Innula Zenovka

You can now use PRIM_LINK_TARGET to make a list of prims to affect in different ways, like this llSetLinkPrimitiveParamsFast(1,<some parameters>,PRIM_LINK_TARGET,2,<some other parameters>,PRIM_LINK_TARGET,3,<some more parameters>...]);

I use a server for that sort of thing when I have to, though I'd normally prefer to shop around for a sculptmap that can be freely redistributed (or nag my business partner into making one). @Qie -- a typical scenario would be if you're making -- for example --- a drinks dispenser that gives out glasses of whatever people choose. If you're selling the dispenser, the wine and beer glasses "inside" it have to be copy transfer for the next owner, or it will give him drinks but not anyone else, and if you've bought the sculpt maps of the glasses, you probably can't rely on the purchaser to set the perms on those. And, in any case, the licence under which you -- the maker of the drinks dispenser -- bought the sculptmaps probably doesn't allow you to supply to your customers with copy-transfer glasses inside it.

You might try following this blog: FabFree -- Fabulously Free in SL

You get the bonus 45 days after signing up for Premium Membership. I know there was a bug affecting Le Tigre RC channels and teleports to Premium Sandboxes, which I thought had been fixed but maybe not, so try tp-ing to a Premium Sandbox from somewhere else. I've noticed this SecondLife Resident thing, too, now and again, over the last few days. From memory, I've just clicked on the name and it's taken me to my profile (not that of SecondLife Resident) and that's made the problem go away, at least for a while (I'm wondering if it's something on my PC removing a cookie that it shouldn't). I know the website has been having issues lately, though -- for a couple of days, half my Land Use Fees calculator was in English and half in French, though that now seems fixed -- so it could be the site is acting up. Now you're a premium member, of course, you can ask Live Help for their assistance, in case there's something at LL's end that needs attention.

Yes, you can wear several things on the same layer (so, two alpha layers) but only with a viewer based on V2 or V3. So you can wear two alpha layers with the Official Viewer or Firestorm, Dolphin, Catznip, RLV etc. but not with Phoenix.

Hi, Lseven and welcome to the forums. The process for applying to have your ballroom listed in the destination guide is explained here: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Destination_guide

If you search for gears or cogs in the Marketplace, and then narrow your search down to building components, you may well find what you're looking for.

How do you mean, you need a start function? If you're using llPushObject() you need to grab the key of whoever or whatever you are pushing, so touch_start is only going to work if your victim touches something. You could use collision_start or a sensor, or, I guess, you could grab their key in a listen event.

Yeah, but when I want people to pay me, in RL and both, I try to make it as easy as possible for them to hand over the dosh. I really don't see why it shouldn't be an option, if you find yourself locked out of your account like that, to authorise LL to sell your L$ at the market rate (and to take a fee for so doing) to set off against your debt. It can't take much more time to do that than it does to explain to someone you can't do it, and you could charge them for the service.

I don't quite understand the problem. Here's the structure of the script, at least if I've properly understood what you're trying to do. Why not put together a basic version of the script as you want it, rather than with these meaningless placeholders, and post that if you're still having difficulty? That way the logic of what you want the script to do would be clearer, and I think you would find it easier to understand, too integer handle;list buttons;list MainMenu = ["Emote","Thank Emotes"];list thank = ["Thank1","Thank2","Thank3"];list emotes = ["Blow Kiss", "Wink","Example4","Example5","Example6","Example7","Example8", "Example9","Example10"];string my_name;key av;default{ state_entry() { my_name = llGetObjectName(); } touch_start(integer total_number) { av=llDetectedKey(0); llListenRemove(handle); handle = llListen(99,"",av,""); llSetTimerEvent(20.0); buttons = MainMenu; llDialog(av,"Please choose an option",buttons,99); } listen(integer channel, string name, key id, string message) { llSetTimerEvent(20.0); if(~llListFindList(MainMenu,[message])){ if("Thank Emotes"==message){ buttons=thank; } else if ("Emote"==message){ buttons = emotes; } llDialog(av,"Please choose one of the "+llToLower(message),buttons+["Back"],99); } else if ("Back"==message){ buttons = MainMenu; llDialog(av,"Please choose a colour",buttons,99); } else{//it must be from a sub-menu llListenRemove(handle);//stop listening if(~llListFindList(emotes,[message])){//whatever the message is, it's from the "emotes list" llSetObjectName(llGetDisplayName(id));//change the object's name to the user's display name string str; if("Blow Kiss"== message){ str = "blows a kiss"; } else if ("Wink"==message){ str = "examplegoeshere"; } else if ("Example4"==message){ str = "examplegoeshere"; } //and so on llSay(0,"/me "+str); llSetObjectName(my_name); //change back }//end of what to do if it's something from the emotes list else if (~llListFindList(thank,[message])){//it's one of the messages from the "thank" list //so do whatever you want .. no need to turn the listener off, //because you did that as soon as you discovered it was a message from a sub menu llRegionSayTo(av,0,"Sending this emote to local: "+message); } } } timer() { llListenRemove(handle); llSetTimerEvent(0.0); }}

