Freya Mokusei

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Freya Mokusei wrote: I'd disagree that sexism isn't natural, (I agree with your disagreement. A whole lot of "isms" are natural... and poorly suited for modern society, which is a recent human invention) Fear and a desire for control are some of the most natural, instinctive urges humanity has. As an interesting (to me, anyway) aside, this is probably why kink is just as inseparable from humanity as the desire to denigrate the strange and unfamiliar as "bad", "unhealthy" or whatever judgement term of choice suits (and why trying to censor it is pointless). Marilyn Manson (someone who understands taboos pretty well) once said "repression breeds perversion". It entirely wouldn't surprise me to see that this type of objection to taboos is some combination of projection and thrill on its own, and the correlary.. .that letting idiots determine what "should be" allowed is the perfect breeding ground for kink. Madelaine McMasters wrote: (This was more true during our ancient tribal history, but not so much now. We're fairly dreadful at risk assessment in the modern world. The value of evidence has never seemed less to me that it is right now. Ban Muslims, shall we?) This is a super valid point. Yeah, you're right - the biology of our brains makes us good decision-makers. Modern society often does not. Information routes are frequently polluted with high levels of noise, confused with civilisation-based hypercomplexity, not to mention the deliberate subversion and dulling from "traditional" sources, causing people to end up thinking all-sorts of nonsense. It also drives niche, high-up topics that feel personal to the top of the needs list, as evidenced in this thread a good dozen times by now. This also prevents people from seeing injustices beneath them (and therefore, is the point). It can be a mess, absolutely, but we still have the toolkit in the back of the shed. My personal strengths are pattern-matching and large dataset filtering and categorisation - stuff I try to leave to neural network applications where possible. For every new problem, our cognition has a new solution. Madelaine McMasters wrote: I don't believe we find happiness. I think it's the byproduct of gratitude. If you cultivate gratitude, happiness follows. I admit I was using a platitude - happiness is not a state I naturally understand. I'm not rock-solid on gratitude either today... I'll take your word for it though. You're not the sort to lead me wrong! Glad you liked my post.

She's so good. So good. My total hero. Check out Hexaflexagons and all her Fibonacci stuff. Okay sorry, off-topic done. Enjoy your weekends!

Phil Deakins wrote: You seem to be relating the word 'sex' with the word 'sexism', but sexism is about gender, and not about sex. And sex is about physically intimate relations, but not about gender. There's nothing wrong with differentiating between genders. For instance, men are generally stronger than women. That's sexism because it's about gender, but it has nothing to do with sex. It's my opinion that women generally make better managers than men. That's also sexism, because it shows an attitiude of difference between men and women, but it has nothing to do with sex. When a store hires a shop assistant for their lingerie or makeup departments, one of the criteria they'll use is gender, and choose a female rather than a male. More sexism that has nothing to do with sex. Of course, sexism can be bad, but it isn't inherently bad. Not only that, but sexism isn't inherently unhealthy, as those examples show. Some forms of sex may be unhealthy (I'm not saying they are), but that's sex and not sexism. Just thought I'd throw that in Good point! One that I was looking at tackling, but I don't always do .Thanks for these valuable words.

