Innula Zenovka

The traceroute address depends on where you are in world; see "More Troubleshooting Tips" towards the end of this wiki article. So I am not sure how you would go about tracing the route part way there, since you're never getting far enough in to find it. If you look at the SecondLife.log file (in Windows 7 it's in C:\Users\<your windows username>\AppData\Roaming\SecondLife\logs) you'll find the various addresses to which the viewer tries to connect during log-in, so that might be a place to start looking, though. The first place to which it seems to try to connect is https://login.agni.lindenlab.com/cgi-bin/login.cgi If you're using a Mac, I seem to remember there was a nasty bug that stopped people logging in under certain circumstances, but (not being a Mac user myself) I didn't really take much notice. If you think that might be the case, I'll try to dig out the blog piece where I saw a work-round discussed (but it was a while ago, and I'd have thought it would have been fixed now). I'm guessing you've already tried the obvious stuff, like rebooting your cable modem. Who is your ISP, out of interest?

There's an illustrated walk-through in Natalia Zelmanov's blog (she's not updated it for almost two years, but the tutorials there are still very useful to people learning to build).

Jennifer Boyle wrote: I have wondered for a long time why LL prohibits the transfer of ownership of accounts. I cannot see how it could cause harm. It would just introduce a little more flexibility and ability to recover value. I'm just speculating here, but I think it may be, at least in part, to do with the IP implications. If I buy something you've made, and it's copy, no transfer, what you're actually selling me is a non-transferable license to use your creation in SL. If LL were to connive at my circumventing your license by allowing me to give my account (and all the other non-transferable licenses represented by my inventory) to someone else, then, to my mind, they'd be entering a legal minefield. And it only takes one or two people to object for LL potentially to find themselves tied up in pots of expensive and time-consuming litigation.

Rhett Linden wrote: Trending shows what feed topics are hot based on Comments and Loves (combined with the respect of privacy settings). Hmmm.. I've just looked at what's "trending" at the moment, and right at the top is what seems to be an animated conversation between a group of people I've never heard of in what I think is Turkish. I'm sure I should find the knowledge that their conversation is "trending" both interesting and useful, but, perhaps because I don't happen to speak Turkish, I'm not quite sure why. And that, I'm willing to bet, is a genuine conversation, since this feature isn't yet widely enough known for people to abuse it by posting pictures of the new hair or shoes they've just released, or the land they have for sale, and then getting all their friends, and using all their alts, to push the picture up to the top of "trending" by "loving" it and commenting on what a lovely picture it is.

Wheelie Twashie

I think it affects the GTX 460 and upwards. Updating the drivers is, maybe counterintuitively, the last thing you want to do. Essentially, the problem is that some of the graphics features in the newer viewers use OpenGL calls that Nvidia have deprecated in their more recent drivers for the newer cards. There's a fix in QA at the moment, apparently, so with luck we will be able to use newer drivers, but at present I can't run the more recent viewers with any driver more recent than the 260.99 one, which still uses the deprecated calls. I've got a GTX 460 -- I don't know what the equivalent driver would be for your card (or if it would work with a 460). You may find you need to do a completely clean reinstall -- I described at SLU the hoops I had to jump through to get rid of all the bits left behind by what Nvidia thinks is a clean reinstall.

Charolotte Caxton wrote: SLU? I searched all over these forums/knowledge base/wiki for answers and or clarification and the Lindens are posting on SLU? A comparison of the number of views this thread has had, vs the number the similar thread over at SLU has had, might suggest why they post over at SLU: ETA -- both shots taken at the same time, despite the apparently different time stamps for the latest posts. The SLU one is set to my local time (UK) and the SL one is SLT, which is 8 hours behind the real time.

Melita Magic wrote: Would someone explain what Inbox Messaging is, for those of us who were in the back row of the classroom throwing gummi bears at each other? thanks Inara Pey can assist: http://modemworld.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/direct-messaging-comes-to-my-secondlife-com/ @namssab1nad: I don't know why these things aren't better publicised by LL, but the way I keep up on what's new is by following Inara Pey's Living in a Modem World and Nalates Urriah's Nalates' Things & Stuff. They cover all the new SL features, and lot more besides.