Yeah, but that's if you're on damage-enabled land and you suffer >=100% damage. That teleports you home directly, without ejecting you first, and explicitly tells you that you've been tp-d home because you were "killed". On the OP's account, that's not what happened.

You can only have been ejected and teleported home by an object that belongs to the landowner (or the group that owns the land) so this can't have happened in an LL sandbox. It must have been a private one (and, while I'm not sure, I suspect it must have ejected you to an adjacent parcel owned by the same person or group that owned the sandbox and the ejector for llTeleportAgentHome to work). So I doubt it can have been a griefer that did this to you -- it must have been the landowner. llEjectFromLand and llTeleportAgentHome are two separate functions, both of which can fail under certain circumstances so you would sometimes want to use both. I wouldn't normally make an ejector that ejects and then teleports home (I'd teleport people home first, then eject them if that failed), but clearly someone has done.

I'm in two minds about this, Carole. Where actual photographic images of a child are involved, there's a clear victim. And this is one of the reasons, quite rightly, the law takes such a dim view of people downloading images of sexual assaults on children -- because it clearly encourages such assaults to take place, so people can produce the images and sell them. With non-photographic images, though (of the sort that might be produced in SL and prosecuted in the UK under Section 62 of the Coroners and Criminal Justice Act rather than The Protection of Children Act or the Criminal Justice Act 1988, that doesn't apply. There's one argument that such images tend to legitimate photographic images that involve the abuse of actual children, but to my mind, though, by far the strongest argument is that the production and use of eroticised images of children provokes such disgust in most right-thinking people the law should ban it, regardless of what harm it may or may not do. The harm, that is, is done to the public at large. It's a dangerous line of argument, I accept, which is one reason why the bar for prosecution is so much higher for non-photographic images than it is for actual photographs (which need simply to be "indecent") -- this absurd filter won't even let me quote the relevant Act of Parliament without bleeping stuff out, so people will have to look at the tests here. But I think it's the strongest, since it's based on the undeniable fact that most people are genuinely shocked and outraged by such extreme imagery rather than on some hypothetical harm that might be caused.

Randall Ahren wrote: Apple concludes: The copying is so pervasive, that the Samsung Galaxy products appear to be actual Apple products. Sadly, the same accusations could be made about SL's copying of the wall feature from Facebook I don't understand. By no stretch of the imagination could anyone mistake their Facebook page for their SL "wall" or vice versa. So, I guess the statement "the same accusations could be made" is true, but it's pretty groundless. It's no more justified, to my mind, than is saying OpenOffice or LibreOffice are "copied" from Microsoft Office -- the functionality is broadly the same, you're never going to confuse the one for the other. Just take a look at your Wall and at a Facebook page, and you'll see what I mean. Indeed, the differences between Facebook and SL are considerably more pronounced than those between the various Office-type products, in that the Wall feature is pretty minor adjunct to LL's main product rather than, as in Facebook's case, the product itself. To my mind, the idea behind the Wall is to enable people who are used to keeping in touch with their friends via a variety of online media to touch bases with their SL friends, when they have a bit of spare time they can't, or don't want to, log into SL, to do it within the SL website rather than to have to go to Facebook to do it.

