Freya Mokusei

We don't know with any more authority than you. My personal interpretation is that asking for money isn't against the rules, but commercial spam is. Look over the ToS and CS yourself.

Can confirm this appeared since upgrading to 49.0.1 - it wasn't present on 48.0. The errant styling is caused by:- https://slm-assets0.secondlife.com/assets/screen-ddd8ce7b07e791a6be384f43172cdb3e.css From:- .cssgradients #canvas-container { background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(0 8px 90deg, #fefefe, #b4b4b4); background-image: -webkit-gradient(linear, 0 0, 0 10, from(#b4b4b4), to(#fefefe));} Specifically this is overruling the moz-linear-gradient:- background-image: -webkit-gradient(linear, 0 0, 0 10, from(#b4b4b4), to(#fefefe)); It's to do with how CSS3.0 rules are being poorly interpreted by each browser producer. Mozilla's been poor at this for a while, but it shouldn't be ignoring -moz-specific rules. I'd say this is probably Mozilla's doing, but LL can create a workaround as well. No clue if it's a permanent change to behaviour.

Between zero and the number of registered accounts in Second Life. There's no way to be more accurate than this, Linden Lab do not release stats.

I have read the article. I'm also fully aware I'm still due to pop by and see your place - the photos you took are crazy-cool. This is actually how I do things at home - mostly with simple objects (e.g. a photographic greenscreen + lighting that I don't need rezzed all the time), I have a little AI (kinda - he's still a bit lobotomised) dude who floats from person to person waiting to see if it can help to rez anything. My land is organised into tiers, each belonging to a partner, and also a communal level (and I guess, 'my level') on the ground. Even at a quarter-sim there's a tonne of advantages in getting rid of stuff I don't immediately need. Naturally I got carried away and the building itself is destined to 'transform' depending on a trillion variables - once I get around to setting it all up! Admittedly I don't buy furniture too often, presumably for all the hassles Phil mentions - folks selling No Copy or No Mod isn't useful to me in any way (I also recently had a discussion about EULA's attempting the same restrictions). When I have bought furniture to mess around with, I've occaisionally wandered into especially prickly situations with folks who were offended that their creations weren't as perfect in practice as they'd been imagined to be. Anyway I'm not criticising peoples' choices in protecting their IP, just adding my voice to the pile of those poorly served by prevailing 'wisdom'. If it's helpful I'll post the original code for the AI dude later on today. All it is is an llDialog, warpPos and working off of a notecarded list of positions and inventory names. It may be a little less fuss than a whole holodeck and at least useful for folks to try as an addition to their existing decorations. This is a cool way to be able to spend more land impact on stuff you can see *at the moment* rather than elegant beds and whole interior-decorated wings of McMansions that get used for an hour a week. We have dynamic, responsive websites on the 2D web, why are we still stuck with static, wasteful content in the 3D one! Thanks for the article, great pics.

The instructions are on the error message. Ensure the listed ports are open on your router, and through ESET. I've no experience of ESET, but a quick search on DuckDuckGo shows this: How do I open or close (allow or deny) a specific port on my ESET Smart Security Personal firewall? (4.x)

Perrie Juran wrote: Well, what's the speed of thought? Something like 2-20Hz, with variance for paralleling and complexity. Recognition and memory processes being a fair bit slower than calculation or imagination. There's a heavy impact if thought needs to travel across the brain's medial longitudinal fissure (the gap between left and right brain), too. Not entirely sure why I know this.

I'm not sure if 'payment in arrears' is accurate since you also pay tier for the 30 day period beginning your land purchase. But you do pay for the full month to completion after making a sale. Afraid I'm not an accountant. No problem though and good luck! Check out the links if you have any further queries. Also: SL KB: Buying Land

Yes, but you owned it during this month (in LL's terms: this 'billing cycle'). Therefore you still have tier due to pay. It doesn't matter that your land usage is now 0m^2, your peak amount for this month is still due to be debited. If you've completed a billing cycle since selling the land, then your maximum holdings would be 0m^2, and you'd have zero tier to pay. It doesn't sound like this is the case. See here:- Linden Lab wrote: The Land Use Fee is a monthly charge for the peak amount of mainland land held during the previous 30 days, including actual parcels held and land tier donated to groups. See Land Pricing and Use Fees for examples.

