Hasn't LL said in the past that statements by employees should not be
interpreted as representing the opinions of LL itself, specially when it
comes to policies and rules and such?
On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Boroondas Gupte <
slli...@boroon.dasgupta.ch> wrote:
> On 02/26/2012 02:08 PM, Jo
Wouldn't it be better if the "types" for the diffferent Walkable
coeficients were bitmasks instead of just A, B , C, D? Or perhaps even just
an editable list of IDs (integers values) and the associated weights for
each integer
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Jonathan Welch wrote:
> In case you
Oh, sorry, dunno how i missed that bit
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Sophira Crystal wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
> wrote:
> > Why does it need to be hardcoded instead of being a setting?
>
> According to the original post, because "
Why does it need to be hardcoded instead of being a setting?
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) <
o...@lindenlab.com> wrote:
> On 2011-11-18 9:27, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote:
>
>
> The current test implementation has a pair of debug variables for
> controlling the
> and I'll be real good and promise not tell peepul about it...? ;) lol
>
> --GC
>
> On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 05:29 -0300, Tigro Spottystripes wrote:
> If we indeed are getting individual breast jiggle settings, that is a
> great move by LL, i had already proposed a way for Em
08:21, Anders Arnholm wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 05:29:15AM -0300, Tigro Spottystripes wrote:
>
>> If we indeed are getting individual breast jiggle settings, that is a
>> great move by LL, i had already proposed a way for Emerald users to have
>> individual settings
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
If we indeed are getting individual breast jiggle settings, that is a
great move by LL, i had already proposed a way for Emerald users to have
individual settings some time ago (embedding the parameters in the baked
texture or one of the unused cloth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Only objects you own can do stuff to you, in order to have other people
do stuff to you you would have to have a relay object owned by you
listening to what other people say and then acting on it. The forcing
teleport thing, it's not forcing you, it'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Please read http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/WEB-2647
On 28/8/2010 14:36, Altair Sythos Memo wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:19:57 +0100
> Gareth Nelson wrote:
>
>> That's a serious bug in LL's business model - your account is safer as
>> a basic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
btw, if you're considering changing your account from premium to basic,
be sure to pay any money you own to LL and then downgrade your account
thru the site, do not just stop paying, if you stop paying them while
still being a premium they will wipe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
The money you paid LL wasn't for the sim, it was for the L$ you gave to
the guy that actually paid real dollars for sim directly to LL. You gave
away your game money, it's not LL's fault that you choose to do busyness
with someone that couldn't be t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I would expect that it being more popular just puts more eyes on it.
On 25/8/2010 19:11, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) wrote:
> On 2010-08-25 17:14, Kadah wrote:
>> Do they get
>> special (more restrictive?) rules than other TPVs just because its p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
It seems indeed it is a bot, didn't even question when you accused it of
not being human.
On 8/8/2010 22:26, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> More like, as all the physicist at CERN in the loop, it was asked "What
> could possible go wrong?"
>
> Their proble
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
here is an excerpt from
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nokia_N900 :
"The Nokia N900 is powered by a high-end OMAP 3430 ARM Cortex A8 which
is a System-on-a-chip made by Texas Instruments based on a 65-nanometer
CMOS process. The OMAP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Are you gonna make a Maemo/Meegoo SL client? That would be fucking
awesome! :D
(i'm getting myself a N900 in a couple of weeks, having a SL client to
run on it would be the perfect icing for the cake)
On 14/7/2010 09:35, DEEPAK JAIN wrote:
>
>
>
;
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Robert Martin <mailto:robertl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
> mailto:tigrospottystri...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I know that part of this would require LL to contribute, i'm bringing
this up in the OSD list because i know somtimes an outside in approach
is possible, perhaps some developers in the community can figure it out
and put it in code without the acquis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
(oops, apparently i clicked the wrong button, sorry)
- Original Message
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] the last press release...
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:04:44 -0300
From: Tigro Spottystripes
Reply-To: Tigro Spottystripes
To
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
gah, i guess i need to go sleep way more than i was expecting...in my
head you had said ChromeOS...sorry, dunno about that one you mentioned
On 31/5/2010 20:19, Malachi wrote:
> i am completely curious if it is even possible to have a webOS client f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
If Chrome can handle Ajax, you could try AjaxLife
On 31/5/2010 20:19, Malachi wrote:
> i am completely curious if it is even possible to have a webOS client for
> second life in theory you would think it could be cause webOS is linux
> at he
sting code, we have to choose
> the opt-out model. Making the info easier to access in LSL is a
> tangential issue, but not unimportant.