All you need to do to make that script compile is take out the lines else if ("Blues"==message){ buttons=blues; } else if ("Greens"==message){ buttons=greens; } They'll make it throw an error because you don't, in your example, have a list anywhere defined called blues or greens.

I don't know anything about the law in America but I know a bit about English law relating to this sort of thing. As to the Coppertone advert, it's nothing like what our law deems a "prohibited image" of a child. The test for actual photographs is a lot less rigorous; there the question is, are the jury sure it's "indecent" in the everyday sense of the word. And since many jurors, not to mention judges, lawyers and police officers, will have the sort of baby pictures of their children to which you allude, they're hardly likely to consider them "indecent." Part of the standard directions judges over here give to juries is that they should not leave their common sense outside the courtroom door; on the contrary, the collective common sense and judgement of 12 ordinary men and women is a vital part of our legal system. And that's not the judge flattering the jury.

I think you are going to need to post the full script. We're glad to help, but without the full script, it's just a guessing game. If you post the whole thing, we should be able to spot the problem area pretty fast.

I think removing identifiable information is just going to cause more rants, because in that case, people are simply going to blame every bloody thing that goes wrong, from the fact they keep on crashing with the new Firestorm to the failure of the Marketplace to deliver something, on the fact they are on, or might be on, an RC channel, and LL is hiding from them whether they are, in fact, on a RC channel and, if so, on which one ("Why won't LL tell us, eh? You answer me that. It's because they've got something to hide, that's why!").

Does this example make it any clearer? integer handle;list buttons;list MainMenu = ["Reds","Greens","Blues","Emote"];list reds = ["Dark Red","Medium Red","Light Red"];list greens = ["Dark Green", "Medium Green", "Light Green"];list blues = ["Dark Blue", "Medium Blue", "Light Blue"];list emotes = ["Blow Kiss", "Blink","Smile"];string my_name;key av;default{ state_entry() { my_name = llGetObjectName(); } touch_start(integer total_number) { av=llDetectedKey(0); llListenRemove(handle); handle = llListen(99,"",av,""); llSetTimerEvent(20.0); buttons = MainMenu; llDialog(av,"Please choose a colour",buttons,99); } listen(integer channel, string name, key id, string message) { llSetTimerEvent(20.0); if(~llListFindList(MainMenu,[message])){ if("Reds"==message){ buttons=reds; } else if ("Blues"==message){ buttons=blues; } else if ("Greens"==message){ buttons=greens; } else if ("Emote"==message){ buttons = emotes; } llDialog(av,"Please choose one of the "+llToLower(message),buttons+["Back"],99); } else if ("Back"==message){ buttons = MainMenu; llDialog(av,"Please choose a colour",buttons,99); } else{//it must be from a sub-menu llListenRemove(handle); if(~llListFindList(emotes,[message])){ llSetObjectName(llGetDisplayName(id));//change the object's name to the user's display name string str; if("Blow Kiss"== message){ str = "blows a kiss"; } else if ("Blink"==message){ str = "blinks"; } else if ("Smile"==message){ str = "smiles"; } llSay(0,"/me "+str); llSetObjectName(my_name); //change back } else{ llRegionSayTo(av,0,"Your choice was "+message); //here you would do something with the colour choice } } } timer() { llListenRemove(handle); llSetTimerEvent(0.0); }}

Solar Legion wrote: You - nor anyone else - has any right to dictate the apearance of others in any manner. You have no right to dictate what others engage in, in a virtual environment. A moment's thought would tell you that assertion is mistaken. LL most certainly have the right to regulate avatars' appearance in various ways (e.g. general rules about what is and isn't permitted in lands with various maturity ratings) and no one, as far as I know, has suggested SL club owners don't have the right to ask people to remove themselves because their avatar is, in the -- quite possibly mistaken -- view of the owner somehow inappropriate to the venue. People frequently suggest, and with good cause, that the right is sometimes used injudiciously, but it's unquestionable I have the right to ban you from my sim just because I don't like the look of your avatar. And certainly if I find your conduct objectionable, I can tell you to go and thus conduct yourself elsewhere.

