Phil Deakins

A question: You used the phrase "experience teleports". Are they any different to ordinary teleports? I.e. are they completely unnoticable by the person going through them?

You mean that's not true?? And I've been banging my head against a brick wall???

It always did count as the tier-free 512. It was always a case of either the Linden Home or buy a 512 somewhere.

If it were me, I'd phone the Billing department. Support would probably tell you to do that, anyway.

Since this thread has been revived, I do have an opinion, although I've never had any interest whatsoever in partaking in the gatcha idiocy. Gatcha machines are no different to slot machines, except that the gambler does get something each time from the gatcha machines. They should be included in the gambling laws, because that's exactly what they are - gambling machines, with which the owners take advantage of the gullible - and laugh all the way to the bank, of course.

That's puzzling. You had your Linden Home, which used your tier-free 512 sqm. Apart from the cost of the premium account, that home cost you nothing. When downgrading to Basic without abandoning the Linden Home, one would expect that the ownership of the Linden Home land would disappear, because Basic accounts can't own mainland. It can't be anything to do with paying monthly for the Premium account, because $4 a month is way too little. So it's puzzling. I would do as Fionalein suggested and contact Support.

To expand on this, it used to be that the search system ranked places solely on traffic so, to get a place high in the rankings, various things were done to get people (traffic) onto place owners' land - camping, lucky chairs, etc. Then the search system was completely changed, and a completely different method was (and still is) used to rank places in the search results. Traffic still counted, but only a little, so the need for camping, lucky chairs, and such, was drastically reduced. That was especially so since many, perhaps most, people wrongly believed that traffic no longer affected rankings, so camping, etc. was no longer of any benefit. Even some Lindens wrongly thought that traffic no longer counted. Consequently, those traffic-generating things became scarce.

What Lillith said is correct. I posted that I paid $10 for an alt back in early 2007, but I have ~70 alts. Only that one had to be paid for. That's because LL charged for them back then, but they stopped charging for them not long after that one was created.

Likewise. I also paid $10 for an alt account. That was very early in 2007.

I see what you mean. It isn't listed under Functions, and you have to type the url in to get the page.

You're right Theresa. I added that exception a little later.The point was that one country can't make laws for another country, and it's not the first time that I've seen people auto-assume that they can.

I thought you didn't want to discuss it. My statement had nothing at all to do with that. Oh, and my statement was not only "technically true", but it was absolutely true. And thank you for the welcome. When you've been in it a while, let me know, and I'll tell you where you went wrong. There is no "global market". There are international markets though. Perhaps that's what you mean, but this isn't anything to do with international markets.

I don't know, but that may be true.

That's almost fine, but not quite. Actually, it's not fine No country can unilaterally decide that its courts have jurisdiction over anything that happens in another country. It doesn't matter what laws the country passes, it can't have jurisdiction. It can claim it, and it can imagine that it has it, but it can't have it and it doesn't have it. It can even put people, companies, whatever on trial in its own country, and win the cases, but it has no jurisdiction, so it's just blowing in the wind. The exception would be if the other country's laws accepted it, but the primary country simply can't do it on its own. A country can decide that its citizens abroad can be tried under home law, or even under the laws of another country, so that, when they come back they can be in trouble for something they did whilst abroad, but jurisdiction stays within the home country, or, in cases like the U.S. it's often within state borders. I may be wrong, but I don't think that LL has offices in the EU any more, so I don't think there would be any grey areas there. It doesn't actually do business in the EU, but I don't know whether or not it has any assets within the EU, such as bank accounts or hardware. If all of those are negatives, and if U.S. law doesn't compel it's people to comply, then LL does not need to change anything because of the EU's data law. It's all academic, of course, because LL is doing something about it. All I ever wanted to do in this thread is state that no country can make laws that people of other countries have to abide by, unless their own country's laws say they have to. And I wanted to state that because some people seem to think that it goes without saying that, when the EU creates a new law, U.S. companies have to abide by it.

I never looked under Functions. I don't think I ever have. Anyway, it does work Ty again, Callum.

