Innula Zenovka

What specific issues do you have in mind that you don't think LL is already aware of from communication methods we know exist,, like usergroup meetings, bug reports and feature requests in the JIRA, or from dealing with support tickets? The fact some things don't get fixed might mean they're not as easy to fix as you perhaps think they are.

Since the object is no mod, I don't think there's any way to get the key when it's attached from inventory, other than copying the key, but since the key is going to change each time the object is rezzed, I'm not sure how much use that's going to be. @Rachel Harley You might try writing a simple script with something like llRegionSayTo(llGetOwner(), someChannel, "it's me! Your HUD!"); in the on_rez and attach events and then any object the owner is wearing that's listening on someChannel will hear it and can grab the ID from that. Then give the script to whoever made the HUD and ask them to drop it in a copy of the HUD for you. That's all I can think of.

I'm not familiar with IMVU -- does it have an economy anything like that of Second Life? The obvious flaw in this proposal, or so it seems to me, is that it's already perfectly possible, if the owner of a region wants to, to restrict access, by using the land settings, to avatars who have payment info on file, or to restrict access to premium members only by using a scripted solution. Since, however, hardly anyone actually does that, I conclude people don't, by and large, want to segregate premium and non-premium members. And certainly I can't see why either landlords or shop owners would want to turn down paying customers because of their membership status.

What on earth would be the point of this? Almost everyone who owns a region, whether private or mainland, that isn't already set to premium access only (that is, the vast majority of them) would, I take it, want to migrate it to the non-premium grid, simply in order to maximise their market of potential visitors, customer and tenants. It would also be a strong disincentive to have a Linden Home on Bellisseria (one of the main attractions of premium membership for many people), since your non-premium friends and alts wouldn't be able to go there. It's a dreadful idea.

I'm in exactly the same position as you, Qie. And once I learned what social casinos actually are, things became a lot clearer. As Sherlock Holmes remarks to Dr Watson, in A Scandal in Bohemia,

Since social casinos are a popular form of online entertainment, might it not just be that LL's marketing team think that offering a version of a social casino in SL could be a good way of attracting new residents, who may find they prefer the experience of playing these games inworld to on a web page, and who may even, now they've set foot in SL, decide to explore a bit more and start spending more time and money in-world? That seems to me the simplest explanation, and would explain why the region was launched on Facebook and Twitter.

https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-history-of-little-goody-two-shoes

What nation and what news medium do you have in mind?

I think we can be reasonably confident that LL's internal and external legal advisors are satisfied that these games aren't caught by any US federal or local legislation concerning online gambling.

Linden Lab Official:Teens in Second Life

I've visited the casino a few times and my HUD has vanished each time I've left the region. Are you sure that it wasn't simply a case of the HUD failing to detach when it's supposed to, which I know temp-attached HUDs in other grid-wide experiences sometimes do. Perhaps the reason for making the experience grid-wide is simply so that visitors aren't, when they first arrive, confronted with a big scary menu asking them to grant experience permissions.

I know you're setting up a joke there, but the bill does define social media, and also provides a long list of things that aren't social media, including So, one way or another, I really don't think this legislation should give either LL or us residents much cause for concern.

Yes, but the fact that no law will enjoy complete compliance is no reason not to have the law in the first place -- that's why we have not only laws but police officers and courts to enforce them. I don't know what the Utah legislators have in mind, but certainly both the UK and EU are in the process of updating age verification requirements for minors accessing social media with a view to protecting children considerably younger than 16-18. https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/news/eu-to-introduce-code-of-conduct-to-protect-minors-online The laws are directed primarily at social media, particularly (at least in the UK) Twitter, where recent research by the Children's Commissioner has discovered that young teens, and even pre-teens, are encountering really quite hard-core stuff by accident, rather than at preventing adolescents who really want to access. Quite how it will all affect SL, if at all, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that, if it does, we'll all be encountering the same verification requirements in multiple contexts online. It's certainly not going to apply only to SL.

I don't myself have children, but from what I read social media do present particular dangers for teens, and even for younger children, that thank heavens I never had to experience. I'm thinking of teenage boys having influencers like Andrew Tate pushed at them by algorithms, and teens being subjected to online bullying of various forms, and some of them finding solace in sites that effectively promote eating orders, or other forms of self-harm and even suicide. I'm also worried about the effect of online porn on young teens, because I've read the recent report of the UK's Children's Commissioner. I don't want to derail the thread, but it seems to me there's a very real problem, and it's one that has nothing to do with SL.

