Mollymews

best to test this on other regions as well in the first instance. If is happening everywhere then raise a JIRA explaining all regions. If is only happening on your/one region then raise the JIRA explaining your/one region

adding on to what polysail mentions when we make our collision prim too thin (and not volume_detect) our avatar can hit the side, get pushed out and up (avatar's forward momentum) then drop back down on the prim, creating two collision_start events with a thicker volume_detect then the avatar hits the side, and goes into the prim. Is no push out/up, so doesn't collide with the top while walking/running

if are going to use JSON in the body then would make sense to also use JSON as function parameters rather than a list

if is for the purpose of greeting then a list of previously greeted persons is a good idea a way to help with triggering the greeting with collision_start is to layer over the floor, or border the floor, a transparent-textured volume_detect object ( with some depth so that the avatar's feet are inside the volume_detect layer) https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlVolumeDetect with the visitors list, set it to some max length for the last N number of visitors. Then manage the list as a first in, first out queue OnCollision (collison_start). Check if person is on list if not on list: say Welcome. Add to list: visitors += [visitor] if on list: say Welcome Back. Remove from list, then add again to list (as most recent visitor) when the list is full then delete the 1st list entry. visitors = llDeleteSubList(visitors, 0, 0) this way we don't have to worry about timestamps to conserve space with N = large list then we can store the hash of their key: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlHash edit add: When we have a really large N. Say 1 or 2 thousands then when full delete about 10% of the first entries like: visitors = llDeleteSubList(visitors, 0, 99). Saves a little bit of thrashing on full lists

a similar issue occurs with the Linden Realms HUD sometimes. It doesn't detach sometimes when we leave the region. And it usually can be detached manually in the same way as you have found. Sometimes tho it can't be detached manually. Not only does the server think it is detached but so to does the viewer, even tho it is still being rendered. The ghosting problem I think your solution to ensure that the RLV script functions are disabled on region change is a good solution, at least in the person no longer having unexpected things happen to them outside of your region

is a interesting thought that a forum could be considered in the same way as a pub. Where members of the public are invited to come participate a thing tho about the pub is that the conversations at each of tables are considered private to the people at the table. This is an expectation that we have when we go to the pub. That we on a table are not part of the conversation on another table. And if we interject ourselves into another table's conversation, are typically asked to go mind our own business a forum like this one for example is not a collection of private conversations, is a single table with everybody able to participate in the conversation. Is more like the pub owner has an open mic stage where anybody can stand and address the patrons as a singular body. And the pub patrons can either ignore the speaker completely, or argue with them, or support what is being said with approval or acclaim a question is what does the pub owner have to put in place to avoid liability for what the speaker says on the pub's open mic stage ? they would have to provide a list of rules to the speaker before they get on the mic. Can't say this, can't say that. Like a ToS and they would have to have a way to cut the speaker off. Turn off the mic, kick the speaker out of the pub, etc. Again like a ToS which seems pretty reasonable in this pub like context or the pub owner is not so much a pub owner. They are more like a radio station owner which provides a talkback facility. Where people are invited to speak publicly to the station audience. In the talkback radio station context setting, the conversation has to be actively moderated in realtime. There is a to-air broadcast delay and a bleep button (pre-moderation). And if the conversation being broadcast is not actively moderated in realtime then the station can be shut down given who voted which way on the US Supreme Court recently, it was 5-4 with Justice Kagan in the minority with Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas. Justice Kavanaugh while voting with the majority expressed a view that should it come again later to a full bench hearing then he has reservations which he will take into consideration at that time. I think that decision, should it come again before the US Supreme Court, is more going to go down the talk back radio path than it will the open mic stage pub owner with ToS path at this high level of judicial decision-making, justices don't care about the cost to business of their decisions. What they only care about is do the conditions imposed by the law create a constitutionally undue burden on the business if the forum owner argues that as we have a billion active users, is a burden to pre-moderate or actively moderate in realtime, then the Supreme Court wont in the normal course accept this argument. A burden we create for ourselves is not an undue burden. And the Court will refer the forum owner to the legislature for relief. Which is how section 230 came about. Is within the power of the legislature to grant this kind of relief

