Freya Mokusei

Hi again Tabris =] I can't tell from this what the problem you're having might be. Would you be able to say more about what problem you're noticing? Does it return the wrong number as pIndex?

Perrie Juran wrote: In the other thread about Facelights the point I made was that it was not the use of Facelights per se, but the uneducated use of them. Yes, exactly. People don't use Facelights because they want to look like this (Thanks Kazimira):- They do it because they want to look like this (Thanks to Griffin, I hope he doesn't mind me pulling it across to this thread):- --- If people wearing them had the exact intention of lighting up a 10m sphere, then sure, I could see the complainers-in-this-thread having a point. But that's not the case, so I can't understand why people are so willing to blame it on 'stupidity' or other personal failings. The root cause of the huge facelights is probably a lot closer to being that the defaults (in the viewer) for prims set to emit light is 10m Radius, Intensity 1. And the fact that people can set the prims to emitting light even if they can't see local lights themselves. One accidental click, and you get the unfortunate situation with Kazimira's headwear (even worse if the creator then copies light prims, using them for most/every prim in the build). Further, people creating facelights without the ability to see local lights, and not realising how the light would look to others. The third situation is people such as Griffin, who do use the settings deliberately to create an effect that looks good, without casting 'light spheres' on to others. I can't think of any reason to discourage users from using lightsources for that purpose.

It doesn't sound like the dance was involved, honestly If you corrected a typo, and ended up saying:- *sleep in local chat, it's probable your collar listened and activated this animation. it's common to use asterisks(*) to correct spellings, but asterisks also perform collar commands on all collars that you have permissions on. To stop collar animations, use either <your prefix>release or *release Removing the animations will cause the collar to stop listening for these trigger words (if 'sleep' can't be found, it won't activate it).

Most of these devices use llAttachtoAvatarTemp. The common [and correct usage] concept is that 'demo' attachments or attachments used for specific environments can be attached temporarily. They disappear from your avatar after you log out, and never end up in your inventory. Naturally, this has caused a lot of fun for those who enjoy sticking things to peoples' heads.

Text viewers will work. I have one of the older Asus EEE PC series machines, and it works fine with Radegast. Great for hopping on SL while I'm travelling, but no graphics (though it has some sort of pretend-3D system I've not played with). Third Party Viewer Directory I can only get 2-4FPS from the typical LL viewer, and textures don't bake (because of its lack of graphics processing). I would avoid full viewers on a Netbook.

Kazimira McConnell wrote: if that is blinding it can be griefing No, it's not. I don't know why people keep repeating this. Whether it is 'blinding' or not doesn't matter, it's the intention that makes it griefing. No facelight user is going around with the intention of disrupting another users experience to the point that they lag and/or crash. The minor FPS drop from lightsources is typical of being in SL in the first place. Culturally annoying to some, but still behaviour as normal. Not a reportable offence. Again, the word 'Griefing' has a very specific definition in SL. Accusing people of doing it just because they use lightsources is silly. I like most of the rest of your post, though, and agree it's a case of compromise between the SL lighting engine and peoples' self-perception.

Avariado wrote: 1. Those who come here making fun of people who can't play SL because they have old hardware; 2. Those who insist that everyone can play SL with almost any machine (which is completely false); 3. Those who don't have any suggestion to give rather than "buy a new PC"; This thread isn't for you. Much better. See, now you're not immediately setting the userbase against your position. Many people here have trouble running SL efficiently; help is more likely when the person wanting it isn't trying to prove some point that's in direct opposition to peoples' knowledge of the platform (i.e., that SL is 'dead'). Thanks!

Yayyy~! Good luck, Tabris. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread a while longer, in case you have any more problems I (or others) can help with. =]

Thank you, Darkie. My PHP skills fall short very quickly in unfamiliar territory. =]

Yes exactly, I read what you wrote. What you're doing is digging for water in the desert. People are walking by and telling you that you're Doing It Wrong, and you're carrying on anyway. Those people are helpful, you're discarding the reality of where you are. As I said, you won't find people who believe that SL is dead in here. There is no water to find.

