Solar Legion

We don't "live" anywhere within the digital space - as I said, I'm not here to "debate" the issue. The "community" is a network of users, nothing more and nothing less.

No - users do not have any "Civic Duty". For crying out loud .... Not a single person posting here is a "tesident" of Second Life - not a single person here actually "lives" in Second Life (no, I'm not going to get into some 'debate' over immersion or any other variation - you do not live inside the coimputer program, period). Our only concerns should be following the ToS, making sure our tier is paid, account subscriptions are paid and that we manage to have a good time. That is it.

Ahem .... My Sony Ericsson Vivaz runs on Symbian, thank you very much .....

The present implementation makes far more sense from a coding standpoint. The option to block sight, sound and text from those outside the parcel functions exactly as intended! The parcel Z coordinate goes up beyond the build height, thus if you are anywhere within the X, Y and Z coordinates of the parcel ... you're IN the parcel. Your only present recourse is to use a security system. While I am thankful that there's even an option like this out there .... I have noticed that those who wish for "privacy" keep pushing for more and more ... To them, I have this to say - I'm sorry: I was not aware that you had a right to hide your very existence. I was not aware you had the right to control other people in an effort to hide yourself. If you value your (Virtual) privacy so much, don't log in.

Aaaaaaand .... it doesn't matter in the long run. What the OP hadn't gotten by the point I'd posted was that the air above a parcel is still a part of the parcel and that the access system only blocks the parcel up to a certain height when public access is shut off.

Even if this has been stated before ... I'll state it again: Generalized ban lines only go up so high on a parcel, even though the code that designates the parcel goes up to and beyond the build ceiling. There is no such thing as being "over" a parcel. This was put in place long ago to allow users to use the "air space" beyond a specific Z coordinate as a fly-through zone.

Knowl - if such were the case regarding the Lab and consent for sharing the logs .... They'd follow the existing state and federal laws. They're trying to supplant these laws in much the same manner as some of the bloggers out there attempt to supplant them (some bloggers will post up the logs simply because they live in one of the many Single Party Consent states/regions .... utterly ignoring the fact that the other participants may live in a Dual/Multi Party Consent state/region) and in so doing make the environment hostile to those who have a legitimate reason to log and distribute a conversation. They have taken a direction which is opposite that of many of the older ISPs and Messengers out there (the ones which allow creation and management of chat rooms) - part of this may well be due to the fact that Second Life is somewhat of a haven for those who truly do believe they can act out without reprecussion. That is something else I have grown very tired of over the years. People like that believe that they should never face any reprecussions for their words or actions ... and will scream bloody murder and demand that those who turn them in be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law (or in the case of Second Life, the ToS/CS). It's sickening. Worse though are those who will outright tell these people that they have concrete evidence in the form of multiple logs! The admins and moderators of these places must know that people exist who will report them and the log source for distribution of these logs the moment they find out. Why would they tell them they have the logs?! Get the logs, request a copy of the accused's logs, examine them all (including the logs of the accused, if they were provided), then ban (or not) based on that information. Do not ever state that you have multiple logs. This is something that goes back to the older, chat service days for crying out loud! Even though it was allowed then ... You never stated you had logs unless you were certain they'd never guess where they were from!

Frankly, that entire section of the Terms of Service needs to go - no, I'm not going to argue this with the crowds of people who would rather send in an Abuse Report for having their foolish crap broadcasted to the administrators and moderators of any given group. You do not get to act like a fool or harass people and expect your words to remain in confidence. You especially do not get to do so when there are state and federal laws which give the right to share these conversations in two distinct manners: Single Party Consent and Dual/Multi Party Consent. Linden Lab needs to adhere to these laws - not atempt to supplant them. I am, quite frankly, sick and tired of people sending in "Abuse" Reports when they are the ones abusing others and the entire system! They get caught, their abuse sent in to those who handle the groups/parcels/sims and then what do these lowlifes do? They rant and rave and further abuse the system by "reporting" the abused for sharing exactly ehat happened, word for bloody word. No, paraphrasing it is not a viable alternative nor is using an exterior method of communication. No, canceling one's account is not a viable means of protest - those stating such can stuff it. If the Lindens don't want you sharing logs within their system, they need to get rid of the ability to make these logs outside of time consuming copy/paste operations. It's that simple folks - parroting the ToS and saying "but, but, but, It's against the ToS" is nothing more than a cop out and an enabler for those who will abuse others, have it reported to those in charge of the venue and then turn around and "report" that their abusive concersation was shared without their consent. Do you seriously believe that verbal abusers are going to give consent for their abusive conversations to be shared

I remember before the latest incarnation of Havok ..... The old 'Blitz' glitch. Back then, reporting someone for using that was all but impossible - it usually ended up crashing clients on lower end machines or requiring a relog on better ones before trying to send in a report. Griefers hated me because I did use it on them - and sitting didn't help you with these things. The glitch was so bad that the moment you stood up, you were rocketed so high, so fast that the client got cofuzzled.

It's not a problem so long as these "undesirable behaviors" aren't thrown at just about every post with the slightest hint of being out of tune with what the Lindens want here.