is an interesting problem this a way to do this so is a bit more 'random-looking' is to use a bucketed arithmetic feistel network in dual bucket method there are two buckets homes are drawn from the first bucket in 'random' order (similar to a gumball machine) with a feistel network that home doesn't need to be marked as taken. The feistel network algorithm will not produce the same 'random' number in the set. If we are the only person playing in the moment and there only 5 homes available then we will be offered all of them in our 5 selections abandoned homes are placed into the second bucket when the first bucket is emptied, then the second bucket becomes the first bucket. A new seed for the feistel network produces a different 'random' order the process repeats (switching between buckets) til there is a moment when both buckets can be empty. At which point it says: no homes available this doesn't guarantee that we won't get the same home twice in our 5 selection set. Like for example there are 5 homes available and 10 people playing at the same time and they are all abandoning or I am the only person playing at the moment and there only 3 homes available. With the feistel network tho I can be guaranteed that I will get offered all 3 homes my first 3 selections for the curious, a example LSL implementation of the basic (single bucket) arithmetic feistel network algorithm is here

thats a lot of space to give over to travelers. 96 meters each side of the road center line is 192 meters it might be simpler to nerf llTeleportHome (via region control) on any region that has a public road as a region control, private estates owners could them also nerf it if they wanted for their regions. And I think that if this was possible then Linden would turn it on (nerf) on the Belli estate alternatively for mainland, Linden could widen the roads to say a minimum of 32 meters. Doing it progressively as and when land along the roads are abandoned. 32 meters is pretty wide and would not pose much of a challenge to keeping our avatar on the road, either self or on a vehicle

it depends on what we are guilty of

best to test these things on as many regions as we can ourselves. So we can have some empirical evidence that our thing works as we expect it too

if you were accused unjustly of some act against the law and you fought the law and you won then it counts. It also counts in the unjust case, when you fight the law and lose

yes. This is the issue content sharing sites want to have their cake and eat it as well in the recent US Supreme Court case on the Texas non-censorship law, the plaintiffs (corporations) argued that the Texas law removed their editorial discretion which would violate their 1st Amendment rights to free speech while at the same time supporting Section 230 which removes their legal liability from any editorial discretion that they do make this a legal luxury afforded to them only, is not afforded to other forms of publishing what was interesting is that Elena Kagan voted against the plaintiffs. Ms Kagan never gave a reason as was an emergency order, but from her history she has never been a fan of laws for you but not for me

why is it chilling that group of people, be they a company or a family, want to communicate between themselves in private across the internet on Facebook, we have a extended private family group. Is nobody else's business what we say and share with each other. Same as is none of my business what some company's staff talk about on their Discord channel other people's affairs are none of my business. Is not for anyone to compel them to share their affairs publicly with me. Nor my family's affairs with them

yes, it was a gimme which resulted in the social media sites that we have today. Had that gimme not been given, and the sites held to the same standard as all other forms of information dispensing/sharing/publishing then social media would be quite a lot different than what it is

this is a business decision all corporations have to decide for themselves the decision isn't only tho: pre-moderate or close. There is a 3rd path. Which is don't publish the contents of this forum publicly. Have to login to read the posts. A requirement to login makes it a private space and not a public space just the other day the US Supreme Court ruled on the Texas non-censorship law. The Court said that the State can't prevent a corporation from censoring their own private space. That any attempt to regulate free speech in a private space is unconstitutional, abridging the 1st Amendment rights of private space/property owners

your guess is right. back in the day Linden changed where the avatar camera position and physics shape is positioned for a seated avatar. A change which was done back then to defeat seated phantom avatars then some years later when parcel visibilty was introduced, this wasn't addressed and can be exploited to peep inside a banline box while seated on the neighbour parcel i last tested this ages ago and found it to be true, when we discussing on this forum about avatars over the banline box. I dunno if Linden have done anything since to fix it