Gosh I remember this thread. Controlling arguments outside of a fetish environment are so predictable. UnicornNightmares wrote: When you don't want to see women being degraded, "un-check the adult box" should not be the only option. Sure, I agree. If only there was a way to also specify what type of adult content you wanted to see. Some kind of... text... entry... system that could lookup words and respond with results based on those queries. What a world that would be. Search options are limited, and there could be checkboxes for softcore, hardcore, foot fetish, all that jazz. There aren't. All we have, is a checkbox that tells the search system that "I can be an adult about this", and logically separate "things I want to see more of" and "things I want to see less of" without throwing a tantrum. Seeing something in search - finding out that something personally distasteful exists - doesn't have to lead any further than "Naaah". (Disclaimer: this statement assumes everything in Search always meets the requirements of the ToS, CS, Maturity Guidelines) UnicornNightmares wrote: After all, appreciation for sex is a natural thing. But sexism really is *not * natural or healthy... And shoving the unhealthy stuff in our face when we don't want that, is like shoving images of things that are disgusting to you, when you were hoping to look for something appealing. I'd disagree that sexism isn't natural, this seems like a reframing and possible anthropomorphising to fit a convenient narrative (which is common when folks use words like "natural" and "healthy" - and, oh god, that stupid projective metaphor of "shoving" in faces and down throats). Humans are sexually diamorphic, like many animals - and our 'natural' state is not all that civilised. Overt sexual appetites and animalistic reproductive methods that are light on egalitarianism are expressed in our history on the regular. Living in a gutter but looking up at the stars enables us to push ourselves and do better, to try our best to respect people and to work to create a better world for our children. Reducing societal barriers to individual success (e.g. of which reducing sexism is a part) may not be natural, but it's still definitely good. As for the rest... I don't believe anyone has any odds for only finding things they like. That's what - in nature - makes humans great; we have a fantastic ability to judge situations for ourselves, when presented with evidence. Our brains are super at sorting good from bad, friend from enemy. Our senses want to be pushed, to try new things and reach new heights - whether that's space exploration, social studies or sexual taboos. Without choice and difference of opinion our critical thinking atrophies, we fall into cult-like behaviour, and oppression grows stronger. The real world isn't only full of things that I like, I hope it's not only full of things that you like. The important thing is that you can find happiness in a world that has little of it by default. -- The rest of your post is sadly meandering into territory that feels less useful. I don't feel I'm equipped to talk about racism, and feel it's awkward to conflate these two issues in this way. Systematic and dogmatic oppression of women is its own Bad Thing - believe me, I understand this. I also understand that you want better out of the world, but I promise there is nowhere in the realms of space and time where things have improved by someone demanding that things "should" be a certain way, or someone declaring something to be "universally abhorrant". I absolutely have sympathy for those with strong preferences, and those that worry that people exploring their senses in healthy expressions of kink are part of societal oppression. I personally don't see the correlation, kink communities are by far more egalitarian and often focus on progressive concepts of consent and communication that many "vanilla" groupings do not. Many are cliquey and have blindspots, sure, but recognising the problem is often better than other groups have managed in millenia. Energy could be far better spent criticising groups that do perpetuate these oppressions directly and demand obedience while doing so - for example, fundamentalist religion (#truthbomb). Didn't think I'd be be equating science and kink today, but there we are. All we've got is shades of grey, and that's the way our brains thrive best. There don't have to be exactly fifty, but there should be at least fifty shades of grey to choose from.

The GTS 250 is pretty weaksauce. You could try lowering your graphics settings. It could still be a failing component. If Second Life used to work very well (>30FPS) then investigate possible failure or a change in drivers first. Otherwise it might just be that your GPU isn't cutting it anymore. Largely it's going to be up to you to keep your PC in working order. It's not practical for us to troubleshoot a whole system. Unless it's something super obvious. Again, I'd recommend visiting a professional. Good luck.

...? Try again. Edit your question until it makes sense in English. Remember that this is a Second Life website. If your question is more to do with something that isn't Second Life then maybe you can get more accurate help elsewhere.

Isn't that like 3-3.5 business days? Even LL say it will take 5 business days (and in reality, sometimes it takes longer). Cool yer jets.

Good luck and take care.

"How can"? Just the same as any other item. Permissions can be in any configuration, the creator always has full permissions. I don't know if there are "rules" on what constitutes Gacha and what doesn't. If there are, they certainly aren't binding and will inevitably be ignored by someone. As always, buying things in Second Life is Buyer Beware.

If your graphics card is also ten years old then that'd explain plenty. In truth there's not enough useful information in your post. This is probably a hardware issue (failure, old age or incompatibility), but without knowing more about your hardware it's impossible to diagnose further. Get a tech-savvy friend to take a look, or take it to a store.

Yeah, labelled permissions can change after an item is rezzed or unpacked. It's no longer the same asset. Boxes have one set of permissions, their contents often have a second set that's not contingent on the box. Hope that helps.

Is it a skin type asset, or an object (e.g. applier)? If you rezzed it in-world as an object it can adjust its own next-owner permissions via script. Next-owner permissions still seems like the most obvious cause.

