Sassy Romano

sexylady Waco wrote: also i created another account and tried to work in two instances but it was so hard and also the load of two instances is very hard in one machine it makes it very slow. Depends on the machine, I have no problem running several instances so it sounds like your PC isn't up to it. How much memory do you have? You can set a debug flag to cap the memory use (varying results). That will hopefully stop it swapping memory which is a complete performance killer. Similarly, you can limit CPU time to the viewer if really necessary. Or as Medhui suggested.

You're right about the quantities but i'd already highlighted this in BOLD in an earlier post http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Merchants/Viewer-Managed-Marketplace-Inworld-Feedback-Session/m-p/2877516#M51940 My complaint is more about the covert engagement process that is adopted. If the team engaged with their stakeholders in a better way, they wouldn't deliver the wrong solution and then get spanked by people complaining. Oh and the fact that we've told them/suggested over and over and over about how to do it right and what we *really* need only to be given something else. I think it's that part that people are pushing back on in terms of help, why tell them the same again only to be ignored?

falney Finney wrote: So. Would you guys thing this deamed reporting to LL as griefing? It is the first thing I would do in the instance if it happened to me (Though I wouldnt have, knowing in advance what was supposed to happen) I would definitely seek legal council first. Probably one of the "Have you had an accident" types. It's worth remembering that these days, there's no need to take care or be accountable for one's own actions but rather if it's not explicitly laid out, someone else must be to blame and if you can't find someone, then there's someone out there that can *try*. LL are probably due for a law suit against them for the stress caused by allowing this on the platform and not including warnings in any of the TOS or Community Standards documents about stress that may be suffered. Yes, go for that one too.

My input, UI aside, price aside... just have a look for the number of tutorials and other methods of support you are likely to get for your chosen application. One particular piece of software stands clear about the rest where SL is concerned and that's Blender. Learn the UI and just get on with creating and of course, there's no cost involved in trying.

I do completely understand your frustration, I really do. As I said, it seems reasonable as a customer and that's why i've given up. I strived to meet and exceed expectations and I can't reasonably do that anymore and I refuse to deliver disappointment. LL really blew it all apart by acting too slowly and since they have no intention to change, all focus is on SL Next Gen or whatever they choose to call it.

Perrie Juran wrote: The one potential being LL needing to remove the ability for E.U. residents to pay 'real' currency instead of $L's on the Market place so all transactions were strictly done with game tokens. Though a problem could arise because our own FinCEN has ruled that the game tokens ($L's) do have value. When you buy from MP using Paypal (i.e. real currency), the actual transaction is to first buy L$ which are then used against the sale, so once again, you're only purchasing game tokens. The second part about game tokens having a value is true but that's a different issue than MP purchases directly.

Tallulah Bilavio wrote: Why cant they be made wearable for all or certainly the ones for which the outfit is wearable? This is all rather annoying since I'm paying the same price for the outfit but can only wear half of it. I would just like to know the thinking behind this because I am not going to be sheep herded into buying every foot on the market! Simple. To put it bluntly, all this mesh replacement part crap is utter madness! You're asking creators to go back and re-edit over and over just to retrofit each time a new "best in SL" as each creator will claim, body part comes along. Mesh has gone through enough ridiculous phases that as far as i'm concerned, it was badly implemented in the first phase, we had to wait too long for a solution that aimed at fixing sizing issues and the one we were offered doesn't work well at all. Now it seems that everyone wants to make a replacement this or that and then customers wonder why a product created prior to the new things suddenly doesn't work as they expect. Mesh replacment parts, bodies most notably are a joke when it comes to alpha needs as you're limited to the panels offered by an alpha hud, there's no common scripting mechansim so it fundamentally breaks anything scripted for RLV for example, where scripted clothing control is desired. So, i'm not getting at you but that's why, the mesh market has turned to fragmentation and frustration and has basically turned to crap. I've given up making anything because the amount of effort to meet customer expectations, far exceeds the return on investment of my time and that's not that the customer expectations are unreasonable. The questions that you asked are fair to you, you just want to pay money and have stuff that works for you but it can't reasonably be met in all cases without massive effort and constant re-visiting and re-working of existing products and that is an unsustainable expectation of a merchant.

