Gavin Hird

I have fixed it by replacing the file /Applications/Second Life Viewer 2.app/Contents/Resources/app_settings/CA.pem with the same file from a pre 2.8 version viewer (actually the Dolphin viewer, but some have reported it to work with the same file from Kirstens also. 

I have fixed it by replacing the file /Applications/Second Life Viewer 2.app/Contents/Resources/app_settings/CA.pem with the same file from a pre 2.8 version viewer (actually the Dolphin viewer, but some have reported it to work with the same file from Kirstens also. 

I have fixed it by replacing the file /Applications/Second Life Viewer 2.app/Contents/Resources/app_settings/CA.pem with the same file from a pre 2.8 version viewer (actually the Dolphin viewer, but some have reported it to work with the same file from Kirstens also.

I have found that the latest beta (2.8.1.236154) works better on Lion than the release of July 26. The artifacts that protrude from your body and black panels that pop up randomly are gone in the beta. Both versions has problems with the latest profiles as CSS is not loaded, so you only get a text page without any graphics.

I am pretty much sure it has to do with this console message Jul 27 15:56:35 myhost [0x0-0xfa0fa].com.secondlife.indra.viewer[971]: 2011-07-27 15:56:35.415 SLPlugin[986:b03] Cannot find executable for CFBundle 0x19fa420 </Library/Internet Plug-Ins/Disabled Plug-Ins> (not loaded) And this one in addition when running the latest beta veiwer. Jul 27 15:55:59 myhost [0x0-0xfa0fa].com.secondlife.indra.viewer[971]: LLEmbeddedBrowser:: addCAFile attempting to read certs from file: "/Users/myuser/Desktop/Second Life Beta Viewer.app/Contents/Resources/app_settings/CA.pem"  Add to that, I am running 10.7 And I could see the profiles in Second Life 2.8.1 (236154) Jul 20 2011 12:37:17 (Second Life Beta Viewer) running on 10.7 yesterday, but now it don't load CSS and images, so something must have happened server side. Beta search is working as expected

It only happens in the SL viewer. I have seen it before too when they released the web based profiles, so it is probably an old bug that has sneaked back into the code (or more likely the web server setup.) Will check if the slightly different 2.8.1 beta has the same bug.

Does anyone else have the problem that CSS is not loading for the new profiles in viewer 2.8? Also, when opening my web page profile and selection Picks, I only get a spinning thing.

This discussion is not about netbooks, but about mobile devices. Radegast does not run on iOS or Android, so that is irrelevant for the mobile devices. It does not even run on Mac OS X. The third party Pocket Metawerse runs on iOS, but has limited capabilites and has hardly been updated the last 1 1/2 years.

The OP said the full experience is not possible (yet) on these devices. That is not what this dicussion is about. This is about creating a client using the capabilities of the iOS devies to make SecondLife relevant troughout their day in the same way that twitter and Facebook has been for many – with the contender Google+ (which released the iOS app yesterday).

Any particular export settings you applied, or just the Generic COLLADA preset?

Apple shipped 9.25 million iPads and 20.34 million iPhones. - That adds up close to 120 million iOS devices yearly (excluding iPod Touch) that SecondLife has no exposure on. These users are massive consumers of digital (virtual) content, and are used to subscription based payment models (premium accounts). In addition the developer community is buzzing with creativity. Adding an iSecondLife client would enable peole to stay connected with SL allways, and instantly make SL more relevant throughout their day. NO, the full SL experinece cannot be enjoyed on these devices (yet), but that is hardly the point. The point is to stay connected with your SL friends and customers. Judging from the BlueMars iOS client, these devies are also perfectly capable of displaying and animating the full SL avatar. What are you waiting for Linden lab? :matte-motes-big-grin:

Has anyone had any success in importing Collada files exported from DAZ Studio 4 (or 3) with the mesh viewer? What, in case, are the export settings DAZ side, and recommended settings viewer side?