when a post is run thru a moderation algorithm before it is posted then the users are no longer cast in the role of police by the hosting owner/corporation. The policing is in the domain of the host corporations do respond when they are required to police their own premises

moderation queue. A post has to be moderated before it is published. Not withdrawn/deleted/edited/removed by the moderator after it has been published

i agree with this. I don't see how posting to a public forum, like this one, or to public boards on Facebook or Reddit, etc. is any different from posts/letters/articles on the New York Times Facebook, Reddit, Linden too with this forum, are publishers. And I think they have to abide by publishing rules same as any other publisher

search the marketplace for "TITLER". Is lots of them to choose from

am not a lawyer or any legal expert my only practical experience is as a member of our hapu, participating in the Waitangi Tribunal process, and negotiating with the Government of the day representing the Crown's interests. And negotiating with other hapu representatives, a process which our iwi leaders do their best to manage and any agreements reached thru these processes have to be able to survive a Court challenge. So it all gets technically legal pretty quickly because of this, I have over the last nearly 15 years now, spent quite a bit of time looking into how other countries are dealing with historical grievance matters, and I try to learn from them as best I can

this may have been a motivation for some to vote for the 2nd Amendment back in the day - a militia to suppress slave rebellions. But is not an argument today for a militia. USA is no longer a slave society so what is today's militia for ? Which I think is the pertinent question a State could answer that it needs citizens who can respond to a call by the State Governor as special police deputies/constables or as National Guard reservists in defence of the State, then it can be seen as an organized militia and be well-regulated. These citizens can be armed, everybody else cannot be in terms of military scale weapons an issue is that some people take the 2nd Amendment to mean they can be armed to protect themselves. Which is constitutionally not true. But until a State organises their militia to defend the State then every citizen is militia in defence of the State ps add. Just add that I think the current popular arguments in the USA are wrongly focused on the weapons. When the argument should be focused on the militia if any progress is to be made

is a bit more nuanced the rule was (back in the day) that when the State Governor called out the militia in defense of the State then it meant every citizen who had a gun would answer the call and bring their own gun the militia is an irregular body of armed citizens. But on presenting themselves would accept the governor's authority to direct them on the battlefield in defense of the State the militia is not like the National Guard which is a regular body of soldiers the issue is that there isn't a militia to call out if the citizens are not armed. They are just unarmed (non-militia) volunteers for the regular body - National Guard yet the US Constitution provides for a militia (an irregular armed citizen body) in the 2nd Amendment. Militia in the originalist text and in today's language both still mean the same thing i realise that it can sound a bit nuts to ordinary people today that a US person can have the weapons they do. Just in case the State Governor calls them out to bring their weapons to defend the State against its enemies for all the weapons to go away tho, then have to a) repeal the 2nd Amendment or b) there is a constitutional argument to be made that a State could determine that a militia is no longer required for the defense of the State. And that while the 2nd Amendment provides for a militia, it would not be unconstitutional for the State to not have one. No militia no guns

sometimes the wiki examples don't fully explain the flow of the event model two flow examples 1) wait for touch 2) touch 3) close listener open listener show dialog wait for dialog button 4) listen event - process button response 5) goto 1) in this flow the listener is always open, while waiting for touch the code flow should be 1) wait for touch 2) touch 3) open the listener show dialog wait for dialog button 4) listen event - close listener - process response 5) goto 1) the issue with the second flow is when the person doesn't click the dialog button, the listener remains open so somebody previous invented the listener timeout 1) wait for touch 2) touch 3) open the listener show dialog start timer wait for dialog button 4) listen event - stop timer - close listener - process response goto 1) 5) timer event - stop timer - close listener goto 1)

am pretty sure it means that all responses already queued will still fire the listen event