So you're not looking for help in finding an appropriate audience for your discussion? Or you somehow believe that this is the best place? If so, why? Why would a forum for an active online service with participants that clearly care to defend their platform be the appropriate place to seek users who believe the same service is 'dead'? Why would they still be here? Your inability to realise help doesn't change the helpfulness of other peoples' posts. =]

It would help you to find posters that are able to obey your bizarre constraints. We are all SL users, because we're in the SL forums. You won't find anyone that believes SL is dead here, because we're still actively taking part. If you don't seek that help, then I can only assume you're not after an audience. Or you're not looking to engage with SL users (in which case, there's even less reason for you to post here)

Bingo, see here: http://php.net/manual/en/reserved.variables.get.php I would use METHOD_GET in your llHTTPRequest And follow instructions on that page for retrieving the querystring items htmlspecialchars($_GET["key"]) --> would return "value" using my example URL in the post above. ETA: Yours would look similar to: (htmlspecialchars($_GET["name"]),htmlspecialchars($_GET["key"]),htmlspecialchars($_GET["loc"])) But please read the link, as I said my PHP is rusty at best. I would assume the 'htmlspecialchars' is done to prevent SQL-injection, but I would check this too (right now, you have no SQL-injection prevention).

Refreshing my memory right now. Will let you know if I come up with anything, but the immediate issue I come up with is that you're using METHOD_POST (in the LSL: llHTTPRequest) with Querystrings. Querystrings... I think... work best with METHOD_GET. Or at least METHOD_POST will make very little difference. ETA: Querystrings being www.url.tld/page.typ?Key=value&Key2=value2 (intentionally not valid URL)

You'll have to forgive me if I'm off the mark on this (my PHP is rusty), but here: ('$_POST[name]','$_POST[key]','$_POST[loc]')"; These 3 variables don't seem to be defined anywhere; is this the correct method for pulling them from a querystring? It might be best to verify the variables are being 'caught' by the PHP page (perhaps by printing them on the screen by way of a response).

Avariado wrote: If you think that SL is alive [...] you can keep your opinion to yourself. Open your own thread! Maybe you should reconsider opening a thread here, if these are your conditions. I imagine everyone here will disagree with you on this point. Because we're in SL. Which keeps it alive. So it's alive. So we're responding to your thread. In an alive SL. >> Paradox detected.

I'm proud of not caring about the presence of Facelights. I don't have to insist everyone around me conform to some completely arbitrary set of values based on a half-baked understanding of SLs volumetric engine, and can worry about things that matter. It also means I can make friends with people like Griffin without having to look down on him or make inferences about his understanding or taste. And means I can call out ridiculous behaviour like publicly admonishing people for the bullspit that it is. I can enjoy attached lights, I don't have to play with any debug settings and I rarely if ever touch my mute/redrender buttons. My sense of immersion is very rarely ruined, and all I have to do is be aware of the fact that I'm living in a shared world, where other peoples' decisions will occaisionally affect me.

Not knowing the brand of bed you're using, there's no way for anyone here to know. Look up the creator of the bed and ask them.

WADE1 Jya wrote: Linden cancelled it because every stat is trending severe downward Untrue. Some stats had lowered, but it definitely wasn't 'severe' by anyones' definition. The numbers were just unimpressive, and the past reason for releasing the data was to show off to the geek community, not necessarily to inform the userbase (the stats were never targetted to be especially helpful to users). The most recent economy stats are located here, and show very little in the way of change:- http://community.secondlife.com/t5/Featured-News/The-Second-Life-Economy-in-Q3-2011/ba-p/1166705

Not absolutely clear on what you're trying to do. However to prevent camming, best solution is Avatar Hiding. Hiding Avatars on Private Parcels To do this you will need to make the 'castle' on its own, sub-divided parcel. Avatars within that parcel won't be visible to those outside the parcel. You may also want to limit access to the 'castle' parcel.

Sooo... 'maybe'. And if you're on an ISP/whatever without an appeals process at present, that's unlikely to change. With the increased cost involved in monitoring and retaining these records I'd doubt many ISPs would invest any more than absolutely necessary (hiring an appeals team and insuring they are unbiased is expensive). Does the industry even have a regulatory body in the US? Something like an ISP Ombundsman? A neutral party (preferably government-owned) that responds to complaints about ISP behaviour. Wonder how many people pick an ISP based on hypothesized future policy decisions.