There's a very helpful walk through (with lots of pictures) in Inara Pey's excellent blog: http://modemworld.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/direct-messaging-comes-to-my-secondlife-com/

What graphics card are you using? If it's a higher-end Nvidia one, there's a nasty bug that could be responsible: see https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SH-2409 and https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SH-2240

Since it appears to be an error with Google translate, you may find the workround described here by Nalates Urriah helpful -- get a Windows Live ID and use Bing's equivalent free service.

It's not uncommon, I find, when I receive an email notification of new post in a thread in which I've participated, to try to go there to reply and be greeted with the following message: An Unexpected Error has occurred. Sorry, your request failed. A notification has been sent to the development team for investigation.Exception ID: 5B38AE6C Please click the Back button on your browser. OK, we all know that means the thread has been pulled (or, at least, that particular post has). Fair enough; I'm not complaining about that. However, what does puzzle me is why I'm presented with an error message that's palpably untrue -- an error hasn't occurred; on the contrary, the thread's no longer there because someone's removed it, so it's hardly unexpected that people won't be able to read it any more. The unexpected error would be if I could see it stil, surely? And I really don't see the point of setting up a system that apparently spams the development team with requests that they please investigate why people can't read threads or posts after the moderators have removed them. Why on earth can't someone put a sensible error message on the lines of "Sorry, the thread you are trying to reach has been removed" or "is no long available" or something? It's a minor point, but it really irritates me.

The basic rule is that you don't respond to griefing by counter-griefing. If they took exception to your profile (and, having just had a look at it in world, I think I can guess what upset them), they should have AR-d your profile rather than griefed you. However, you should have responded by muting them, ARing them, and then tp-ing off somewhere else or sitting on a box so they couldn't push you. There's some very useful general advice (though some of it is outdated in the specifics) here: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Fr43k_Paine/Dealing_With_Griefers

Brady Sporg wrote: I've seen them How do you tell if someone's a premium member or not? If their profiles aren't showing as having payment info used (which premium members' profiles should show), I'd be inclined to suspect a glitch with profiles and the viewer.

I normally do something on these lines (these are just fragments, obviously, but should give you the idea) key chosen;list detected;list buttons; sensor(integer num ){ detected=[]; while (num--){ key k = llDetectedKey(num); detected += [llGetSubString(llGetDisplayName(k),0,23)]+[k]; } detected=llListSort(detected,2,TRUE); buttons = llList2ListStrided(detected,0,-1,2); llDialog(owner,"Please choose someone",buttons,dialog_channnel); } listen(integer channel, string name, key id, string msg){ if(~llListFindList(buttons,[msg])){ integer n = llListFindList(detected,[msg]); chosen = llList2Key(detected,(n+1)); } }

Let's start with basics. What viewer is your friend using, or, rather, what viewer was she using when all this happened to her? ETA If the landowner was able to locate this "Barbi Doll RLV Trap" rezzed on the land, that suggests to me it's not a hud at all; it's some sort of capture device which can only work on someone using an active RLV relay which she's set to accept commands. The trap talks to her relay on channel -1812221819. That's the way the things work. Take a look at the RLV api and the RLV Relay api

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Yeah, the simplest and quickest way to be sure that whatever attachment was causing the trouble got removed would be to log in with the standard SL viewer -- which I imagine is what "LL Agents" use -- and reset her avatar to default. That certainly removes everything. But what's this about "freezing her to keep her from being tp-d away again"? The only way to stop some from TP-ing, whether voluntarily or involuntarily is by using RLV, for heavens sake! The "Freeze" option available to landowners just stops you moving for 30 seconds. You can still TP, or be TP-d, to another sim. What are you saying happened again, after you and the agent had done all this?

