Freya Mokusei

Is it any of these? https://duckduckgo.com/?q=k-fm+radio&ia=about

You can't do that. You can transfer items with Transfer permission between accounts, but that is unlikely to be all of your old stuff.

Looks like you're also assigned to the wrong help service. We don't know anything about courses. This service is for help with matters pertaining to Second Life as a service. If you have agreements with other users (e.g. teachers who use Second Life) you'll have to refer to your facility to find a proper way to address your concerns. We can't do nothin' for you.

entity0x wrote: This also is not only a womens issue - each gender takes risks having relationships of all sorts over the internet, and can equally be exploited, recorded, filmed, dox'd and shamed. Cool thanks, this is obvious but it bears repeating. I referred to it in the post you replied to, but since the OP is feminine I posted an especially relevent post for them. This thread isn't about the problems men face online (which are also significant, and also reinforce negative gender and power dynamics), the title very clearly says so. Congrats for taking risks, have .entity0x wrote: It's not a demand, it's not unreasonable, and it is fair to ask. Ha. I always note the people who minimise other peoples concerns while diverting attention to other issues that affect them more directly. Cool, great, I don't care. This is an old thread and you're clearly up for a fight about something. Try reading again (from the OP) When I first meet men, right off, they want proof I'm female. And they want me to Skype or use voice for sex - before I even get to know them. The issue, if you fancy tackling directly, is how some people (most often men - sad reality) create a culture of demanding information that they have no right to know - immediately. It doesn't take long for this demand to normalise, since most people want to make friends and it's easy to pretend that this demand is reasonable. It becomes easy to use shame, coercion and intimidation to force reluctant outliers into revealing themselves. You can see brilliant examples of this all over the Internet, there are more posted every second of every day. I've heard the arguments for years - "If you won't send me a pic then you must be a man." In these situations, the power balance is clearly unequal and yet no-one takes responsibility for that (even you hand-wave it away with sweeping statements). I reject the premise, and make little apology for being wound up by it. All of the above behaviour is unreasonable. It puts the target on their back foot, threatening their outward identity by attacking a shadow underneath it. It's designed specifically to get the victimiser what they want, at the expense of the more reserved party. It strips out diversity of opinion, it reinforces old-fashioned gender roles and divides people further. It silences the target, gets them to comply or exposes them for further victimisation. When disclosing information is used as a compliance tool, it's unreasonable - regardless of biological sex or gender. There is a nice and reasonable way to ask about real life information (as part of an organic friendship, learning about each other quid pro quo), but that's not whathas been talked about in this thread. There's no need to feel offended on behalf of reasonable people (or reasonable men) - reasonable people are doing fine, and aren't covered in my posts or the OP's. If you happen to be a reasonable person who doesn't use unequal power dynamics or threats of ostracism to get what you want - great, keep it up, and I love you! But perhaps consider whether or not you want to keep playing the shield for the many people that do play these manipulative games. Hope this clears up your misunderstanding. Have a good weekend.

You're correct that Second Life doesn't ship with Flash support. According to Rolig Loon's advice on a similar question, you'll need to download Flash support as a standalone download for "Opera & Chromium", from here. Rolig also linked to a background source, at the Firestorm Wiki. Hope this helps!

Phil Deakins wrote: I can't agree with that suggestion, Freya. *shrug* Fair enough. Was just providing a perspective, I don't really care to defend it. I run honeypots for spammers through a few technologies, there's plenty of idiots out there. Will say that maybe you're taking your experiences as universal, and - again - the programmer is not necessarily the user in the same way that neither is the proprietor. There's operations out there that get a bot from somewhere, and try to hammer it into shape. One server of mine simply doesn't notify that it uses SPF for authenticity, and one group of bots has been targetting it a hundred times a day for the last two years - it all drops straight into a blackhole. They've never upped their methods or gone back to check they're not wasting their time, but I've collected a lot of info on their group out of it. Another time I saw a group crack into an FTP server and then run a fake Google Ads campaign through it. Problem was, they typo'd their original template so badly the bots never posted any valid links. Just talking about my anecdotal experience of this, I'm not spending any time investigating these folks. But I'd hesitate a long while before giving anyone involved in that operation any intellectual credit.

wherorangi wrote: a thing is that the spammer most likely has nothing to do with the club ownership Alternatively it has everything to do with them. This is the behaviour of a bot gone awry, absolutely, but that's the service you get when you pay bottom-dollar for spam-as-publicity. To me it makes sense that a small SL operation would probably only hire garage operations to post spam for them. There's nothing to suggest the operators of this place have any technical skill, and hiring out for this kind of task is easy - there's ads for it all over. It's not doing much other than picking something like *.secondlife.com, looking for targettable forms and firing over and over. The operator of the bot likely doesn't know what a JIRA is, nor the ramifications of posting spam to it. Bot operators at the low end typically have a target (e.g. 10,000 posts for $x), it doesn't pay them to sit around and check for quality, if only quantity matters. No reason to cut these folks any slack. Sorry to hear you've had such a busy day, Whirly.