>
> Ricky
> Cron Stardust
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Argent Stonecutter
> wrote:
>> The only difference between "d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
have the default be somthing generic then
On 6/5/2010 15:24, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> On 2010-05-06, at 11:51, Tigro Spottystripes wrote:
>> Then you just set your user-agent string to something generic
>
> Yes, I'm a paran
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Then you just set your user-agent string to something generic
On 6/5/2010 00:28, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> On 2010-05-05, at 18:39, Tigro Spottystripes wrote:
>> How so?
>
> The SL client is not a browser, and currently prov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
How so?
On 5/5/2010 20:36, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> On 2010-05-05, at 16:34, Tigro Spottystripes wrote:
>> That would open lots of possibilities
>
> It would open up all kinds of cans of worms.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
That would open lots of possibilities
On 5/5/2010 18:32, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> On 2010-05-05, at 14:57, Bryon Ruxton wrote:
>> Can't we just get an additional AGENT_VIEWER flag via llGetAgentInfo?
>
> Let's not.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I thought cookies weren't shared between accounts even in the same
machine...are you sure they are?
On 5/5/2010 17:28, Thomas Shikami wrote:
> Bryon Ruxton schrieb:
>> Can't we just get an additional AGENT_VIEWER flag via llGetAgentInfo?
>> Even if
e with a web
> interface to SL, it is still NOT a Third Party Viewer. The web
> interface is and that interface must be responsible for following the
> TPVp.
>
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Rob Nelson
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 20:48 -0300, Tigro S
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Is the internal browser considered the viewer itself or can it have it's
own identifier? And is the user agent string of the internal browser
*the* unique viewer identifier mentioned in the TPVp? Are we gonna have
to hire a lawyer to get these questi
re of, so not sure why
> zFire Xue is banning it.
>
>> The below reviews have me raising eyebrows...
>
> The people with bad reviews are mostly copybotters who have been
> banned by the system and are coming up with crazy quicktime hack
> theories, Dekadance Mint isn't even
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
AFAIK only LL (and someone intercepting network communications) knows
what channel some client is using
On 2/5/2010 18:42, Rob Nelson wrote:
> The only way to reliably detect a client is if the client sends an MD5
> hash of the executable to the log
s device requires no compiling or
> programming, just add "-noquicktime" into the short cut, and this device
> can't detect you untill Skills finds a new method of detection. I say this
> tidbit of info because the appeal process is atrocious and horrible from my
> experie
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
there is Skill's CDS system
On 1/5/2010 01:45, Andromeda Quonset wrote:
> I went there. I saw a "GC Continental" was on the ban list for both
> of the sims. That was the closest I could find to you.
>
> I am not aware of there being any autobann
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
the disclaimer instead of being hidden in small print in the bottom
should be the first thing in the page, in big bold red font, to at least
start helping users be less confused about how much trust they should
put on the viewers listed
On 29/4/2010
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Discrete, in both ways you can have viewers that the users think can be
trusted, but actually shouldn't
On 29/4/2010 15:04, Discrete Dreamscape wrote:
> A list of trusted entities is virtually always more robust and reliable
> than a list of untrust
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
a self-certified whitelist that LL themselves don't stand by it is of no
use either
On 29/4/2010 08:30, til...@xp2.de wrote:
> Henri Beauchamp wrote ..
>
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:41:50 -0700, Rob Nelson wrote:
>>
>>> This is a bad idea, as the TP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
oops, it seems i didn't send this to the list, sorry
- Original Message
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Thank you for updating the Viewer
Directory requirements
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:30:30 -0300
From: Tigro Spottystripes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hm, well, if they are gonna be nice like that, then go ahead, get the
teen to self-AR themself. :)
On 26/4/2010 18:28, Lawson English wrote:
> FoxSan Yosuké wrote:
>> Holy crap, thats a professional answer O.o
>>
>> 2010/4/26 Kelly Linden mailto:ke.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Perhaps the best approach would be to convince the person o stop using
their main grid account and get their parents to get them an account on
TG, keeping LL unaware of the infraction to reduce the risk of them
being punished.
On 26/4/2010 16:48, Ro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
i believe this is related: http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-15563
"Client gives up before finishing to load full inventory due to packet loss"
On 19/4/2010 21:07, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>
> On 2010-04-19, at 13:46, Joshua Bell wrote:
>
>> It
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
a program that says things could still be protected under free speech,
and could be considered art, and manufacturing pistols isn't illegal,
even if some people kill people with them, but of course, if you build a
pistol, and then use it to kill someon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
With so many machines at their disposal, why things don't work in a more
distributed way? I can't understand why there is so much centralized stuff.