That sounds to me like a connection problem between your PC and the sim. Restarting the sim would force a new connection, thus probably solving the sort of problems you describe, but, since the problem is persistent, I suspect the problem is somewhere between LL's servers and your connection. Try rebooting your cable modem -- just turn your computer off, disconnect the modem from your computer, unplug it from the power supply for a minute or so and then reconnect it to the power, let it boot up, and then reconnect it to your computer and restart the computer. That fixes no end of problems.

Is this the sort of thing you mean? integer handle;list buttons;list MainMenu = ["Reds","Greens","Blues";list reds = ["Dark Red","Medium Red","Light Red"];list greens = ["Dark Green", "Medium Green", "Light Green"];list blues = ["Dark Blue", "Medium Blue", "Light Blue"];key av;default{ state_entry() { llSay(0, "Hello, Avatar!"); } touch_start(integer total_number) { av=llDetectedKey(0); llListenRemove(handle); handle = llListen(99,"",av,""); llSetTimerEvent(20.0); buttons = MainMenu; llDialog(av,"Please choose a colour",buttons,99); } listen(integer channel, string name, key id, string message) { llSetTimerEvent(20.0); if(~llListFindList(MainMenu,[message])){ if("Reds"==message){ buttons=reds; } else if ("Blues"==message){ buttons=blues; } else if ("Greens"==message){ buttons=greens; } llDialog(av,"Please choose one of the "+llToLower(message),buttons+["Back"],99); } else if ("Back"==message){ buttons = MainMenu; llDialog(av,"Please choose a colour",buttons,99); } else{//it must be from a sub-menu llListenRemove(handle); llRegionSayTo(av,0,"Your choice was "+message); //here you would do something with the colour choice } } timer() { llListenRemove(handle); llSetTimerEvent(0.0); }}

I guess the answer to your question is, "yes, someone probably could thus consider it, and if that person happens to own the venue or to manage it, or even starts getting complaints from other visitors who consider it that way, they're perfectly within their rights to ask the avatar to leave."

I was rather alarmed to read in Ciaran Laval's and Inara Pey's blogs that the idea was floated at the last Beta Server Office Hours of hiding -- both from the viewer and from LSL scripts -- the release channel a sim is on (see the discussion from 15:18 onwards). I take Oskar's point that [15:25] Oskar Linden: in general the view of RC channels is highly negative[15:25] Oskar Linden: and we've been discussing ways to redice the negative view of server releasesbut, as a scripter with a lot of products to support, I need to know what channels people are using when I get complaints that "it's not working". That's primarily because -- and this is why I understand Oskar's frustration -- I'm now very used to being told "it's not working and I think it's because I'm on a RC channel," so I need to be able to say to people "I doubt that's the case, because I watch the jira and the release notes and subsequent forum discussion of the RC channels, and I've not seen anything to suggest your issue could be caused by being on whatever channel it is, but give me a few minutes while I tp to that channel's sandbox to test a copy of the item, and then I can probably exclude the channel as being the cause of the issue". If I can't hop over to the right sandbox to check things, I've no way of telling if it's the channel that's the issue or something else (as it usually is), short of hopping round all four of them, rather than just one, which I'm not enthusiastic about having to do. And when there is a serious problem -- something like llGiveInventory to scripted objects, or llSetLinkPrimitiveParams([PRIM_PHYSICS]) -- we need to know why stuff's breaking. I think that, if the channels are hidden, it's just going to give RC channels a worse reputation because every single issue's going to get blamed on them, and there'll be no ready way of reassuring people that's it's not the RC channel's fault.

Maybe your friend could post details of his or her computer specs here -- something odd is clearly going on, but without the specs, it's simply a guessing game trying to suggest remedies. I know you say there's "no issues" anywhere, but clearly there are some, somewhere (unless there's a problem with the sim -- has your friend tried logging in at other places?).