UvvU wrote: So I'm making an avatar with a base layer Kemono body, another Kemono body on top of that providing android-looking lines as an overlay to the base, and yet another body that is textured as a body suit. Yikes, that sounds heavy. Expect to be seen as a jellybean by most of the population. UvvU wrote: Frequently, the mesh (or texture, can't tell which) breaks. If I toggle the PG option for boobs in the Kemono body HUD the problem is fixed. But it will break again soon later. It breaks instantly when I zoom out really far and zoom back in, as well. What's 'breaks'? What does this word mean to you? Can you show a (PG) image? It sounds like you're having clipping issues, which is not surprising if you're layering close-fitting mesh on top of one another while having both (or all three) layers visible. You could play with alpha zones and all that, but mesh isn't supposed to be layered on top of other mesh - that's a huge waste of rendering resources. The solution would be to do everything you're trying to do on a single mesh object.

The policy towards development in SL hasn't changed and won't change. If your expectations here differ then you could question where that idea came from. Please pardon our dust. In your case it's more likely to be a connection issue at your end than something in SL. There's no service-related reason making logins more difficult. Whirly Fizzle also mentions that there's an intermittent networking issue affecting some users in Germany, Scandanavia, Austria. If you're affected by this then it may explain what you're seeing.

It is working. Example: http://search.secondlife.com/?query_term=freya+mokusei&collection_chosen=people&isLeftColOpen=true&sort= If you're having trouble, edit your question to explain what you're trying to do, or hoping to see.

In addition to Alwin's advice for in-world action, you may want to consider contacting the real life authorities (e.g. Police, FBI, etc.). Assuming blackmail is illegal in your country then the local police force will work with Linden Lab to establish your harasser's real life identity and - if possible - take action.

No problem! I hope it helps. Feel free to post queries on what I've posted. I'm probably without access to the Net this weekend but I'll pick it up Monday. There are other folks who may help in the meantime.

Current Behaviour Tipjar It looks like what happens, is that requests are sent to the jar, by manual entry, on chat channel 98 (DEDICATION_CHANNEL). When you touch (TOUCH_START) the jar, it will dump the list of requests to you privately, via llOwnerSay. HUD Doesn't do anything at all at present other than complain if you attach it wrongly. Method to Change Probably remove the TOUCH_START behaviour for the TIPJAR (you don't need to touch the jar anymore if the HUD will control this) Use the LISTEN event in the TIPJAR to pass a MESSAGE on a non-zero chat channel to the HUD each time it hears a dedication. llRegionSayTo (range: whole sim) or llSay (range 20m) are ideal for this. (This will send each request immediately to be displayed by the HUD) Then EITHER: If the requests will total less than 128 characters: Use llSetText in the HUD to display the requests and add TOUCH_START behaviour to the HUD that flushes the variable being passed to llSetText and resets llSetText to "" (empty string). If the requests are longer (up to 1024 characters total): Use llDialog to display the requests when you TOUCH_START the HUD. TOUCH_START would also flush the variable being passed to the MESSAGE argument of llDialog. (remember to use a non-zero channel for the llDialog so that button-clicks don't post to local chat - which is channel zero) (the advantage of these two functions is that they will keep requests out of your Chat History window) (remember that both functions use '\n' as line-break characters, to start a new line) This might be a little complex but perhaps gives you an idea of what will be involved.

Second Life doesn't allow in-world uploads in *.ai format. Try PNG, TGA or JPG. -- If all you're trying to do is open the image in Illustrator, then... try Google or the Adobe forums. Given the incompatibility between SL and AI, seeking help elsewhere is likely going to be more rewarding. There probably aren't many AI-knowers here.