Innula Zenovka wrote: Having attended so many Adult Content User Group meetings, do you think that organising residents "to draw up a set of community standards and regulations subject to democratic processes" on Zindra would get very far? It works, to an extent, on private estates, in that you can -- as have I done - flag the place as Adult and then impose your own set of restrictions ("don't do anything that upsets Innula, the tenants or the customers") but I can do that because I pay the tier. But I am trying to imagine getting, let alone maintaining, consensus on Zindra between various factions for very long, and having a really hard time of it. Well, you can't really compare the two as Zindra was clobbered together by a bunch of business people who quickly found themselves hampered by significant loss of revenue and visibility in combination with destructive Linden Lab representative behavior. What you would do here, would be to put together a sensible framework – lets just call it legislation for simplicity – and there has been done some significant work on this by i.e. Metaverse Republic, and declare an area of land to be a "protectorate, state, republic, kingdom – whatever you'd like to call it) to be governed by this framework. Obviously there would have to be an initial buy-in (totally lacking in Zindra), and some rules for how to administer, develop and enforce the "legislation" for the area (more or less lacking in Zindra when push comes to shove.) The democratic rules would be part of the initial framework, and of course the initial buy-in. It could be applied to both estate and mainland sims, as whole sims could elect to (by the residents of the sim) to join or step out of the framework. These sims could be disjoint physically, but still belong to a framework, or legislative area if you may. It could even be extended to other grids that could belong to a common legislative area (using GOR sims and GOR grids as an example.) Tehnically it should be possible to create a new administrative domain above group, where you would be notified that you entered a new realm governed by a given set of legislation, and you'd have to accept it to enter. This would also make it possible to have a global ban list for a realm; in essence declaring an avatar persona non-grata inside the realm. EDIT: ...come to think about it you could almost implement it by extending the current estate to also include mainland. The only difference today is that mainland belongs to a Linden estate, but there there is nothing in the software that says a mainland sim cannot belong to an arbitrary estate. Where you'd have to make some additional functionality would be on landscaping as you obviously don't want a non Linden estate to screw up the mainland landscaping.

I am sure you will find a good deal of people who says it shall be unregulated on the one hand and you have the other camp that expects LL to be lawmaker and judge for everything. What would be far more ideal would be resident driven regulation: It could be organized along the lines of residents drawing up a set of community standards and regulations subject to democratic processes. Sims could join a block of standards that then were enforced inside the block. (I don't think it is practical at the parcel level.) The advantage is that you would get a more diversified grid, and people could settle and set up shop inside a regulatory area they felt comfortable with. Linden Lab could get out of the business of micro-managing the grid and only have to satisfy the minimum legal requirements set by the state of CA. User regultated communities also tend to get much less scrutiny and intervention from politicians and legislators. I would be easier to accomodate multiple cultural norms like you always will have in a global audience.

I woven response to some of your comments into the text below. In blue .Scylla Rhiadra wrote: Thanks, Gavin, for the very comprehensive reply. Gavin Hird wrote:I'm not going to generalize my response to be representative for the land owners in Zindra, so let me give my own take on some of the questions you asked. I am seeing these issues through the lens of a Scandinavian person, and let's face it, Scandinavia and Europe has very different views on sex, nudity and violence than the CA (legal) centric view SecondLife's maturity rating is based on. This makes SecondLife overly restrictive and less attractive to an European audience (about 380 million people in the union.) I would agree, generally, that you are probably correct about this, although I'd point out that the UK is at least as uptight as North America about these things. I certainly buy that Continental Europeans are more open about sexuality; it is really true that they are also more tolerant of violence? Less tolerant for violence in general, but this may vary quite a bit per country. The thing to keep in mind here is that large sections of Europe were up till recently under quite opressive regimes and that will color their views. The demography of SecondLife is a majority of 40+ people. There are relatively few teens and young people in here. Per date there is not supposed to be any children. Hence, the need to protect children is virtually non-existant. Also the majority of SL residents have seen a nipple before and are aware of most kinks, so they can effectively avoid them. They usually have the sense to pull out of a situation they find uncomfortable. I don't think that this is about "protecting" children . . . or indeed "protecting" anyone. It's about giving people the tools they need to ensure that they are only exposed to materials with which they are not uncomfortable. Yes, people usually have the sense to pull out when they see something that upsets them -- but that doesn't mean that they haven't already been upset. We need tools that ensure that people don't have to actually see that bloodstained Dolcett butcher's block in order to know to avoid it. They should have a way of knowing in advance that they ought to avoid places that contain content that will disturb them. Two ways to handle this; a) the obvious is to filter out content that you find objectionable in search, meaning the risk of teleporting to it is significantly reduced. b) the second is to give visial clues in the viewer when you enter areas that has been zoned for adult or violent content. I do'nt believe in gettofication (Zindra), but I believe in sensible zoning of land like we manage to do in the real world. It would be natural that a city like Bay City had a district that was more adult than the city center and the residential areas for instance. I generally agree . . . I don't know that separate continents are really necessary, and as a general rule, I don't like ghettoizing or segregating the different cultures of SL more than in necessary to ensure a comfortable experience for everyone. My only concerns about zoning are a) that there has to be some easy way of making it clear to people when they are moving from one class of zone to another, so that they don't "discover" that they've wandered into adult after they already been exposed to things they don't want to see, and b) you need to find some way of making sure that the content from one zone is not visible in a neighbouring parcel that is more restrictively zoned. There's no point in being in a "G" rated zone if the 10m x 5m porn pic next door is looming over you. This is where sensible zoning comes in. The viewer does not allow a bigger draw distance than 512 meters, or across 2 full sims. By buffering two full sims between a G region and an area designated adult or violent you would not be able to cam from G to these areas. I feel it makes more business sense to have a G only continent for those who want pure play if I can use that word. I have advocated an adult tab in the profiles where people can stash away their adult things and share them with other people who have interest in it. An excellent idea. I concur entirely. What would work best is if one could set one's preferences so that the "Adult" tab wasn't even available if one so chose. Technically available, but not visible to anyone, including the profile owner, unless they preferred so. I believe 2 maturity ratings for land will do. G and M. M meaning 18+ access only. Here, again, I disagree. Sex and violence are not the same thing, and one can be offended by one and not the other. And I really dislike the implicit message LL sends about the nature of sexuality by its conflation of these two. They are not the same thing, and I believe the adult community kinda balks on this because they believe it will make it more complicated for them to sell or experience what you can call consensual sexualized violence. At the other end of the scale is pure combat roleplay, fighting, wrestling and such. The thing is that the borders here are blurring – particularly when it comes to role play. Currently we already have combat sims, sims with push and damage enabled and so on. A good example might be a prison roleplay that can contain elements spanning the full range. Again sensible zoning would apply. 

