended and will be rectifi
r 12, 2010 at 10:33 AM, Lear Cale wrote:
> I think we're arguing over something that's a side effect of an
> implementation decision, not a fundamental issue of personal liberty.
> Windlight happens to be client side rather than server-side, even
> though it's more about
I think we're arguing over something that's a side effect of an
implementation decision, not a fundamental issue of personal liberty.
Windlight happens to be client side rather than server-side, even
though it's more about the environment -- the created world -- than it
is about personal control of
I agree. WL settings are about the appearance of the environment, not
the GUI per se.
And Carlo has a great suggestion that WL settings should be supported
as inventory items, similar to LMs. (Going to make a JIRA for that,
Carlo?)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Wed, Ma
thy performance penalty, even when no paging is required.
Lear
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Argent Stonecutter
wrote:
> On 2010-03-11, at 07:48, Lear Cale wrote:
>> I disagree, Argent. If the server process does explicit swapping for
>> script memory, it would have a dramatica
s to do. Sorry.
>
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:56:36AM -0500, Lear Cale wrote:
>> If it were a simple change, I'm sure it would be considered. What
>> you're suggesting sounds like would require a massive rewrite. I
>> agree that a dynamic system would be much
I disagree, Argent. If the server process does explicit swapping for
script memory, it would have a dramatically lower impact on the server
process as a whole, and no impact on the other server processes
sharing the same machine.
> It doesn't matter whether the swapping is done by the OS or by th
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:51:31AM -0800, Ann Otoole wrote:
>> If you guys want to really help then give us the ability to disable scripts
>> by
>> attachment creator name. There are certain products that cause problems. Made
>> by people LL pr
Which is what we mean by "cost". Price is what you are asked to pay.
Cost is what you actually pay. Thus the phrase "cost/benefit
analysis" -- not "price/benefit analysis".
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin)
wrote:
> On Wed, Ma
If it were a simple change, I'm sure it would be considered. What
you're suggesting sounds like would require a massive rewrite. I
agree that a dynamic system would be much better, easier to code and
less wasted memory. But without detailed knowledge of how the system
is currently implemented, i
There's a semantic issue here that we need to clear up.
When we say how much memory a script is "actually using", that means
the amount of memory the script is making semantic usage of. However,
the script is *allocated* a larger amount. This larger amount is the
amount that matters to the syste
.
Lear
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Michael Schlenker
wrote:
>
> Am 09.03.2010 um 02:54 schrieb Lear Cale:
>
>> huh? Can you point to existing technology for this analyzer? Seems
>> to me like it would require an oracle.
>
> It might require an oracle to reach 100%, but
Please tell me how to register for this list. I was registered for
sldev, but don't remember how.
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep un
huh? Can you point to existing technology for this analyzer? Seems
to me like it would require an oracle.
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Michael Schlenker
wrote:
>
> Am 08.03.2010 um 18:46 schrieb Kelly Linden:
>
>> We are not out to write a new malloc for mono. What we have is a system
>>
It's generally a bad idea to change behavior dramatically, and much
safer to add a new function.
Dramatic changes in behavior cause new bugs, or cause old but
insignificant bugs to become significant.
New functions don't.
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Obsidian Kindragon
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
It used to be that simple, with original LSO.
With mono, it's more complicated, because two instances of the *exact*
same script can share the code segments. I wonder whether this
sharing ability will be taken into account. Ideally yes, because it's
best when the metrics used to measure somethin
Babbage has already said that LSO code will be "charged" 64K even
though it only uses 16K. Perhaps he's changed that decision -- is
that the case?
Regards
Jeff
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Frans wrote:
> In response to the OP. I agree the UI will have to present that information
> differentl
It would be nice if everything were free, too.
The issue is memory *allocation*. If a script only uses 16K but is
allocated 64K, that 64K counts against the server's actual memory
allocation limit.
So, cool, wouldn't it be nice to only allocate what is actually
requested? Well that implies rewr
23 matches
Mail list logo