Another off-topic post from me. You (Phil) might remember the recent nonsense about banning legal-highs in the UK, in an oxymoronic effort to limit fun that served nobody. Of course, it ended up failing to ban the primary intended target and didn't change UK law from its basis in common law. The contention from social conservatives has always been that the ability to "sell first, legislate later" - they've argued - has always left the population open to risk from untested chemicals created by altering existing illegal chemicals into just different enough mixtures that then become legal (because new chemicals have to be explicitly banned, which takes time). In reality of course, widespread abuse of this principle has never occured and the opportunity to disrupt without seeking approval from authority is something that drives innovation and creativity. There's parallels for SL in this story. It's always interesting to me when someone criticises the freedoms enshrined in common law, and the angle from which they choose to do it. It's hard for me to imagine that SL was ever intended to be a prescriptive environment, given its history and background. I'd also work against any change intended to make SL less free, regardless of imagined intentions.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: It's the information I want - I'd prefer a short time-out to making things visible. Even if you turn off parcel public access with an avatar on the lot the system gives them fifteen seconds to leave. Okay, thanks. I'm not aware of any existing instruction WRT teleport behaviour (save the informal 'polite ask' of 10 seconds posted earlier in the thread). Given its links to land management, I see why the function was implemented in the way that it was. However I'd totally support a feature request to bring a change in behaviour either to the viewers display (for visibility) or delay to bring llTeleportAgentHome into line with other, similarly-used behaviour. I think I'm all clear, appreciate the time!

Theresa Tennyson wrote: The permission I was referring to was that of the avatar being teleported. I think I outlined where this permission comes from, but it's also mentioned in the Wiki. It's bestowed upon scripts owned by he landowner, or deeded to the land-owning group. The function deliberately has no room for the targets consent, as this is partially tied into the land permission named "Eject and freeze residents on parcels" - functions that also do not need the consent of the target because they're for land management purposes. Which, in short, suggests that landowners get this permission out of a need (seen by Linden Lab) to control activity on their land. It has a very narrow use-case, it's hard to imagine any other purpose for it continuing to be accessible via LSL. Theresa Tennyson wrote (with my underlining): A security orb can teleport an avatar home when the avatar enters that particular parcel even though the avatar may not realize they're even entering the parcel. Even if you turn lot boundaries on they're useless if you're in the air or water covers them. So, to clarify, you're saying that this is an information issue? You'd be happier if restricted parcels were clearly visible to travelling avatars, instead of a functional change to script (or landowner) behaviour?

Theresa Tennyson wrote: however, that says nothing about teleportation because that involves what happens to an avatar when they are no longer on your lot. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding (I've missed some posts on account of a busy day), but how does teleportation apply to avatars after they've left your lot? llTeleportAgentHome - as I'm sure you know - only works if triggered from a script with permission (from the landowner - either a directly owned object or group-deeded one) over the land that the targetted avatar is on. If the avatar isn't there (or has just left), calling llTeleportAgentHome will do nothing. Permission, I feel, is a strong word in demonstrating Amethyst's point. If scripts didn't have permission to do this, then arguments about whether the ToS explicitly covers or doesn't cover this function would hold more water. There's an argument (possibly) to be made that some functions can be used to grief regardless of permissions limitations, but... Can a landowner be guilty of griefing their own parcel (minus arguments about sim resources, ad farming, spam - these don't apply)? Is using this function - in-line with the limitations within the Wiki - an act of griefing? Given this functions limited use-case, would LL allow landowners continued access to this function (in the wake of say, Experiences, that allows finer control of teleportation) despite this potential for 'griefing'? I don't think I can answer any of these questions in the affirmative, but you may have another perspective. (To add, bouncing off of some of Darrius's posts - maybe there's a case for arguing that this permission shouldn't be granted the instant an avatar arrives on-parcel, could have a delay applied between trigger and processing, or some other solution that doesn't presently exist to try and exclude avatars moving at speed/altitude/etc.)

dianestwin wrote: I was just hoping there was a way to allow me to see the request via a hud There is. Any function that allows communication through chat (llSay, llRegionSayTo, etc) can enable conversation between scripted objects (rezzed objects and/or attachments/HUDs). This is definitely possible, but not necessarily feasible with the scripts you're using right now. If both of these objects aren't either clearly described (in terms of what they can send and receive) or fully modifiable then this won't be possible with your existing items. It's also not possible for us to help you with scripts that we can't see, and are unfamiliar with. Sorry if my earlier reply was terse, I was in a rush but wanted to make sure you got a speedy reply and could decide for yourself where to go from here. I'll try to detail my thoughts more clearly. This forum (LSL Scripting) is typically for those who'd like to learn to script, or are having trouble writing scripts of their own. Given that this doesn't appear to fit your case, I recommended use of the Wanted forum - a place that non-scripters can ask for people to write or edit scripts for them (probably at a cost). If you do want to learn how to script this solution yourself, then the LSL Scripting forum is the right place to be, but we'll need more to go on. You could help us by establishing:- How these objects listen and talk to other objects at present (ideally, with examples) How you'd like to have the scripts understand these requests from what's being posted in local chat (with examples) Good luck.