On 16/4/2010 13:20, Dale Glass wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 04:09:19PM +0200, Lance Corrimal wrote
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
visually impaired people would still need to know if the door is open,
if the trolley is on the station, if someone bumped into them etc
On 16/4/2010 12:48, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> I don't think you thought through all cases. Consider blind users, as
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
currently attachments don't bump on anything, and animations do not
affect what the avatar collides with, avatars got a static bounding box
and that is it
On 16/4/2010 10:45, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> That's true for the case of non-static objects. We cou
rid with something like NeilLife and you get caught
>> doing it then you will loose your account.
>>
>> If you don't want the liability just toss something in the EULA for your
>> users that makes them agree to not use your TPV to connect to SL and
>> you&
X Y and Z. If you publish a viewer that is designed to connect to OS
and it just happens to also connect to SL, that is not your problem.
That is LL's problem.
~Bubblesort
Tigro Spottystripes wrote:
> So any developer not willing to abide by the TPVp can simply say their
> viewer i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
About that "interesting scenario", the TPVp doesn't seem to care about
how many steps and hands separate the original code you did and what was
used to generate the binary Joe Developer uses to log in SL.
On 15/4/2010 17:19, VR Hacks
sis on my)
> interpretation of the policy is that you would be "responsible" (read:
> liable) to LL for the results of your code.
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
> mailto:tigrospottystri...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Why developers for othe
u, Apr 15, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
> mailto:tigrospottystri...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> So any developer not willing to abide by the TPVp can simply say their
> viewer is not meant for LL's grid and that is it?
>
> On 15/4/2010 16:54, VR Hacks wrote:
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
So any developer not willing to abide by the TPVp can simply say their
viewer is not meant for LL's grid and that is it?
On 15/4/2010 16:54, VR Hacks wrote:
> Tigro wrote:
>
>> What if the developer develops a viewer for other grids?
>
> Then the TP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What if the developer develops a viewer for other grids?
On 15/4/2010 16:38, VR Hacks wrote:
> Imo, some people fail to see the TPVp for what it is. To wit:
>
> A) Any and all developers who develop a client for connecting to the second
> life grid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
from what i understand, according to GPL, developers and distributers of
GPL'd stuff are _*NOT*_ liable for any GPL code they create, modify or
distribute
On 15/4/2010 12:28, Robert Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Gareth Nelson
> w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
some TPVs might be released under licenses that do assign
responsibilities, legal liabilities etc to developers and/or
distributers, the TPVP shouldn't attempt to override any license applied
to any TPV
On 15/4/2010 09:13, Aleric Inglewood wrote:
> I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
perhaps it would be better if you named the channel somthing more
specific, even if that makes the name bigger
On 13/4/2010 08:22, Robin Cornelius wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Joe Linden wrote:
>> I will also try to provide a dial-in bri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(crossposting this since i got a message telling me i'm not expected to
post on the server beta list without moderation and i feel this message
should reach the Ls)
I believe it would be a good idea to keep H7 in testing stage until a
bit of time afte
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
a baby can still crawl over the TV remote and turn it on right when a
horror movie is playing, that baby analogy didn't quite work
On 10/4/2010 14:14, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> In case I don't make the Brown Bag, I just wanted to point out th
rimal wrote:
> Am Freitag 09 April 2010 schrieb Tigro Spottystripes:
>> isn't the real issue there that LL is trying to give TPV developers
>> legal liabilities (that might be incompatible with the license of
>> the code they use to create TPVs) instead of just covering t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
isn't the real issue there that LL is trying to give TPV developers
legal liabilities (that might be incompatible with the license of the
code they use to create TPVs) instead of just covering their own assets?