This notion that Linden Lab is somehow mislabeling their program is misguided at best, coming from the "high ground" at worst. "Preofessional" is not limited to a monetary scale: if it were, the definition "a person who engages in an activity with great competence" would not exist. In terms of Second Life, a "Professional" anything is one who knows what they are doing and how to do it. The real world equivalent would be the professional carpenter who, while posessing an intimate knowledge of his/her craft, chose not to pursue a career utilizing that knowledge - indeed opting to take the odd job on the side, from the small to the truly large. That is the sort of professional who should be given access to these tools. Not those whose sole purpose is to profit off of them - and that is likely what Linden Lab meant.

Oh yes .... and I'm sorry but .... viewing one's online status somehow violates privacy? I call BS on that one. Seeing at a glance which friends have removed that permission? Possibly an issue. Pulling up a profile to check? Nope! See, it's really quite simple here folks: Set yourself as "Not Online", set either your busy OR get a client with an Auto response module and use it, then ignore anyone who IMs you. It is how everyone operates when using a service which has an "invisible" mode which can be circumvented by simple IMs. How bloody hard is that to understand? And no - I do not view one's online status as a bit of private information, nor will I ever. Don't try and pull that out of your arses.

No, we have NOT "alwayd had third party clients" - they came into existence officially after they open sourced the code. Prior to that, it was against the ToS and almost no one made actual clients, just code wrappers or skins.

False - the capability to see who is truly online has existed prior to the advent of Third Party Clients. I have stated this before - There are people whom I want nothing to do with. Sadly, they frequent places I frequent. instead of going to these places and then teleporting out when these "people" arrive, it is easier to know when they are online so they can be utterly avoided. And no - muting doesn't do jack squat to solve this. When I say nothing to do with these people I meant I do not even wish to be in the same sim.

Break the feature in the name of "Privacy"? Fine and dandy. Break the lsl function? No. I'm not going to fracking clutter up my contact list with all the managers of each sim I spend time in, just to be able to tell when they are online.

parently it also broke portable, personal teleporter systems as now my AVPack's iTP to Go system isn't functioning properly anymore either.

You DO know that those links are ONLY given out in world via scripted functions .... don't you? Run a search for MY user name within Google and append "Second Life" to the search. The UUID profile link does NOT appear.

If you're going to use Winamp, you'll need more than what you have ... You'll need a DSP stacker for starters (Much FX works well), Voice FX (for a bit easier access to voice over controls) and you're better off going with SAM's Winamp streaming plugin (availible from their site .... somewhere, been a while since I've personally needed to redownload it). If you have a powerful enough PC< you can also use additional DSPs in the stacker (remember to ALWAYS put Voice FX FIRST, the streaming plug in LAST. Anything else and it doesn't work right). Also, if you're using Windows Vista or 7 .... Don't bother with Winamp as the needed plugins to allow voice over won't even work right anyway .... They'll just lock Winamp and force you to shut it down. You MAY also want a plethora of input plugins, especially if your library has anything other than the standard formats (mine does for example). Also, to save your poor ears, get the Null Output plugin and use that when you stream ... especially if you use a headset. Winamp requires you to have its volume maxed out for optimum streaming. This can be quite painful when using a headset. Need further tips, IM me in world.

Peggy, your example is the orange to my apple. Instead, try as example relating to electronic content, such as the logs from a chat room, an audio tape made of a telephone conversation ... and you'll be in the same ball park. And why, yes, such a law does exist here in the United States. It is covered under the laws regulating the recording of conversations! That is all a chat log is - a conversation! Why yes, I know how easy it is to edit a chat log - thanks for the straw man though! If Linden Lab had been smart and set in rpvisions for the distribution of chat logs among those who administrate areas (be it an entire sim or just a parcel on said sim) then those in the administrative position could get multiple copies of the same log, compare them for inconsitencies and then request a copy of the log from the accused. Further, had Linden Lab been smart about this, they could have allowed for the use of monitoring devices to record the chat into an account which only the primary administrator has access to. Ditto for script memory and such other types. I do find it cute that so many find the idea that they might actually have to be mindful of not acting like a prat to be so utterly distasteful. It would be wonderful if such people were the ones punished by Linden Lab for attempting to get their revenge for being ejected or banned from a sim/parcel by reporting what is - in essence - an integral part of administration. Screenshots, chat logs, even script information (if not properly set up) can be fabricated Peggy. This does not mean that they cannot be used as evidence to help the administration of a sim/parcel concerning disputes or other issues. Linden Lab has tied one hand behind all of our backs - in direct defiance of present laws (which, by the by, normally trump such an abusive ToS. After all, a company Terms of Service cannot be used to circumvent laws, as many I know have proven when dealing with companies such as Microsoft and Adobe). "But the ToS doesn't prevent you from posting such information outside the service!" I have read/heard this so many times it isn't even funny anymore ... In fact, the ignorance of such people making that statement (and similar) to the rigors of actually, you know, being an administrator and trying to manage all those who work for you ... is utterly appaling. The simple fact of the matter is that some users will actually try and report anything which seems to suggest that a conversation they had ... was shared. The other simple facts of the matter? Posting up such information on a web page opens that information up to search engines. Not everyone has the same external messengers and expecting people to jump through hoops just to share what is needed data concerning an issue at hand is utterly ridiculous. Anyone banned/ejected from a sim/parcel thanks to the strength of what was in one (or more) shared logs needs to grow a spine, grow up a bit, contact the sim/parcel administrator, request that he/she look over their own copy of the log .... and then send it over. This business of reporting people, just to get even for being banned or ejected, needs to stop. It's childish.