Never seen the code, don't know. Both of these sound like closed systems, what makes you think they'll interact? If you want to hire a scripter try the Wanted forum, but there's not enough for anyone to work on in your post.

There's no way for anyone here to know the answer to this unless they were involved in the creation of this exact product. If you can't get a reply from the creator (probable after 3 years), and can't update your product remotely, then you're out of luck and will have to look at other products. Nothing on the Internet lasts forever.

That's my reading of Facebook's business practices, too. The additional risk isn't worthwhile. I can already post pictures for free, I can already send messages for free. Facebook adds no value except:- Knowing that parts of my body become shameful if posted there. Seeing videos and other content ripped from other ecosystems . Laughing at old memes that the SL (and other online communities) have been scoffing at for decades. Seeing ads for payday loans, scams, pills, pay-to-play MMORPGs and other really junky products that don't interest me or any other human-being. It's the sort of ad ecosystem . People in my age/interest-group have been forsaking Facebook for years, it's not done anything to win us back and I doubt it will. Pretending to care about how we choose to identify ourselves (rather than how marketing companies identify us) is not even in the right ballpark. It's still occaisionally good for communicating with older relatives, but my peer-group socialising moved off of FB a long ways back. I don't know that it's been 'growing' for a while, it just doesn't know it's dead yet.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Vehicles are an integral part of Second Life and specific vehicle code is part of the scripting language. Linden Lab gave sailboats and aircraft to Premium members as gifts. Actually I believe vehicles have been in Second Life longer than landownership has been. A person whose primary concern is having a private piece of land has more options on a private island than on Mainland, and a person whose primary concern is operating a vehicle has fewer options on a private island than on Mainland. I agree with all of this, except not knowing when vehicles were introduced - it was likely before private islands (but probably not landownership in general). Your example is a fine one to have set, but it's not a universal experience and there's no reason to assume that all vehicle users follow it. We're not in an ideal state where purpose and function was well-defined from the outset, and it never has been. I don't see how to untangle this mess but would say it would require active guidance from the service operator (the population would need 'sorting'), which hasn't ever been likely. I don't know that Premium membership guarantees anything in relation to freedom of travel, either as a right or anything else. It makes sense that it could, since free membership came afterward. Service operator has always been very reluctant to differ access/abilities between levels of user (with some modern exceptions) and I think that hasn't helped the confusion. Thanks for the fuller reply, I like your perspective. Myself, I moved out of Mainland when I realised that Premium membership didn't provide any increased support - back in '07. Been preferring to support users/the economy instead, by living on private islands. Not throwing shade, just explaining my reasons.

Phil Deakins wrote: I don't know why some people want to argue about the word 'right' in this context. A definition of the word (found by searching Google on the word 'rights') is 'a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something". I don't have much productive on this, only off-topic opinion. It's a tiring subject, more expectation for our service provider to do something for them. Have been trying not to press this into the thread, but I'll give ya one post on it in the hopes of explaining my choice of words further. What most people believe to be rights are actually conditional or imaginary, I don't find them a practical way to relate to the world - virtual or real. You only have them until authority decides for you, that you don't. This makes them unfit for purpose. Like many things, George Carlin . I'd say (using the above opinion) that you have some ability to exert some influence the land you own, but you don't have rights over it. Much like how the land always, immutably, belongs to Linden Lab - you can't claim squatters rights if they choose to evict you, and you have no recourse to funds invested in maintaining your fleeting access to their land simulation. That's why the word gets messy.

Theresa Tennyson wrote: you used the word "rights" in several of your first posts in this thread. I did find one instance of this, sorry. I was trying to use privileges and abilities for reasons I think I've made clear, that instance was an error. Theresa Tennyson wrote: Ban lines have gone up to 4096 meters for years Well, then okay. I don't know if this correction changes the amount of inconsistency present within our platform, nor its suitability for deriving law from code. You seem to have skipped any substantive reply, so I'll try one more time. My point and perspective was: Until enforcement changes, these are the terms Mainlanders live under. It's not reasonable to demand others accomodate your use of the platform at a cost to themselves. Users expecting a predictable/reliable flying (or other land-requiring activity) experience should be prepared to spend money in order to maintain that experience (e.g. a tax or tier), just as landowners do. Hope that's clear.