Phil Deakins wrote: Because only thieves will be affected (and only if they ignore the warnings), and people's activities on the internet will not be monitored (only downloads of pirate stuff will be monitored) I remain skeptical of this, and yet you appear to be presenting it as fact. Unless you can guarantee that this is the case then it would unwise to do so. If you can guarantee this, then I would like to see that information, if you can't then why are you still saying it? (And if you're not presenting it as fact, 'should be affected', 'should be monitored' would be far more appropriate). The privacy complaint is just one of several reasons why it could affect the consumer:- - Why are ISPs spending time on this when they should be replacing copper with fiber (or fixing other maintenance issues)? - How is this data compared, and what is it compared against? What piece of personally-identifying information is used to link infractions with bill-payers? How susceptable is this information to being 'leaked'? - How is the 'chiclist' that 16 referred to generated? Is it guaranteed to be only pirate material? Is it open for people to see? Is there a way to appeal being put onto this list (and having your legitimate customers criminalised in the process)? - Will these extra monitoring systems delay connections and responses? - Even if it's IP/header-based (as 16 suggests) are there fail-safes to prevent people with open routers (i.e., wardriving) from being disconnected? How about large families with children that click any link available? How about companies with rogue employees? - Is there an appeal process, where people can safely claim that they didn't do it, and have their objections listened to? - What about public spaces and shared IPs? - What about servers that end up hijacked, and used to distribute flagged material? Will they ever be unblocked? - What about zombie PCs, and other hacks that divert traffic? Will innocent people be used by criminals, and then be unable to clean their PC adequately (and so end up disconnected)? - What prevents ISPs from 'teaming up' to ring-fence users convicted by this system into being unable to find an ISP that will take them on as a customer? Are they going to be allowed to share these privately-determined convictions with each other? - What about servers that host multiple websites, some of them legitimate and others that infringe? Will this system be able to tell the difference? - If the system is incapable of tracking people who use advanced methods of hiding their tracks, is it cost-effective at all or will it just become another money-suck, like the UK ban on the torrenting site I mentioned earlier in the thread? There's lots and lots of questions about this that should have a lot of people worried. Lots and lots of legitimate reasons for asking them, that aren't tied to criminal activities. Using umbrella statements like 'Only criminals should be worried', is dangerous and misleading. Restaurants, cafes, nightclubs, train-stations, airports, private businesses, online retailers, families, 'vulnerable' internet users, to name only the ones I've thought up. 'Because this is what they've said' isn't enough.

Phil Deakins wrote: 16 explained the most likely process earlier in the thread. ISPs can't inspect everything you download. What they can do is flag when you download something from specific sites. Then perhaps they can inspect what it is you downloaded. Still researching 16's claims. If you have no facts of your own to add, that's fine. I would just rather you didn't accuse everyone who didn't immediately support this of being a pirate. Thanks, and apologies for my curtness. I'm not built for GD, the signal to noise ratio is far too high.

Phil Deakins wrote: It sounds like you have a misunderstanding about the topic. It sounds like you imagine that everything you do on the internet will be recorded by your ISP, but that's not the case at all. The only things that will be recorded by your ISP are your downloads of pirated stuff. If you do any of that, nothing will be recorded. So sayeth the ISPs, so it must be true. How, prey-tell, will they ONLY inspect pirated stuff? How can they be sure that nothing else is inspected? These are the facts I'm asking for.

Phil Deakins wrote: ISPs won't get to pick and choose who gets the right to access the internet. Nothing will change. Each ISP will behave as they have always behaved - get to pick and choose who connects to the intenet through them. Surely you're not suggesting that ISPs must take absolutely everyone who wants to connect through them? Surely you're not trying to deny a company the right to be selective about who it has as customers? It would be nonsense if that's what you were suggesting. No ISP can deny anyone access to the internet. All they can do is refuse to have a person as a customer. And they have every right to do that. Again, my criticism is against your perspective that no-one should question corporations or their activities. And again, I'm not saying they MUST take everyone. I'm saying that disconnection without due process shouldn't be allowed, ONCE they're connected and contracted to provide this service. Repetition is boring.