I'm not going to generalize my response to be representative for the land owners in Zindra, so let me give my own take on some of the questions you asked. I am seeing these issues through the lens of a Scandinavian person, and let's face it, Scandinavia and Europe has very different views on sex, nudity and violence than the CA (legal) centric view SecondLife's maturity rating is based on. This makes SecondLife overly restrictive and less attractive to an European audience (about 380 million people in the union.) The demography of SecondLife is a majority of 40+ people. There are relatively few teens and young people in here. Per date there is not supposed to be any children. Hence, the need to protect children is virtually non-existant. Also the majority of SL residents have seen a nipple before and are aware of most kinks, so they can effectively avoid them. They usually have the sense to pull out of a situation they find uncomfortable. I believe it is possible to organize search in a much more intelligent way than keyword blocking. Google, and the other major search engines, have something like Google SafeSearchwhere you can avoid search results that you find objectionable I do'nt believe in gettofication (Zindra), but I believe in sensible zoning of land like we manage to do in the real world. It would be natural that a city like Bay City had a district that was more adult than the city center and the residential areas for instance. I have absolutely no objections to G regions - regions fit for strict business, educational institutions, even children if that was to come. I have advocated an adult tab in the profiles where people can stash away their adult things and share them with other people who have interest in it. I advocate an adult classified section, where searching such classifieds must be enabled by the individual. They can be placed out of any land that is zoned to this type of business. I believe 2 maturity ratings for land will do. G and M. M meaning 18+ access only.

Scylla Rhiadra wrote: To use the analogy of movies again: I want to know if a movie is going to be excessively violent and gory before I pay money to see it, because it empowers me to exercise my personal choice in deciding to see it or not. Exactly, and how do you do that? You research the movie upfront using internet, papers and broadcast media reviews (which for SecondLife translates to use search, blogs and forums). You check the maturity rating of the movie and theater upfront (for SL use search or the map to check the rating of the sim) You don't just barge into a red light theater RL and start screaming for police and auhorties (Linden Lab and governance) becaue you did not like the movie or the people there. You don't just go to a random movie and make all kinds of fuzz when there is a scene of violent content that exceeds your limits. You simply leave. This behavior is easily translated to SecondLife. If you want to avoid content that disturbs you, you simply don't teleport into random, unresearched  locations on land that has adult content (adult in the meaning of the full range of activities that adults do.) Otherwise you simply stay in G regions where you will have an experience compatible with having children around and strict business.

There is something odd in the logic of this policy. It states "To access adult search results and Adult regions, you must confirm that you are at least 18 years old by visiting the age verification web page. ", but the fact is that you have to be 18 year or older to access M regions too. After the teen grid merge, they allowed the age group 16-18 to enter SecondLife proper, and these individuals are restricted to G regions only. Back to another tread on this subject, my prediction is that in less than a year we will come full circle and only have 2 maturity ratings. A and G. G with pretty much the current definition, A for the rest. Zindra Alliance has suggested the following to Linden Lab: For current residents: * On login or by email divert the resident to the age verification page and have them confirm their age. Make this a mandatory, once off operation. * After confirmation of age, direct the user to the Preferences General tab to set their desired maturity rating. For new residents: * On signup, lead them through the same procedure, the difference being that you record their maturity preference in the web based process before first logon, and set this preference for them in the Basic viewer on first logon.

