Qie Niangao

Something here that I haven't seen recently: a Governor Linden parcel set for sale at L$1/sq.m. Pretty sure it hasn't been this way for long or I would have noticed. Not sure if this one ever went to auction... maybe? No idea if this is the start of something new.

This all seems to be operating from the assumption that it's exceptional and rude to be banned from a sim. If instead you accept that being permitted in a region is an act of generousity to be repaid throughout a stay, you may be welcome longer at more places.

Rstan wrote: Is it possible? without any permanent tiers? No.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: ... replace it with something that better suits the business... I kinda hope it hasn't come to that again. I'm no fan of Lithium, but every time we switch forums software some content gets lost despite a lot of time and effort spent trying to preserve archives. For most stuff I suppose it doesn't matter, but it's become very difficult to track back into the history of LSL scripting and the same must be true for all the other technical topics. That said, Lithium's business focus seems to be shifting ever further from relevance to what LL needs. There are a few other companies using it for customer support forums, but the ones I've seen are relatively tiny and inactive. Meanwhile, Lithium just bought Klout (talk about a company whose fifteen minutes have passed!) so it's possible LL won't be the ones deciding to pull the plug.

sweetone14 wrote: Does this only apply to "about land" options? Meaning, if I only "Set" the group to the land, can my managers still kick people, edit ban list, etc.? Depending what all "etc" may entail, the usual solution is to have a scripted device owned by the parcel owner that other authorized parties can use.

Until this thread, I had no idea what a "Toddleedoo" is or why it should need shaping. Having now seen pictures, I think we can safely assume that general traffic is of no value to selling these things; they're going to be of zero interest to the vast majority of the general public (although, apparently, of considerable interest to some aficionados). That's the thing about malls: there are some products that might appeal to many passersby, and those can make sense in a mall. Then there are other products that have only highly specialized buyers, and those may really benefit from being in (only) highly specialized malls. Putting those latter products in a non-specialized mall, regardless of traffic volume, doesn't do anybody any good. So, unless there's a Toddleedoo-specific mall somewhere, this particular poster would be better off with a cheap 512 somewhere -- if they can benefit from in-world sales at all. Even if a mall were competitively priced, they'd absolutely need to offer such specialized products separate parcels each with its own Search listing, landing point, etc. -- and separate parcels erode traffic statistics. (And, in passing, traffic statistics, just as numbers, aren't make-or-break as they once were because they don't much affect Search ranking anymore -- where in-world Search itself is used less, too.)

Barry Lubezki wrote: Great. Too bad that Linden Labs does not read these posts, or anything that SL residents come up with. So don't get your hope up too high. In this thread you wonder why Lindens don't read the forums?

Hmm. The Library one changed slightly to http://community.secondlife.com/t5/LSL-Library/bd-p/LSLScriptingLibrary The other two had the common problem with automatically generated links: punctuation got sucked into the anchor tag. So try these: Inworld Employment at http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Inworld-Employment/bd-p/InworldEmployment and Wanted at http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Wanted/bd-p/Wanted (Seems odd to have to resort to a three year old thread for this; seems this same information gets reposted at least weekly.)

You can't actually prevent anybody from rezzing anything. You could ask the newly-rezzed object to delete itself, but obviously that only works with scripted objects on script-enabled land. So one way to defeat this would be to put the previously-rezzed instance on script-disabled land, rez the new one on script-enabled land, then wait a while for your script to decide the old one is gone so the new one can survive, then enable scripts again for the old one, thus having two or more working instances of the object at the same time. The scripts can just keep checking to see if any other instances have checked recently, but the more often they do that, the more system-wide overhead (regardless of specific choice of comms and persistence) -- and, of course, unscripted objects can't be protected at all.