On 9/4/2010 15:29, Lance Corrimal wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
in theory it should be possible to record what is said in voice, though
coordinating voice with text for context would be a bit more complicated
(though a video of the meeting with a good resolution and as lossless as
possible codec/compression could d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is the TPVP and changed TOS still enforceable if i only accept it on the
beta grid? If not, i'll from now on only log in there, and start to
massively backup everything i'm allowed offline.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
i'm not sure if i've not suggested this before, what if the wearable
type identified which types of shading, cuts gradients, parameters etc
go along with it, that way the client would be able to know how to
interpret the data, how to cut etc and the or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I believe those are called "sandwich men"
On 26/3/2010 05:29, Lance Corrimal wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 24. März 2010 23:58:39 schrieb Tayra Dagostino:
>> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 09:39:00 +0100
>>
>> Lance Corrimal wrote:
>>> Anyways, shouldn't SLPlugin exit w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This clean slate would need additional texture swatches for the other
components of existing types of wearables, including the gradients for
the different cuts (sleeve length, cleavage amount etc
On 26/3/2010 10:39, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>
> On 2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
unless the briefs are indecent, around here i don't think anyone would
directly complain (they might talk about it being unusual with other
people, but i don't think anyone would be forbidden to enter a store,
restaurant etc just because of an slightly
you and claim damages, which is
> quite a massive difference
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
> wrote:
> The thing is, according to the TOS, LL can already deny you access to
> all your account related data for any or no reason, and they can delete
> an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The thing is, according to the TOS, LL can already deny you access to
all your account related data for any or no reason, and they can delete
anything they want in their own machines for any or no reason as well...
On 23/3/2010 16:58, Gareth Nelson wr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Btw, how do those people that have seizure issues deal with the
possibility of people having quickly changing particle emitters,
suddenly rezzed prims, fast moving big objects etc?
On 23/3/2010 16:51, Maya Remblai wrote:
> Ok, I was trying to be diplo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
How about Google Wave? (i'm not for nor against it, that was a completly
unbiased question)
On 23/3/2010 11:12, Aleric Inglewood wrote:
> Having the IW meetings always at the same time and the same day of the week
> locks some people out.
>
> Me for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Can't you just do it the same way you can side-step while in third
person mode?
On 20/3/2010 09:06, Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 01:08:52AM -0500, SuezanneC Baskerville wrote:
>> A thread about WASD keys caused me to think of something
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Regarding "option bloat", why not simply hide the extra stuff behind a
button or a checkbox?
On 20/3/2010 05:53, Jacek Antonelli wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:11 AM, Stickman wrote:
>> Why not just skip a half-way solution and implement full key
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
what if the bug fix includes changes in behavior that for some users is
considered a bug in itself? (like how it happened at first with the
issue of auto-granted permissions permanency being abused, where the
initial proposal of simply auto-revoking he
ch to handling text communication in a
3d multiuser environment.
On 17/3/2010 22:40, Maya Remblai wrote:
> Tigro Spottystripes wrote:
>> like i said before, hitting a key to call the chatting functionality is
>> quite common in games
>>
> So? I've played a couple
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I do install and run programs i don't trust in a sandbox in my computer,
and i think people are wanting much more than just client-side LSL
scripts...
On 17/3/2010 14:31, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> You install a program on your computer, and you either tru
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
wouldn't that be more like Flash then?
On 17/3/2010 17:36, Morgaine wrote:
> Argent is exactly right.
>
> From sitting in on these OHs, the intention that has come across (but
> with some ambiguity) is definitely that binaries will be pushed to our
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
like i said before, hitting a key to call the chatting functionality is
quite common in games
On 17/3/2010 06:55, Kitty wrote:
>
> Having the chatbar always taking focus would be just as much a
> disaster for me as it seems it is for you to h
p to
> switch focus. Leaving the chat bar with focus kills wasd movement, but I
> can name no one who doesn't use the arrow keys for that.
>
> Survey?
>
> On 03/16/2010 07:10 PM, Tigro Spottystripes wrote:
> that's new to me...
>
> perhaps
witch focus. Leaving the chat bar with focus kills wasd movement, but I
> can name no one who doesn't use the arrow keys for that.
>
> Survey?
>
> On 03/16/2010 07:10 PM, Tigro Spottystripes wrote:
> that's new to me...
>
> perhaps my sample is biased due to m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
that's new to me...
perhaps my sample is biased due to me hanging around people with similar
interests (i do like to play computer/video games)
On 16/3/2010 19:41, Glen Canaday wrote:
> That's an annoyance I'd like to specifically target in snowglobe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
isn't that actually fair use?
On 16/3/2010 09:04, Gareth Nelson wrote:
> The answer to that pic is to buy the movie and then rip it - still
> technically copyright infringement, yet you're supporting the makers
> without getting all the extra crap
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
there are important differences between actual theft and unauthorized
copying...
On 15/3/2010 20:27, Peter Swales wrote:
> As someone who uses a declawed copybot (limited to my own created items
> only) to copy from main grid to my openserver and back
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Are the people selling illegal copies making that much money that fast?