In sharp contrast to many others here .... They can, provided their rules are presented in a manner which is utterly impossible to miss. There are RP sims out there that, upon landing in their hub, you will find a texture listing their rules, be sent a notecard with their rules, be sent several dialogs listing their rules AND have the rules sent to you via a private chat script. This is done to minimize the efforts of some who believe that such methods breach ToS - there are those who firmly believe that no one, under any circumstance should be allowed to share a log. They will enter these places, act like a fool and then send in an Abuse Report the moment someone other than the staff who was present contacts them or otherwise ejects them. The tactic is quite underhanded and frankly serves only to make life more difficult for those who need access to these logs. Now - one could potentially code up an entry way which requires you to state that you agree to the rules in open chat or on a chat channel .... However, this set up is unweildly and only further hampers the GMs. Having the rules come from as many sources as possible to preclude a person complaining that they were somehow unaware ... is one of the best options out there. This difference between imlicit and explicit consent also needs to cease being used/discussed. In many other areas of life, reading a rule in a particular area (or not reading it/willfully ignoring it) and continuing operation/entering said area ... If the rule has been read, it is often viewed as exlicit consent. You are aware of the rule and have entered that area willingly. Ignorance of a rule (be it willful or not) is when implicit consent is used. You were not aware of that particular rule, yet you entered anyway, explicitly agreeing to all rules you have read or are aware of while imlicitly agreeing to rules you may not have read or were aware of. To finish this answer off, I will state an opinion: Those who have issues with their logs being shared should refrain from typing at all or at the very least watch what they type. Linden Lab may have a clause in their ToS concerning the distribution of these logs .... But who is to say that someone will not take them to court over a breach of federal (and local) law where the recording and sharing of conversations is concerned? Yes, they can be shared outside of the service - this is not always the best method. Trust me, I have personal experience on that matter. Back in the older years (on many ISPs) people actually accepted that their conversations - be they public or private - might end up being shared with others and thus they were more mindful of what they sent out. Linden Lab took a different approach and now - when someone is caught being a fool or causing problems - people will write up an Abuse Report in retaliation. This needs to stop. The Lindens gave drama mongers, griefers and trouble makers a potent tool in getting revenge with that ToS clause.

Ah yes, because every search engine/corporation is aware of each and every bit (not byte) of data which flows through their networks, knows where exactly it came from, where it is going, what it contains, if it is legal content or not ... /end sarcasm I won't even ask you to provide irrefutable proof that they know exactly what the data contains ... you don't have it and such proof does not exist. (and now, a closing that each and every person in favor of these bills can understand) Please to be coming up with the new words of argument, your persons is failings at conviction. And no - I don't care how many people that offends .... you deserve to be offended for using such a tired "argument".

Sorry Arkady - spam detection uses an algorithm that is dependand on specific words and phrases. There is no way in hell a machine can tell the difference between a legally registered web site (concerning the display of copyrighted content) and one not registered. The code required to even do this in any capacity would easily be copied and spoofed so as to make any site a legal site in the eyes of a machine. Quite frankly, SOPA, PIPA and any other bills which may come along with similar wording do nothing for people like us. They won't protect the little guy: They'll be used (and abused) by the MPAA and RIAA (and Goddess knows what other corporations) to shut down any and every possible venue which could be used by those not signed with them. MegaUpload has already been closed down (mind you, by two different groups who were already harassing the site after it came out in opposition to these bills) - while it was used by those stealing content, it was also used by those distributing their own content. I personally find this approach by the DOJ to be far too much and a case which utterly proves my point: Any similar service can and will be targeted should any similar bill to these monsters ever be passed. Shortly after that, services like Second Life will be targeted, then sites hosting nothing but original content ... and so on. If these corporations truly wanted to put a dent in piracy ... they'd have changed their business models to try and keep up with the changing times and technologies. They did not do this - too bad, so sad, they deserve every lost sale and deserve to fail. Let the artists who they are bilking actually get the money they are supposed to be getting, instead of it going to the lawyers and executives.

I hate to break it to you(no, I lie, I LOVE correcting gross mistakes), the POTUS has NOTHING to do with the bills which are presented in Congress.

Provide irrefutable proof that NO ONE has EVER had their financial history (and thus their lives) fouled up through Paypal and/or credit cards. Wait - you cannot. Instead of pulling your BS, actually go out there and learn a thing or two.

And to clarify my post ... Go ahead, be utterly careless with your financial information ... Then try to get your life back on track. I'll personally be laughing at you while your credit is utterly ruined, the banks laugh at you and refuse to cooperate, forcing you to get a lawyer you cannot afford. I wish you luck in your make believe utopia.