So your plan is to sell your land without paying tier on it at all? No dice I'm afraid. Your tier payment is made up from the maximum holdings you had this month. If that maximum is worth $195, then paying this month will be inevitable. Next month - now that you hold nothing - your tier payment will be zero. Reducing this month has an effect next month, after you've paid for the maximum utilised tier this month. Good luck!

There's no useful information in your post (what's 'Tiny box'?). Your guess is as good as ours. Presumably you don't meet the specifications for running Second Life.

xTH4Tx0N3xG1RLx wrote: i did not simply say no. i corrected the poster on what recommended and required are. they stated that the recommended levels are the lowest, but in fact they are not. required means the minimum it takes to run sl. the recommended is what it takes to run it the best, i may not know much, but of this i am certain. You'd be right with just about any other platform. Required is the basics, Recommended is the likely point for acceptable stability (better than required, but not the best). You'll probably get 20-25FPS, but you could do better than this with an even higher spec PC. Unfortunately Second Life, given that all data needs to come down your network link (causing a high probability of bottlenecks)... there's no such thing as "best" - you'll never get 100% performance out of Second Life, even if you have the flashiest million-dollar PC available it's still relying on your network being super-duper-crazy-fast, and that's just not a practical guarantee for 90% of Internet users. I think that's what Alwin was alluding to. He could've definitely communicated it better.

Trending is a popularity game. The more popular your posts are at my.secondlife.com, the more likely the are to be featured. When I poked the system behind this some time ago, my determination was that you needed at least 2 people to 'Love' your post, because there's not much competition for eyes on such a minor feature. You may need more or less, depending on current traffic.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: the unintended consequence of being the go-to place for communications I'm not sure it's unintended. Facebook spent a long time (screwing Intellectual Property rights, downranking external links) to trap users on their platform for as long as possible. It just turns out they're not too motivated in presenting good, low-bias and informative news, but more about building clicks and promoting friendly corporations. Facebook news does as well as it conceivably could under the present model, just as well as Coca-Cola News would (i.e., not really at all). Madelaine McMasters wrote: I don't know how to solve this problem. Our newfound and massive ability to communicate with each other one-to-one and in self selected tribes has sidelined a substantial amount of classic journalism by giving everbody a voice and nobody the big picture. These double edged swords are hard to pick up. Easy-peasy! These changes are practical, some are implemented already. Facebook is incompatible with such transparency.

I don't... think you realise how in-world video works. Linden Lab have no control over it, a video screen is a 'window' to a web location (e.g. Youtube.com), where Youtube.com decide what technology to use to compress their videos. Linden Lab is not involved in any way. If your video is a static file (something.mov, something.ogg, something.avi etc) that's hosted online, then the format of the video is what determines the software used to display it. Again, Linden Lab plays no part in handling the stream, and the video hoster is responsible for the technology used to stream their videos. QuickTime is dead, Adobe Flash ought to be dead - you are right about the security risks to users, but this isn't LL's problem. Your suggested idea - for LL to 'force' people to use something different - would mean LL would have to re-encode every online video in the universe into a common format and then stream them to SL users on-the-fly. The real answer is to learn from this situation that's made videos difficult and annoying for the last decade, then sponsor and create new content in more open ways - for example, Youtube has done its best to move to HTML5, a non-proprietary format that can render in any browser without expensive licensed codecs.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: A related subject... http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/09/technology/facebook-censorship-vietnam-war-photo/index.html Is this a coddling through failure to get news from a news source? Or coddling through failure to get news from anything but a single source? I mean, what else was going to happen. Facebook ain't ever gonna offer objective or controversial news coverage, they're a marketing/analytics company. Informative facts might be the thing they're least likely to provide - and also the one they're least capable of providing.