On 15/3/2010 17:40, Lawson English wrote:
> Tigro Spottystripes wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> People can sti
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
People can still simply sell the L$ for a fraction of the market price
directly to other people, without ever going thru an exchange service,
that's how i would do it if i wanted to cash out illegal money. Trying
to limit usage of exchange services onl
ibilities, it's flexible enough to satisfy all tastes, or at least
the most common ones.
On 10/3/2010 18:47, Martin Spernau wrote:
> Am 10.03.2010 um 22:35 schrieb Tigro Spottystripes:
>> IMO, windows that are on top of the view like a Heads Up Display feel
>> more like they're
the user experience?
>
> The chat bar's focus is also terrible. Only those who use wasdf to move
> can use it as it is... generally if my mouse focus in inworld, I want
> the keyboard focus (minus arrow keys) to be on the chat bar, as it has
> always been.
>
> --GC
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
(just bouncing back to the list)
- Original Message
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] New topic: Snowglobe 2.0 way forward?
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:37:58 -0500
From: Robert Martin
To: Tigro Spottystripes
On thing that needs to be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The new interface breaks immersion, it places the world as just another
small area of the screen with a bunch of other things outside of it.
On 10/3/2010 15:13, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> On 2010-03-10, at 11:48, Tigro Spottystripes wrote:
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
IMO the 2.0 interface looks way more like a "developer's interface" than
1.*'s
On 10/3/2010 14:42, Kelly Linden wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) <
> mag...@matrisync.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
it would only be opt-out if the setting to accept sim/parcel environment
is enabled by default, otherwise it would be optin
On 10/3/2010 14:19, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Marine Kelley
> wrote:
>> The
an
> object that you own.
>
>
> On 10 March 2010 18:03, Tigro Spottystripes
> mailto:tigrospottystri...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> sim owners can already control the Sun position in your client, the rest
> of the WL parameters is just an extensions of that
>
> ther
: Maggie Darwin) wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Tigro Spottystripes
> wrote:
>
>> parcel and sim owners shouldn't need to ask for permission...
>
> Nonsense.
>
> If you want to reconfigure my viewer, you need my permission. Every time.
>
-BEGI
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
parcel and sim owners shouldn't need to ask for permission, nor objects
you own (it should not permanently change the settings, at the moment
the cause is not in range anymore (you move to a different sim, log off
or the object is derezzed) the WL sett
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What if the memory allocation worked kinda like those bouncing bars on
top of those audiofrquency/spectrum/VUmeter readouts on some stereos and
many computer audio players, where it's fast to go up, but then it falls
slowly back till it hits the curren
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Would there be an approach that would allow both all the benefits you
mention, plus letting the process based plugins have access to the bare
metal performance? (somthing like a way to have the plugins instruct the
client to add the desired processing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
i'll take the opportunity to promote a somewhat related feature
suggestions i've posted on pjira:
http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-13942 - Optimize non-dynamic
content on sims
On 2/3/2010 22:05, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> On 2010-03-02, at 18:4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
i can't see that video because it got copywrong from Vevo and Vevo don't
like my country...
was that by anychance a rickroll?
On 1/3/2010 11:59, Robert Martin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Lance Corrimal
> wrote:
>
>> set the media url t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
i thought LL had approved the methods used...
On 1/3/2010 03:25, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
> wrote:
>> Without proofs that might have just as well have come from
wont allow her/his/its Gemini system
> to access data on the machine. This way, Skills can just assert the
> person was "obviously" using a malicious viewer, defaming them to hide
> the inefficacy of the system itself."
>
> On 02/28/2010 11:02 PM, Tigro Spottystripes w
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
> To: Tigro Spottystripes
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
> wrote:
>> An user agent string for the client would indeed be useful, but would be
>> useless to catch all but the lamest
? That doesn't sound plausible at
all...
On 1/3/2010 00:58, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
> wrote:
>> hm, i didn't thought he did collect IP addresses, but even if the system
>> does catch IP addresses
;
> On 2/28/10 7:15 PM, "Tigro Spottystripes"
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Last i've heard, if you know what you're doing, it's quite easy to mask
>> your viewer as being another viewer; any detection system would only be
>> able to catch v
t done the research myself and so
> cannot verify what others have written.]
>
> On 02/28/2010 10:20 PM, Tigro Spottystripes wrote:
> AFAIK it doesn't claim to be able to detect them all the time, nor to be
> able to detect all clients that might be out there; it shouldn't be
&
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