It can happen if you set next-owner permissions differently. Or if you bundle an item with another item with more restrictive permissions. You can review/set next-owner settings by right-clicking the item and selecting 'Properties', but for obvious reasons they can only be MORE restrictive, not less.

What's your question? You're posting at secondlife.com asking if Second Life is still a thing and if people talk. It should be conclusive by now that it is a thing and that people talk. Penny gave you some good advice - why are you focussing on the flippant response instead? Posting a Youtube link is at least 'talk'. If you're expecting useful content, maybe try and get folks to talk about something in particular? Probably something that isn't existentialism, 'cause that's hard (and to some, potentially insulting) - I'm not even sure if the refrigerator light still exists once I close the door.

Rogue Braveheart wrote: Who / What generates the MoTD messages that come from 'Second Life?' Your viewer can specify this, or ignore 'official' MoTD messages. In the case of the standard viewer, Linden Lab set these. One year for April Fools, they changed randomised jokes. Rogue Braveheart wrote: Who / What generates the MoTD messages that come from 'Second Life?' How is the content of Message of The Day messages selected? In the case of standard viewer (again, third party viewers can override).... this is done internally by LL. No-one here can answer you authoritively. Rogue Braveheart wrote: Is the type of MoTD message I received today ( See Above) a 'PAID' Insertion? If this message is a 'Paid Insertion,' why isn't it identified as such?. Again, I don't know the answer to this. I don't know why it would need to be identified as paid for. It's possible that this is a Destination Guide thing. Rogue Braveheart wrote: If this message is a 'Paid Insertion,' where do advertisers go to find out how to purchase this type of SL Advert? If this message is NOT a 'Paid Insertion,' why is LL promoting one Business over other similar Businesses? Second Life is not an egalitarian environment in practice. Some people and businesses can get away with things that other people/businesses cannot - they know people, have connections. If you have this expectation it's unrealistic. The reasons for this particular choice, as before, are mysterious to us as end users.

Reymundo wrote: is there not a way to make it apply to side and side 2 at the same time? Those two faces are part of one area of the prim is why I ask. The only constant that affects multiple sides is ALL_SIDES. If this isn't appropriate then there will be some delay simply because you'll need two separate commands, how much depends on the function you use. Again, llSetLinkPrimitiveParamsFast has no intrinsic delay and will allow you to staple commands together. E.g. (from the Wiki):- llSetLinkPrimitiveParamsFast(LINK_SET, [ PRIM_FULLBRIGHT, ALL_SIDES, FALSE, PRIM_LINK_TARGET, llDetectedLinkNumber(0), PRIM_FULLBRIGHT, ALL_SIDES, TRUE]);/*This executes: //Fullbright FALSE //Link_target to root //Fullbright TRUE as a single function call.*/ Reymundo wrote: Okay so I need to change the other two if statements to else...or something? I clarified style because I don't really understand what your script is supposed to process at present. Procedurally it does the following:- listen(...){ if(speaker is Avatar) { setTexture/Color } beginListen for Ch1 if(speaker is Avatar) { setTexture/Color } //etc...} All it'll do is create a lot of listeners and result TRUE for every if inside the listen event. This doesn't appear useful or intentional. You probably want to initialise all the listeners in state_entry (if you need this many) You probably then want to if-test against channel to test which listener is triggering the listen event. E.g.:- listen(...){ if(llGetOwnerKey(id) == id) { if(channel == ch1) { DoListen1Stuff(); } else if(channel == ch2) { DoListen2Stuff(); } }} But this is a guess because I'm not sure what the code you've written is supposed to accomplish.

Thanks. To add, secondlife.com already has this functionality - on the sign-in page. Run whatever search context you like on Marketplace while logged out, then hit Sign In. After success you'll be returned to the exact page (incl. search context). E.g. hxxps://id.secondlife.com/openid/login?return_to=https%3A%2F%2Fmarketplace.secondlife.com%2Fstores%2F7006%3Futf8%3D%25E2%259C%2593%26search%255Blayout%255D%3Dgallery%26search%255Bcategory_id%255D%3D%26search%255Bsort%255D%3D%26search%255Bper_page%255D%3D96%26search%255Bkeywords%255D%3D%26search%255Bprice_low%255D%3D%26search%255Bprice_high%255D%3D%26search%255Bprim_count_low%255D%3D%26search%255Bprim_count_high%255D%3D%26search%255Bcopy_permission%255D%3D0%26search%255Bmodify_permission%255D%3D0%26search%255Btransfer_permission%255D%3D0&show_join=true (Note that I've neutralised this link - I don't want to direct people to any type of login page for security reasons.) The escape-encoding (% signs) preserves the full referrer URI in the querystring named return_to. I took a look at this feature a few times before. This is all that's necessary for full implementation of a proper Continue Shopping button. Maintaining a users choices through a website is fairly standard - Marketplace already has this halfway done simply by storing search context information in the URI. It's not wise to try and get users to 'start over' and it smacks of lack of oversight that there's no button already providing this feature for those making purchases.