If you're trying to apply the colour to all the prims in the object, the command you want is llSetLinkColor(LINK_SET,<some color vector>,ALL_SIDES);

Uninstalling the RLV viewer and logging in with one that doesn't support RLV will certainly fix the problem. Your friend can also, come to that, fix the problem just as effectively by disabling RLV in the viewer she's using and relogging -- there's no need for her to give up using Firestorm or whatever just because she doesn't want to use RLV. Once she's done either of those two things, the hud can have no effect on her. All RLV commands are issued in the form llOwnerSay("some command"). That means they can only be issued by something that belongs to the avatar they affect. It follows, therefore, that in order for this person to be able to do stuff to your friend, she must be wearing an object that accepts commands from this chap and then relays them in form llOwnerSay(whatever). Either she's wearing a collar of some sort that's set to accept commands from him or she's wearing something called an RLV Relay that accepts commands from an object he owns. There is no other way this can be happening with RLV. If she simply relogs using the standard viewer, she can take the damn thing off, whatever it is, and there's an end to the problem. Even if she later relogs using an RLV viewer, she's in no danger of anyone controlling her she doesn't want to let control her so long as she's cautious about accepting stuff from people she doesn't know and, if she uses a relay to interact with RLV-enabled furniture, pays attention to the relay settings and also makes a note of how to turn the relay off and cancel the restrictions it's set (which all good relays will allow her to do). This mysterious hud of his, on its own, is completely innocuous, or at least as far as RLV is concerned. There's other stuff it might be able to do with animation permissions, but that's nothing to do with RLV. I use RLV and I know there's nothing he could to do to me with it unless, wittingly or unwittingly, I enabled him so to do.

Sy Beck wrote: That being said, how come LL have never used it or passed cases on to the DoJ to pursue persistent griefers within SL. Griefing is vandalism with financial and/or personal injury thrown in as well as harassment? Or do they fear the revenge of the hacker community as a whole? Which would mean that there are people who operate at one level on the internet with what seems impunity. As I said in an earlier post, is it possible for victims of griefers in SL to refer their cases to the DoJ if LL is not taking appropriate legal action for breaches of their own ToS? Any lawyers in tonight? Possibly someone at LL -- or maybe the DoJ, even -- takes the view that de minimis non curat lex, and the difficulties inherent in making a jury sure that the defendant was, in fact, the person responsible for crashing a sandbox with self-replicating physical tubgirl particle emitters and that it wasn't someone else with access to his or her computer, isn't worth the candle, particularly if the defendant is in a different jurisdiction and will have to be extradited from Australia or wherever.

Sy Beck wrote: Innula Zenovka wrote: Sy Beck wrote: On websites where people are required to give factual and accurate information as part of the ToS so as to protect other users then what is the problem? I'm sure you would want some serious redress if you had been duped by somebody saying they were somebody else or portraying themselves as something they were not and you had lost money or public credibility because of it. It's tantamount to fraud, which is a criminal offence. How is fraud defined where you are? Here in the UK, we have the Fraud Act 2006, which, among other things, creates the offence of "fraud by false representation" (section 2 of the Act), which says someone commits an offence if he made a false representation dishonestly knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss. That seems to me perfectly adequate, and catches all forms of misrepresentation, be they committed electronically or by paper means. What more do you say is needed? I'm from the UK too Innula and would agree that we are covered, this though is US law and I'm no expert on what can be cited as a fraud over there. I chose the word tantamount to imply that deception by using a false ID is akin to fraud if you are using it for nefarious purposes for even minor things that may cause somebody personal ego injury, credibility or financial loss. I suppose a flippant example would be if that you had signed to a dating/friend site and posted beautiful pics of yourself, which weren't you and generally given false details and then somebody falls for it. If they send you presents on your birthday or at Xmas and give you a big investment of their time, emotion and energy then they are going to feel like a victim of fraud when they find out that the woman they thought they were dating turns out to be a man. Would they want to take it to court as fraud? Probably not. Would you like that person to be banned from the site and flagged across the net as a faker? Quite possibly yes. I note in the article that it provides for users to be able to use this law against the providers and/or 3rd parties presumably using the same service. Now that would have implications on SL. Somebody griefs me, they get a ban, but if they come back on an alt to continue the griefing am I now able to pursue not only the griefer, but the provider too through the courts? The former for breaking the ToS and the latter for negligence...? I am myself not bothered by this law, as I said if the ToS says, give true data then give true data. If you want to play another id go to sites that allow for it. My view was the law was un-necessary, but it's an interesting exercise to speculate on the outcomes. But what I don't see is why the medium by which the fraud or imposture is carried out makes any difference. Why does anyone need a special law to prosecute people who make false claims about themselves on the internet, and thereby cause loss or harm to others, while leaving them free to practice their impostures with impunity if they use the Lonely Hearts column of a newspaper?