Jennifer Boyle wrote: Would you mind having a look at my profile and telling me what you think makes it adult? Thanks. Gee, I don't know, but words like escort and your profile picture perhaps?

Void Singer wrote: I'm not sure how that would ultimately work for avatars with M or A ratings visiting G land where a right click from a local avatar can pull up their profiles... The best thing would be to have an adult tab in the profile where all that could be put, and the adult profile was only visible for residents who wanted to access adult content.

Families with children will have plenty oportunity to do what families with children usually do in G regions. – there is a destinction here, being that in RL no grown up can masquerade as a child without immediately being spotted and possibly taken care of by law enforcement or something. Because of that we usually don't have legislation regulating this as we do have for digital environments. So you can't draw the parallell. The law says you can't. Also, you usually don't bring your children into unsafe areas, and the A rating in this context unfit for children (real or depicted.) There is another aspect of this also; if Linden Lab wants a wider family oriented audience in SecondLife, there will possibly be real children behind an avatar. In that event, we don't want to have grown ups running around like children together with our real children in any region. When it comes to slaves being led naked down the street, this has more to do with behaving in a socially acceptable manner around the grid. This is fine in a designated roleplay sim clearly marked as such, but not in general anywhere on the grid. We must be able to transfer our widely accpeted social norms for behavior also into the grid in general without having to resort to artificial zoning.

Innula Zenovka wrote: Gavin Hird wrote: The G rules are pretty much sensible as they are. I suppose one could make some changes to the wording to encompass text descibing what is socially acceptable in certain settings. One distinction that I would add is that child avatars can only be seen in G regions. For the rest, lump them into an A setting pretty much meaning this is 18+ territory and by entering this section of the grid, be prepared to face situations adult persons may face every day. Not sure how well that would work. I mean, in RL I far more frequently see children, accompanied by their parents, in restaurants in and around London's Soho than do I see naked slaves being led around that area on leashes by their masters and mistresses. There are two aspects to this: They claim they want to roam worry free as children and/or re-experience their lost childhood. I hope that in both those cases it is a childhood free of sexual participation, harassment or abuse. The right setting for that is a G region. The other is the proximity rule in combination with rather harsh legislation in some countries that easily can incriminate residents if they are depicted in a situation where a child is seen to be in a sexual setting. Since the A region would be everything that is not G, it is possible to both knowingly construct ,or indavertently place a child avatar in setting that is illegal or incriminating.

Right... The rather unclear definitions and the fact that Linden Lab is unable to enforce their own policy is the reason why I think we will come full circle and be back to two maturity ratings within a year or so. That in combination with the new age verify procedure that in reality will obliviate mature searches as it stands. The G rules are pretty much sensible as they are. I suppose one could make some changes to the wording to encompass text descibing what is socially acceptable in certain settings. One distinction that I would add is that child avatars can only be seen in G regions. For the rest, lump them into an A setting pretty much meaning this is 18+ territory and by entering this section of the grid, be prepared to face situations adult persons may face every day. When it comes to search, I suppose you could still have some kind of filtering on parcel descriptions, but have an adult classified section on search where everything (within the law) goes. You specifically had to include this in your searches. Merchants would have to use this section for announcing their adult offerings. Same for events. The same for profiles, put in an adult tab, and make it only visible if you wanted to see adult content as a preference in your viewer or search. As you see I am still keeping the adult content rating for search, classifies, events and profiles, but not on land. So we end up with 2 land maturity settings; G and the rest, but restrict certian language used in parcel descriptions visible in search, and an adult classified section people can opt out of in search (same with profiles.) Where exactly you draw the line, is a bit more complicated. As it stands, I cannot describe a MySQL s.l.a.v.e server without getting an adult rating slapped on my text both in SLM and in a parcel. So they need to get more sophisticated about this than pure keyword filtering. Not sure if the new search engine has capabilities that will help them do this.

I think the handling of European customers also might have been a strong motivation why they pulled the UK office. If you have a subsidiary inside the union, you must be in compliance with all EU regulations to be able to operate there. This includes everything from TAX, VAT, person data, consumer legilsation like EULA's that does not mean **bleep** inside the union if in violation with the law (and it is), copyright legislation and gambling just to mention a few. In essence, all EU customers must be handled per EU legislation if you are incorporated inside it.

You are right they did a slightly better job on G regions, particularly before the teen grid merge. But M is still a zoo. Many businesses simply stopped advertising (thus being in compliance with that part of the policy), retained their customer base and grew organically from there. Now with the marketplace, you can place a server on any land you want, fill it with adult content and sell happily on SLM. Again this scews the market.