Reymundo wrote: I also wanted to know why side and side2 apply one after the other instead of at the same time. Many appearance functions (excluding llSetLinkPrimitiveParamsFast) have a delay of 0.2s. This delay between lines is causing what you're seeing. In this case the delay is being caused by llSetTexture. Secondly, the correct way to write an if statement is as follows:- if(test){ doStuff();} Inside an event and stacked, this should look like:- event(key id){ if(test) { doStuff(); } else { doOtherStuff(); } if(test2) { doAlternateStuff(); } doStuffRegardlessOfTest();}

I don't like to advertise specific products, especially in the Answers area of the forum. It seems, though, what you're seeing is due to a crossover in functionality. In Second Life what you pay for is the quantity of animations, NOT the number of users supported by the system. The animations are the expensive element that takes longest time to create. That's why, when you look at dance systems, they're all expensive - they support many users AND many dances. This causes them to be as expensive, regardless of where they're used. What I'd suggest is that you and your friend look into buying a couple of standalone dance animations - not poseballs, not HUDs or scripted toys of any kind. They typically cost L$100-500 and - when triggered from your Inventory ('play in-world' in order for other users to see the animation, 'play locally' to preview it for just yourself) will allow you to dance anywhere.

Jean Severine wrote: There should be a RETURN TO MARKEPLACE button which returns the Buyer to the exact context he-she was in prior to the purchase. Right now the "continue shopping" option is a completely useless function Can agree with this. Three reasons:- Continue Shopping is so laughably useless (I'd never expected it to be useful). Redirect to the top level? Thanks so much. This is not expected behaviour and serves no users. I understand changes to browsing strategy can improve the Marketplace experience but that's not practical given the low technical skillset found in most users. eCommerce shoppers are trained against using the Back button after submitting forms as this can lead (on older sites) to duplicate purchases or billing. It's reasonable, given the potential complexity of search terms (e.g. keywords, by Merchant, 96 per page) to have a way to retain these settings across pages. Right now, some search tool complexity drops out just by heading the wrong way (e.g. clicking a merchant's name to see their products resets view settings). There's no need for all these dumb extra clicks.

Rolig Loon wrote: I think any LSL scripter has done that a "few" times, Freya. The reason why is that an if test always applies to the scope that follows it immediately. When you type a semicolon, the logical assumption is that you have provided an empty scope -- that is, a one line executible statement that doesn't have anything on it. In this case, the block of statements in curly brackets after each test is therefore being interpreted as an independent block, unrelated to the preceding if. It gets executed regardless of what the test says. That makes sense! Kinda like the semi-colon orphans the indented block beneath it. Thanks for the explanation.

Yeah no-one here can do anything about that. We're just residents, like you. You're not likely to see your money back, but you should follow the guidance for Compromised Accounts.

Kelli May wrote: Should I be embarrassed to say I know what goes on there? Woo! And also nope! You're on the inside track.

There's another great build down the road a little bit. The Armory.  ...I'll probably not mention its current function and leave that as a surprise. I've always found it entertaining that it's not far from LL HQ.

sally Parkes wrote: Was your friend called... Hi sally. I'm afraid the names posted don't ring any bells. My partner passed in January, so I'm afraid the timing doesn't match either. Sorry to hear you two fell out of contact. A lack of closure can be a horrible thing to endure. You're right that they sound pretty similar in outlook - my observation was that living with something so debilitating drives some folks to put as much of themselves out there as possible. It was great for me to see, I hope you can say the same.