There are plenty of places with cheap rents, so what's the fuss about? Yeah, some charge more, and most of those sit empty, and who cares? If a renter is so set on renting one of those more expensive ones, they can pay the price, otherwise they can rent something cheaper. Where's the problem? FWIW, I agree that in-world stores really only pay for themselves if one is selling stuff that must be examined in-world before buying, and for which a demo version isn't completely satisfactory. (Personally, I despise Marketplace and do all I can to avoid buying anything there, but 99% of SL shoppers are perfectly happy with that abomination, and that's all that matters.) Stores full of vendor prims with product images are pretty much pointless now, except in the rare cases where traffic interested in a particular type of product all congregates in the same place (e.g., specialized role play sims).

I'll second the advice to start with nPose. I can't remember the details now, but I recall chatting with the original scripter of the system and learning that some design decisions were specifically to support seating on moving vehicles. One thing I'm not sure about is whether nPose has an option for control-driven position adjustment. I know it was on the wish list at one point and I showed them some sample code, but I haven't followed-up in ages. (Back then, I think it still used rezzed adjustment prims, which might be a problem in a moving vehicle.)

PaperB wrote: I Think you are right, there is a lot of cultural issues involved in wether or not one may find anoying or bad this kind of advertising. However, it has been studied that this kind of marketing is not proved to be successfull. Latests trends of marketing show that consumers react better when they dont feel they are beeing sold something. [...] You know, now that you put it that way, it could be as much generational as cultural: today's prime consumer demographic has much less tolerance for blatant ad pitches than, say, our grandparents. I mean, consider vintage advertising using such ham-handed tactics as direct celebrity endorsements, compared with current trends of almost subliminal product placement, the more subtle the better, to sneak any commercial message past our now ever-vigilant and hair-trigger BS detectors.

Right. The OP hypothesized somewhere above that it was because, having bought some items (sold as original) without picking them up right away, a prim limit was exceeded and some automatic banning kicked in. Seems unlikely, since resale of original items is apparently the whole business of the place. Also, modern scripts could just return the stuff to whomever rezzed it, no fuss, no bother, but it's possible the place is stuck in a time-warp using old scripts. An alternative explanation might be that the OP got swept up in an IP ban of somebody else who once had their dynamically assigned address. The reason that's probably not what happened here is that one would expect the same to happen to the OP's daughter, but as I understand it, she doesn't get banned until the OP shows up on the parcel. That would be moderately intricate logic: One gets banned by name if one inherits the IP address of somebody who actually did something ban-worthy, and then when you get a different IP address you're still banned along with everybody else who shares that address, but those next-generation folks don't get the same degree of banning: they can't themselves trigger bans from new addresses, despite having been banned before. It could work that way, and in fact it might in fact slightly mitigate some of the inherent stupidity of the whole approach, but it sounds more like an accident than a planned feature.

Marcus Ansia wrote: An IP tracker of sorts is the only thing that makes any sense here... Agreed, but they're not magic. That they're using something other than media is moderately worrisome... although I forget now what kludge the one with "skills" used for her contraption. (Y'all know the thing I'm talking about, right? Somebody must remember how the stupid thing works -- for absurdly small values of "work".)

The only thing about this that remains a question (to me, anyway) is what they are using to get your IP address. Did you try all this with media disabled in the viewer? If so, and if they still got your IP address, then they're doing something a bit unusual, and worth further investigation. They could, for example, use parcel audio, too, but that's much trickier. And there have been reports (unconfirmed AFAIK) that voice, too, can leak IP addresses, but that should have been plugged long ago, if it was ever true. I realize it's very annoying and invasive and rude of the merchant to do any of this by whatever means, but it would be kind of important to know if there are new exploits in use, beyond what I suspect: the same ol' snakeoil hawked at ridiculous cost by one with sell-assessed "skills".