The short answer is no. While assets in Second Life can't contain viruses, they can contain scripts that report your in-world movements or actions. They can also ask to withdraw Linden Dollars from your account. They can (in limited cases) determine information about your real life location, and retrieve identifiable information about your computer. It's not safe to receive ANY item in Second Life, but it probably is safe to trust certain providers of items (e.g. stores you trust). Just like everything else online, use a reasonable amount of caution and learn more about the risks for yourself. The best way to avoid getting exploited by this stuff is figuring out how to protect yourself.

my.secondlife.com is up and working for me, and across the web. You may have blacklisted this subdomain on your PC, or perhaps a software application (security or malware) could've done it for you.

ChinRey wrote: accept that the creator is actually trying to support themselves and their family Me too! I think everyone has a right to try and extract profit from a situation so long as it doesn't lead to exploitation or criminal behaviour (which, again, in my view, this scenario does not). -- ChinRey wrote: Freya Mokusei wrote: You're not making unlimited copies Well, obviously there is a limit to how big a market there is but apart from that, why not? Because - in your scenario - you don't own unlimited space. -- ChinRey wrote: Backup and redlivery is more than enough reason to me. I build for my honest customers and I don't want them to suffer more than absolutely necessary because of the dishonest ones. I can appreciate this perspective - it was an honest question. I would personally worry that I would be grouping plenty of innocent people in with the dishonest but that's the PR game you have to play with your own brand. Thank you for answering. I'm not hearing anything particularly fresh or convincing - you have your perspective, and like I said first time around, I'm glad to hear it so that I can be aware of how some merchants are seeing their customers - the nature of all this has definitely changed in recent years. It doesn't sound like there's anything to back this up except your fear of risk. I don't imagine I'll change my behaviour based on any of that, I wouldn't recommend anyone else does either. But I appreciate you explaining it. Sorry for the derail. ETA (sorry, I had a fresh spark): My concern is that by overreaching and limiting product versatility, creators (in general) risk alienating their fans (e.g. I've encountered non-EULA'd objects that report back to the creator their location, every time they're rezzed - fortunately they were modifiable but I still won't be going back to that store). This is self-defeating in SL, it creates hostility and suspicion, limiting reach via word-of-mouth. It also reduces sympathy, and if a creator is relying on a receptive userbase to do things like inform them of possible EULA-breaches or respect identities/branding and not purchase derivatives, then it categorically undermines this good will. This isn't a threat (obviously - I'm speaking generally, not about anyone's specific EULA), it's cause and effect - if everyone feels like they have to bypass a EULA just to get the experience that they "expect" from a Second Life product, then no-one will respect the social enforcement of that EULA, even if legal enforcement is possible. This already happens routinely outside of Second Life, with examples such as unlicensed game modding and derivative fan games, and public sympathy is increasingly less on the game developers side.

ChinRey wrote: I buy a parcel of land cheap. Then I buy one of Pamela's houses, place it on the land and sell at a profit since the parcel now comes with this wonderful La Galleria house. Next I buy another cheap plot, puts another copy of the house on it and sell at a profit and so on, and so on. I'm not in the business of land (I share it for free ), I've never bought whole houses - and if I were to participate in any of these ecosystems I would prefer variety, not copy-pasting. That said, yes. In my opinion, the behaviour you outline as quoted would be perfectly acceptable to me if I encountered it. In your scenario, you're not competing with Pamela for house sales (but land, instead), you're not eroding her commercial potential to make sales with unique and innovative content, you're not circumventing protection offered by object permissions. You're not making unlimited copies, just one for each parcel that you pay tier on (tier being the restriction placed upon your infinite copying - say you own a whole region, why can't you fill all 15,000 prims with lots of copies of a single object? What would be objectionable about that?). I wouldn't consider it an infringement of Pamela's rights or IP, I would not AR it. You do however continue to leave the quantity fairly vague - I've already been clear that I'm skeptical that this would reach "hundreds or thousands", I don't consider that a reasonable escalation if your "so on" reached that high in your imagination. I understand that you're adding a commercial element to increase perception of risk, but it doesn't increase harm, sorry - the people who would buy your land would not 100% buy from Pamela if they chose to buy a house. ETA: In fact, I could see a counter argument. Having one of Pamela's houses on their land already MIGHT give them the information they need (via inspect) to purchase a more original house from Pamela, themselves. If the quality of the sample is good enough, maybe Pamela would get a unique sale just through having proximity. Win-win! ETA/PS: It sounds like you're really not keen on people making copies (except, I guess, for backup purposes?). Is there a reason you prefer No Transfer + EULA's to No Copy?