Aasha Kohime wrote: The only ones that would lose the animation are the ones that ripped them and myself. Forgive my pedantic nature on this please, nobody "ripped" anything though, that implies a different task from using the viewer provided functions to extract correctly obtained animations from an object, also not obtained through any nefarious means. I do understand the frustration but as you've said, they went out in demos, worse things could have happened.

Aasha Kohime wrote: They were told the items only work in my sim. Early on a few even asked if they could get free demos that worked in other sims believe it or not. They didn't break SL's terms of service when they took the animation. That much I do agree. But I'm fairly sure they did break my own interlectual property copyright of the item through the service of SL. The item was designed to only work in one sim As we've discovered elsewhere in the thread, although that was the intent, the animations themselves cannot be technically limited to work in only one region when they are in the posession of an object owned by someone else and while the item was designed to only work in one region, removing animations from the object is compliant with the current permissions system, thus a DMCA seems inappropriate. What I do find comical though is that LL have stated that they NEED to know the location of these items and can't work on UUID. If haha... IF that's the case, how come they have twice now, run jobs that wipe legally purchased animations from MY (and plenty of others) INVENTORY?! They'd not have had that location reported duh! They're so full of it at times, it's sickening. Anyway, my advice would be to forget trying to pursue this one, make a better animation and do as suggested, have a sim side animation engine for demo purposes that remains within your ownership.

Next step is to get rid of the cat.

Not quite sure they're what she's looking for though! Try Happy Undead store.

I don't have a problem spanning 3 1920x1080 monitors so that's a different issue for you. I have no such screen blanking at 5760 horizontal resolution.

DarkUnicorN wrote: What can i do in a situation,as this!? Read the Community Standards here https://secondlife.com/corporate/cs.php Noting carefully the bit about:- Buyer Beware Linden Lab does not exercise editorial control over the content of Second Life, and will make no specific efforts to review the textures, objects, sounds or other content created within Second Life. Additionally, Linden Lab does not certify or endorse the operation of in-world games, vending machines, or retail locations; refunds must be requested from the owners of these objects. In other words, you are free to **bleep** and moan (but cannot name and shame on these forums) about it but there's no recourse.

Oh I get what you're saying but if you have PROOF that this is the case, then you need to file a SEC JIRA. However, "I heard someone in the background of our voice chat" will get the same response that I gave. There was someone in the background, in another room is the most likely answer and your partner didn't want to have that conversation about who it was. Jumping to the immediate assumption that SL voice chat can be "hacked" is drama laden. Yes a session hijack could be feasible for example but these sort of things are true for any communications system which is why such investment into encryption takes place but even then, the security of the key is paramount and ways to get the key include but are not limited to:- Brute force (pointless and time wasting but can work if you're not in a hurry or don't plan on weak passphrases or good luck any time soon) Statistical analysis or similar such analytical methods of enciphered data Revealing/sharing (either deliberately or by accident, poor key handling) Subversion/Phising Coercion (Threatening to cut off the limbs of one's nearest and dearest. Highly effective but often reserved for specifically targetted attacks of high value.) Either way, giggling and Nintendo in the background doesn't rank up there as top reason to describe SL voice as non private and hackable. Best to assume that ALL your comms on any platform are compromised and act accordingly.

Her daughter was on her nintendo in the lounge

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Sadly, I have been caught by a scammer on the MP and was out 10,000L.. What was supposed to be a very rare breedable horse turned out to be an empty box. Will LL refund your money, no. Sadly, they view this as a user V user dispute. Which i personally find reprehensible as they earned 5% of my purchase. They should be responsible for the MP. Not only did they earn 5% but in the case of the OP (don't know about yours Drake), if they've acknowledged the complaint, deleted the item and banned the account, one has to ask:- PRECISELY WHAT PART OF LL'S RESPONSIBILITY DOES THIS NOT HAPPEN TO BE? These aren't disputes about product features, merchant vs buyer but simple plain fraud and having acknowledged it on the platform, they are complicit when taking funds in the process. They can claw back funds from an account fast enough by just saying "it was fraudulent" so it should be returned to the customer. If the issue is that the platform is so insecure as to permit it, then the platform should be changed.

How do you know it's not featured? (An invalid answer to this is "I haven't seen my featured advert") Let me give some clues:- How many OTHER people have features items at the same time as you? How often have you refreshed your browser? (Now think about the above question) But the simplest way to answer this is to look at the feature items listing stats and post them here. If the number of times that it has appeared is greater than zero, then you got what you paid for. LL make no guarantee as to how often an advert appears.