Antumbra wrote: I do agree that it would be unfriendly, but some people in this post think that's all I do. When in fact that's not true! I say hello first and ask them how was there day I also ask if I can ask them a question before I do ask my "what do you think of my outfit" question. If they say yes I can ask them a question. Doesn't that mean they gave me some of their time for me to ask my question and for them to answer? Yeah I know not everyone is trying to make me look like some terrible villain, and I thank the people who really answered my question and tried to help me out. This precisely describes the spiel of a particularly annoying bot that used to plague busy areas such as infohubs. Maybe you're not a bot. But it's like the Turing test in reverse: Observers are going to suspect this behaviour to be that of a commercially motivated computer. Also, again, if this is ever done in somebody else's store, imagine the tables turned and you're paying serious money to have land on which your creations are presented in-world. Would you allow somebody to distract and potentially annoy your customers with other commercial offers? I don't think so. I think you'd swing that ban hammer without delay -- and be right to do so. The same applies to venues, even non-profit ones. Somebody is paying big bucks to hold that land for a purpose, and if they wanted your advertising there, they'd be charging you for it.

Antumbra wrote: but its not really spamming cuz I only send the LM's to the people once and they had NO problem with it what so ever. Well obviously at least one did have a problem with it -- such a problem that she even bothered to call you out about it. Perhaps there were thousands of others left silently seething, and perhaps even more who will never login again because the encounter was so unpleasant. Anyway, on a private parcel, especially a store, you can and almost surely will be banned from the parcel for doing this. On a Linden-owned parcel, you are in fact violating a "no advertising" restriction and could theoretically be banned from Second Life altogether -- although in practice you'll just get a bunch of ARs filed against you and nothing will happen. Usually folks will just assume you're a bot and file the ARs without contacting you, so it's kind of surprising that anybody bothered that one time.

Charliedru Lannock wrote: Purpose of this function: This function would allow prims or objects to scan for Avatar Sit Targets on other prims (not part of the same object / LSL script). Even prims owned by others. This would enable your object to know the Sit Target and adjust itself accordingly. For example, in the case of breedable pets, the pet could detect the sit target then "Sit" on the prim itself. Using a method to detect if an avatar is sitting on the prim currently, or simply using CastRay you could auto-adjust the "Pet" to properly sit on the lap of an avatar seated on a prim, according to the prim's properly Sit Target. This is pretty hopeless. In practice, a sit target is so much a function of the sit animation that these sit target-posed breedables would end up many meters away from where the seated avatar appears when animated -- except when the animation is strictly controlled, and in those controlled cases it would be much easier to simply share "pet sit targets" over some inter-object communication protocol for pet-lovers.

I appreciate that you were replying... and further on the plus side, it's some relief to know the thread is really gone and it's not the ol' hysterical blindness flaring up. Does seem an odd topic to need blocking but I trust it's because the solution is in place and we'll never have occasion to think of it again.

Probably. I guess one more thing you could do to prepare yourself for a chat with the owner would be to check the total prims currently in use across all the parcels in the region. If the parcels are mostly as large as yours, that shouldn't be too difficult. Then you'd know how many prims are really available, remaining of the 15,000 total that a sim can support. An object bonus of 5.0 is pretty unusual, so it's probably wrong and the source of all the confusion, but if there's very little else on the sim and very little other rental space it could possibly still be correct, I suppose. (Just to be clear, the concern is that the object bonus may have been used incorrectly and thus you and the other renters may have been promised more total prims than the region can possibly deliver.)

That suggests pretty strongly that you don't really have as many prims available as you'd be led to think because the number reported as available is scaled by that bonus factor -- but there's just nothing that checks to make sure the sim hasn't over-committed its total allotment of prims. Let me do a little math here. You said your parcel is 8736 sq.m. and 4996 prims available. So, without the bonus factor, just trying to figure out what the sim's basic capcity is, that would be about 1000 prims for about an eighth of the region. You may have a few other prims rezzed already, but it doesn't matter, that's a large enough prim capacity that you're on a full-primmed region, not a Homestead. So that was all just to figure out the total number of prims that can be rezzed on the entire sim: 15,000. That has to cover everything on every parcel everywhere on the region. For there to really be 4996 prims available for you, there cannot be more than 10,004 total prims rezzed elsewhere in the sim. But it sounds as if the situation is even worse than that: you can't even rez this house that wants to use about 1200, which suggests the rest of the region has more than 13,800 prims rezzed already, making it "too full" for your house to rez successfully. You probably want to talk to your landlord, to make sure this is really the problem. If s/he needs help understanding how the object bonus factor works, we can explain more here. In any case, it certainly seems as if you two will need to work something out.