Sy Beck wrote: On websites where people are required to give factual and accurate information as part of the ToS so as to protect other users then what is the problem? I'm sure you would want some serious redress if you had been duped by somebody saying they were somebody else or portraying themselves as something they were not and you had lost money or public credibility because of it. It's tantamount to fraud, which is a criminal offence. How is fraud defined where you are? Here in the UK, we have the Fraud Act 2006, which, among other things, creates the offence of "fraud by false representation" (section 2 of the Act), which says someone commits an offence if he made a false representation dishonestly knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss. That seems to me perfectly adequate, and catches all forms of misrepresentation, be they committed electronically or by paper means. What more do you say is needed?

Thanks. I don't understand that, I have to say. Here in the UK, we certainly had to change some of our laws on fraud and on malicious communications to accommodate changes in technology, but the basic idea is that a crime's a crime and committing it using the internet as a medium doesn't make it anything special. So I'd have thought that knowingly providing false or misleading information in order to obtain goods or -- in this case -- services to which you wouldn't otherwise be entitled (access to Facebook) would be caught anyway by existing criminal and civil laws against fraud. The link you cite discusses the case of a woman "who used a fake MySpace account to verbally attack a 13-year old girl who then committed suicide" and whose conviction under the Computer Fraud and Misuse Act was later overturned on appeal. That says to me, though, that what's needed are stronger laws against stalking, harassment and malicious communications. Surely what makes the matter serious is that the woman apparently drove the poor girl to suicide, not that she used MySpace to do it?

As others have said, all your friend has to do is relog with the normal viewer, or even simply turn off RLV in the viewer she's using (exactly how she does this depends on which viewer she's using; if it's Phoenix she unchecks Enable Restrained Love [RLVa] Features, on the Phoenix tab; I can't offhand remember where it is in Firestorm), and relogs, at which point it will stop working. She has to relog, though. Then she can remove the collar, which otherwise would still be able to control her avatar without RLV but not to anything like the same extent, and destroy it. All TPVs, as far as I know, apart from Singularity, that have RLV have it turned off by default; that is, you have to locate it in preferences and turn it on and relog to make it work (I think even the Restrained Love Viewer makes you turn it on and relog, but I'm not certain). How on earth did your friends (I see you refer to them in the plural) all of them get talked into accepting collars from this person and then turning RLV on and relogging, which they almost certainly must have done in order to activate it, without any of them asking what RLV was and why they needed to go to the trouble of activating it? ETA Most RLV collars do have a facility to free yourself anyway. The popular Open Collar, for example, lets the wearer simply say <prefix>+runaway (so, I for example, would say izrunaway in open chat, since my initials are iz), which removes any owners from the collar, so whoever is controlling it can't, any more, and also removes all RLV restrictions. There are some collars, I think, that don't let you do this, but the only ones I can think of cost a couple of thousand L$ and aren't the sort of thing most people would be handing out. It would be possible to change the scripts in an Open Collar to remove the ability to escape, of course, if you knew what you were doing, but it would be tricky. I don't understand what you mean by "forced or closed collar RLV hud " -- I'd be interested to know the name of the item your friends were tricked into wearing.

Can you be more specific about what you mean by "giving this sick indvidual control of their avitar"? From your description, it sounds as one thing they're doing is drawing a particle chain with your friend or you as the target. When a particle chain has a avatar as the target, as opposed to an attachment the avatar is wearing, it will, unfortunately, aim for groin. There's ways you can stop seeing it yourself, but others will still see it and the only way to stop it happening is to abuse report the person for harassment and tp somewhere else. However, that's not really "taking control" of the avatar, so I am wondering what else he's doing. What's happening to your friend, exactly? There's several regulars in this forum (including me) who make BDSM toys for consensual RP, so between us we can probably figure out what techniques this person is using to grief your friend and suggest ways of stopping it. But we certainly need more information about exactly what form this "control" takes before we can make suggestions that are more than just guesses.