Yes, the way to stop it happening is to NOT edit the listing. This behaviour is by design and is to prevent someone completely changing the description and associated object of a leading product that is found at the top of search, to a different product while maintaining the same rank.

The alt could use an rlv enabled text client such as radegast. This way, the requirements for the second client are very much less than a second instance of say firestorm. Also, by wearing a suitable attachment, a teleport offer would invoke RLV command to force tp the alt.

Aasha Kohime wrote: If someone makes a texture they can apply it to things and it's rather safe. It won't get reused for something else unless the creator allowed it by adding the texture in the contents. Textures are wholly unsafe. With nothing more than the standard viewer, the UUID is easily discoverable from anything viewed.

Vulpinus wrote: It sounds to me like the OP has made a mistake in packaging a demo product with a valuable animation. That's a failing to understand the system, and perhaps a case of theft by those taking the animations if they agreed to T&C in some way not to do so, but it is not a failure in the system or a reason to restrict everyone's freedom to use the animations they have paid for in the way they want. Yes it's exactly that. Allowing the animations to go out in a demo product instead of doing what I suggested should have been done. Server object containing animations on the sim, communicating with a demo sword script.) I understand and appreciate the OPs frustration but it's this sort of thing that has to be thought through before commiting products to demo/sale. We've gone through all sorts of "what if's" with our own products. Ones that communicate with web back ends need even more careful consideration because the object could be running on aditi, SL's beta grid, communicating with a back end web service which doesn't differentiate between beta and production grid. An exploit that hit Hippo vending system when people were rezzing vendors on the beta grid, buying items on the beta grid with lots of free L$, vendor says to web back end "deliver product to avatar" and web service duly sent the deliver message to the server on the production grid. Free products for all... Demo items are a nightmare, in your example, you would probably be quite happy if the Studio gave you a demo CD but failed to propery secure it which is the scenario here. I remember a magazine that did just that with software, they gave away a "limited" version of a companies software such that it couldn't print. It was a graphic design bit of software. Only what they did was just delete the dll's that allowed printing from a production disk and mastered from that. It didn't take long for someone to simply undelete the dll and have a full featured bit of software.

Then may I suggest that the implementation was wrong. If the demo was only to run in your sim, what you should have done is have the animations in a different object and then when they took the demo, the script would only communicate with the demo server. The demo server would then perform llRequestPermission to animate the user agent and at that point when they agree, the animation runs while remaining safely tucked up in your server object. No need to put the animations inside the demo sword item at all.

Well their solution is simple. Not doing it for a legacy platform that is now merely in maintenance mode. Maybe SL2 will be improved in the permissions area. I'm not sure what the fuss it about though to be honest. If the object is no mod, then removing an animation from it to inventory does what? It lets the person move the animation from the object to inventory. They already bought the animation as part of the product and moving a no copy animation from a no mod object leaves them with a broken object. If the animation is copy, then why the concern about them having it in the object or inventory, it's COPY! Nobody has gained anything that they hadn't already purchased and if it's no transfer, it's not going to someone else. I'm puzzled as to where the big issue actually is.

how are you going to do that without massively changing the way that SL works while maintaining backward compatiblity? That's pretty much why the JIRA was closed, it's not going to happen. Plus, with animations being rendered client side, the speed of the animation is not affected by server simulator load. No, trying to move the rendering of animations to server side with the current platform would not be a good idea at all!

Aasha Kohime wrote: That honestly seems like something they can change. Just like they had viewers change to suit security in the past. Make it so it's only possible to get the animations' UUIDs if they are full perm. Logically yes people can still find tricks to get the animation. The same way they do with everything. But it'd be harder. Anyone that used tools and functions that managed to see through the perm restrictions and get the UUID would be treated the same way anyone that used a tool or viewer that could copy a texture or object would now. How do you propose that the viewer plays an animation which is NOT full perm when the viewer needs the UUID regardless of permission? Animations are a client side render and the asset has to be downloaded to the client first regardless of SL permission. The asset is downloaded via UUID, just like every other asset. Further, my question then is that an asset UUID can be discovered by anyone with the right knowledge using nothing more than the standard SL viewer and inspection of their cache. If I then apply a texture to an object by UUID, I haven't re-uploaded it, I haven't obtained it via any nefarious viewer so how are you suggesting that you treat me?