Uh oh. Can you check About Land / Objects tab and make sure you don't have a "Region Object Bonus Factor" greater than 1.0? If so, probably the sim really is full, and the landlord messed up. I vaguely recall that this error message is sometimes completely bogus, too, but... will have to try to track that down, if the Bonus Factor thing doesn't pan out. [Edit: Oh foo. If you don't have a greater-than-one Bonus Factor, it doesn't show at all in the About Land window, but only appears in the Region/Estate window, Region tab, as "Object Bonus".]

I find it more satisfying to write them out with a quill pen on rice paper and ceremoniously burn them while reciting passages from Lovecraft. YMMV.

According to the Marketplace description, this house uses Rez Faux. That's fine; I mention it because it means that it's not failing to rez from your inventory, but rather it's failing to rez from the Rez Faux box. And that failure is only on your parcel -- it works fine in sandboxes. Probably the first thing I'd try is to rez the house in a sandbox and "save" it there, so the rezzing scripts get removed from the linksets. Then I'd rez my own prim at the bottom center of the house, cam out and select everything then re-select that bottom-center prim so it's the last one selected, then Take the whole mess into inventory as one huge coalesced object. Then go to the land intended for the house, open the Build tool first, then rez the coalesced object at the center of the parcel and move it all around until positioned as desired. I realize you said "plenty of room with the size of the land" but I'm still guessing that some parts try to move outside the parcel or region boundaries as Rez Faux moves them around. (It can also get in trouble if it tries to move things too far underground, but you say you had the same problem on a platform, too, so that's probably not the problem here.)

LepreKhaun wrote: [...] 5. Unsure what you mean by "length of a timer".The timer is a event handler and will be triggered no more often than llSetTimer(1.0); has set the timer to fire (once every one second in this case). No events ever interrupt another; once an event has been triggered, the code within its event handler must finish executing completely before any further events (which a queued) can next be triggered. Performance may be hampered in any event handler that fails to execute and exit in a timely manner. Other events may be triggered while the timer is counting down in the meantime. 6. Phantom objects have no positive impact on physics computation. 7. Do not use llSetMemoryLimit(llGetUsedMemory()+0x1000);. You are essentially asking for 4K more than the "high tide" level at that point of your script. The script might well require more than that later. Either way, it will not make your script any more efficient timewise. I suppose we can't be sure, but I'll bet that "length of a timer" refers to the interval of the timer -- the "wavelength" side of its "frequency", so to speak. If so, then yeah: a short timer in one script can hurt performance of all other scripts in the sim. That's because the short timer script is trying to run so often. Note that even if it doesn't do much when the timer expires, it costs processor time every time a script event fires and it has to run at all. Phantom objects are lighter on the physics engine than are non-phantom ones because, being phantom, they (generally) cannot cause collision-driven calculations. An exception would be objects set llVolumeDetect() which cause all the same collision events for scripts but are otherwise handled as if phantom; I'd guess that those cause about the same physics load as non-phantom objects (although they won't trigger chains of collisions). Finally, it may be beating a dead horse, but llSetMemoryLimit() not only doesn't improve a script's time efficiency, it also doesn't affect its actual memory use, except in the case where it causes the script to crash for lack of memory it needs. Otherwise, it only affects the amount of memory the script reports that it's using. (Well, that, and it adds a small amount of memory itself as a function call in the script.) So unless somebody is threatening to penalize your script for how much memory it appears to use, llSetMemoryLimit() confers no benefit whatsoever.