I looked in the wiki and couldn't find either of the 2 new functions.

Really? Wow! There's no info about it in the LSL wiki yet, and the tooltip text gives no indication of that, so I'd no idea. Maybe it's mentioned in the release notes, which I didn't read. I'll try it that way, and close the jira if it works Ty, Callum.

As well as llRequestUserKey() not working, llName2Key() is restricted. It will only return the key of an agent that's in the sim. It can't be used in the same way that llKey2Name() is used. It's not a bug. It's designed that way, although I can't imagine why. I think that, for most uses, it's adequate, but not for all uses. Imo, it falls short.

Because we want to. That's the reason why people discuss things. Those who don't want to don't have to join in, of course. It's not compulsory

That's right. As far as we know, LL doesn't do business within the EU.

llRequestUserKey That doesn't appear to work. It does return a key, but never the correct one. Here are 3 goes at it, all for the same account, but with capitalisation slightly different:- b3022afa-461e-e689-1f11-b386f3019a2b Phil Deakins 9731ea3f-6197-b471-438a-b3eca9e4f7a4 phil deakins 9521353b-aade-415e-9c82-b763e054340b Phil deakins None of the keys are correct - not even the first one which has the correct captalisation. The correct key is ed2d0c19-77e4-4553-b35c-a120bb64b90f. When I try the same name, correctly captalised, llRequestUserKey() returns a different key every time:- default { touch_start(integer total_number) { integer i; string name = "Phil Deakins"; for(i=0; i<10; ++i){ llOwnerSay((string)llRequestUserKey(name)); } } } It returns 10 different keys, none of which is the correct one. As it is now, it's not going to be any good when name changing comes in. I'm not familiar with reporting bugs these days. How is it done? ETA: I've managed to report this bug - https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-216256

There you are you see. You (and one or two others) are adding to my statement, and then putting arguments against it. But my statement is perfectly correct. It completely covered what you wrote. My statement was that no country can make laws that other country's people have to comply with, unless the laws of the other countries say they have to. It covered statutes. There are no arguments against that statement and I don't understand why anyone would even try. If one country makes a law that it is illegal not to go to church every Sunday, people in another country don't have to comply with it, unless the law in the other country says they have to. It's a ridiculous example that nobody can find fault with, but it demonstrates my statement perfectly. This whole discussion is solely about whether or not countries have to comply with another country's law. They don't, unless the law in their countries says they have to. It has nothing at all to do with data of any kind. It's entirely to do with laws. The EU cannot make laws that countries outside the EU have to comply with, unless the laws in the other countries say they have to. They can comply voluntarily if they like, perhaps to avoid sanctions of some sort, but they don't have to. If there are laws in the U.S. that compel U.S. companies to comply with the EU law under discussion, then LL has to comply. Otherwise LL does not have to comply. They may comply voluntarily, but they don't have to.

No I don't. It's you who doesn't seem to undestand the simple fact about the way the world works. Either that, or, for some reason that I can't fathom, you're intent on complicating the simplicity of the fact that I wrote. I won't repeat the simple fact because it would be pointless.

But British courts don't have such jurisdiction, Innula. What they can do is try someone in Britain for offenses commited in Britain, even though the offender is in another country. They can apply for extradition in such cases too. What they can't do is try someone in Britian for an offense commited in another country, UNLESS it is against the British law for such acts to be commited in other countries. It's really very simple - one country cannot make laws that people in other coutries have to obey - unless the laws in the other countries say they have to obey them. I can't fathom why anyone would argue against that statement.

I've no idea if LL is going to comply or not, but, if they do it'll be for one of two reasons:- (1) they simply choose to, and (2) the U.S. and the EU have agreed that certain EU laws will be alhered to in the U.S. and, presumably, written it into U.S. law. And vice versa, of course. Why is it so difficult to understand that one country cannot make laws that apply to another country's people in their own country, unless their own country has laws to make it so? That's all this aspect of the discussion is about. It has nothing whatsoever to do with data of any kind. It is entirely to do with law, and who has to obey who's laws.