Madelaine McMasters wrote: reasonable people will ignore them. Ya. And once this happens, the precedent that makes EULAs enforceable at all erodes. Folks can't just write whatever terms they like into EULAs and then complain when paying customers reasonable expectations diverge from this. Plenty of cases in real life law set this standard. This attempted overreach doesn't surprise me, what does surprise me is that creators in SL would fall into it.

ChinRey wrote: Soon hudreds and even thousands of people have that tree on their and the creator earns 250 Linden from that single sale. Really? Are these non-hyperbolic numbers? Has there ever been a real case of anyone doing this in more than a dozen places? I'm not denying this happens in limited quantities, but the amount of hysteria generated seems unwarranted. I don't buy your argument, sorry. I've heard it before in other spheres (never in SL), it wasn't realistic then either. ChinRey wrote: If you give away no-transfer items on purpose (regardless of whether they still "officially" are owned by you), your're a thief, nothing but a thief. Nah, disagree. If there ever was a commercial operation with the specific intent of reducing your sales and improving the "thief's" reputation or L$ balance, maybe, MAYBE I'd have some sympathy for this perspective. Has that ever happened to you? Or I suppose, have you ever found anyone replicating your objects amongst their friends AND successfully used moderation processes to have them removed? I am genuinely curious, but you don't have to tell me - I'm not intending to make you a target, you're a symptom of a condition that I'm trying to understand the depth of. My opinion though, is that you're probably just calling a lot of people who like your work - and want to use it as freely as allowed by the SL permissions system - criminals for no reason. I don't see any benefit in this approach, but if you do then good luck to you. The person who buys a lawnchair, rezzes it on his partner's parcel (as well as his own) so that they can enjoy time fishing together - is he a thief? The clubowner who buys a dancepole and rezzes one at their home, one at the staff audition location, and one at the actual club - are they thieves? -- I've seen plenty of organisations try to inflict nonsensical terms on perfectly reasonable people - this is what the EULA argument sounds like to me. Doesn't hold water, not based in reality, not enforceable, it just casts criminal suspicion on ordinary folks and sets creators against their fanbases. Skip!

Go Team Mystic! But stop this. Copyright of Niantic applies, anyone helping you fulfill this request would be breaking the law and risking their Second Life (and Pokemon Go) accounts. Sources: Pokemon Go: Terms of Use, Niantic: Copyright

ChinRey wrote: That is not acceptable of course Huh. Well colour me surprised. This sounds perfectly permissable - one sale is one sale, the merchant doesn't get to control where I rez things I buy (so long as it remains within Second Life, anyway). I wouldn't be interested in accepting the kind of EULA you describe, and never have done. Hopefully any land-folks are operating the way I do too. I appreciate your perspective, but guess I'll need to look closely! This weirdness is all news to me.

I.. think she means that there are some folks who simply leave behind the landscaping items parked on 'border' parcels using root-point manipulation. I've seen regions with palm trees running along borders, for example. I don't think it's unreasonable to use assets in this way. They're not being copied, why would an EULA be necessary? It sounds like Cassie's grasp of functionality is loose.

There is no "fair" when it comes to bans from private areas. The owners can ban you for any reason, or no reason. They don't need to justify and there is no recourse. Second Life is a big place though. Good opportunity to find a new spot!