Many years ago, when I lived in the Bay Area, I knew a prof at UC Berkeley who had, before the collapse of the Soviet Union, taken the trans-Siberian express all the way from Moscow to wherever the journey ended in China (Shanghai?), all the way through what were then Inner and Outer Mongolia. "You are," I said, "the only person I've ever met who's visited Outer Mongolia! What's it like?" "A bit of a disappointment, really. If I'd have wanted to spend days travelling through desert and semi-desert to visit a place full of Stalinist concrete architecture run by a secretive corrupt government where people believe in a strange mystery religion, I could have stayed at home and taken Amtrack from LA to Salt Lake City."

There's a playable chess game there, too!

Make sure that the centre of the invisible support prim and the root prim of the bridge are in different regions. While the bridge is visible from both sides of the region boundary, only the simulator on the side where the bridge's root prim is located knows it's there and that it's solid. If you're on the other side of the region boundary, the simulator on which your region is running doesn't really know the bridge is there. So you need on object on the non-bridge side, which the simulator for that region does know about, to support you on that side of the bridge.

Maybe someone could start a thread, "Events in Bellisseria," in the Events section, and people who are worried about missing stuff could follow that?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're proposing. As things stand, anyone can write and save a script on the lines of integer iChannel; integer iHandle; key kToucher; default { touch_end(integer num_detected) { llListenRemove(iHandle); iChannel = (integer)(1000+llFrand(9999999.0)); kToucher = llDetectedKey(0); iHandle = llListen(iChannel,"", kToucher, ""); llTextBox(kToucher, "Please enter some text here, and then touch \"Submit\"", iChannel); } listen(integer channel, string name, key id, string message) { llListenRemove(iHandle); llRegionSayTo(kToucher,0,"You entered: "+message); } } They can, of course, substitute anything they like in place of "Please enter some text here, and then touch \"Submit\"", and they can do anything they like with the response, depending on whether they want to make a gift vendor, trick you into revealing your password, add a name to an access list, or tint the wall of your Linden Home bedroom a custom colour. What are you suggesting?

Again, why the obsession with llTextBox? Since there are plenty of ways to abuse a whole range of LSL functions in order to create mischief, wouldn't it be simpler to insist all scripters need to be PIOF to compile anything? I don't think it would be a good idea at all, but it would be a lot simpler and more logical than singling out llTextBox for special treatment.

Rather than fiddling about with llTextBox, wouldn't the simplest and most effective way of combatting such phishing scams be for the Lab to institute mandatory 2 factor verification for all log--ins and attempts to change passwords and other account details? I'm not necessarily suggesting this would be a desirable solution, because I've not really thought about it, but I'm wondering why people are focussing on llTextBox when it would seem there's a simple way to solve the problem by making possession of someone's password, on its own, useless to would-be hackers.

The function llTextBox is used whenever the script needs freeform input. It's very commonly used in inworld vendors with a gift option, so the customer can enter the name of the resident to whom they want their purchase to be sent. IN New Linden Homes, it's used when the landowner wants to add people to the house's access list, and many security orbs use it for the same purpose. Similarly, most of the new Linden Homes use it to allow you to enter custom colours when you want to redecorate your house, and I'd imagine it's commonly used for similar purposes in other applications that need the user to enter configuration data. Before llTextBox we had either to enter such data in chat, using a non-zero channel or via a config notecard. I don't know about the practicalities of censoring the string "password" in the caption to the textbox, other than that LL would have to undertake some pretty major revisions to some of their systems to achieve this. But where would that leave people who already use llTextBox and passwords in their existing games and products?

A considerable number of people doubtless received the fake messages, and a considerably greater number (including me) didn't see the actual text box but heard about the exploit multiple times in various groups, as people became aware of the incident and posted about it (and then read about it in one group, and posted about it in several dozen others, at which point even more people... gave a demonstration of how things spread virally). I don't remember this ever happening before. Do you? From this I conclude that this exploit must be pretty rare. Or perhaps it's a common occurrence but, for some reason, no one has ever thought to publicise it in groups or the forums before. Which do you think is more likely?