1  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  20  |   Order by default

Jan 1, 2001, 4:02pm

Follow these steps until something solves the problem.

1. Check for enough disk space on both the drive your swap file is on and
the drive your email folder is on (usually both c:). Enough is at least
50mb, and that's still very little.
2. Run scandisk (or similar program) on all drives you have, fix any problem
that comes up.
3. Repeat step 1.
4. Uninstall olx, then reinstall it (via control panel, add/remove software,
windows setup)
5. Reinstall windows without wiping your current install.
6. Wipe your current install (format c:) then reinstall.
7. Try anything you can come up with yourself.
8. Buy a new computer.

Take care not to wipe anything you want to keep while doing these things.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2001, 2:45pm

[View Quote] We used to have a test newsgroup for that kind of nonsense. Maybe it should
come back?

Rolu

>
> LilAlpha Phalpha :)
>
>
[View Quote]

Jan 4, 2001, 9:41pm

[View Quote] Well, everything has to be predefined in some way, otherwise it can't
happen. By the way, I wasn't speaking about a specific mountain, I was
speaking about the terrain in general. It morphs when you shoot at it, or
make big explosions. So if the terrain happens to be a mountain somewhere,
you could keep shooting at it until it was a big hole. What you do therefore
has an impact on the terrain as a whole.

> AW places
> no such restrictions on the user, where they can build a mountain, delete
> it, replace it with a park bench, stick a pole in the middle of the park
> bench, build a house around the park bench and pole, delete the pole, etc.
> etc. etc. ... ad infinitum.

It doesn't? Well you seem to overlook a few things... first of all, if the
object isn't available, it can't be built in AW. There is a set of
predefined objects you are working with. You can insert an object, place it
somewhere and rotate it a bit (but only around it's up-down axis).

This works the same in such a game: there are objects, which are at specific
places, etc etc. The objects that are available are limited by the people
who made the game, just as the objects available in a world are limited by
the owner. Do you really think everything in a game is hard-coded into the
executable? That would be very silly. The kind of games that look like AW
usually just are a reality-simulator. The levels, monsters, players, etc are
all completely modular.

> As for games were you can build ... you can only build those things that
are
> supported within the game

In AW you can only build the things provided by the world's owner. If you
own a world yourself, you can put in anything you want.

In those games, you can only build the things provided by the creators of
the game. It is possible to add things, if not by the players, then by the
creators themselves. (read: add-on packs with extra levels, monsters,
pickups, bonusses, etc)

See the similarities?

> and interaction with these "objects" is also
> restricted to what is supported within the game.

Of course it is. But this is the same in AW. You can only interact with
stuff in predefined ways. You can come up with new, creative ways to use
those interactions, for example a bot that reacts on an avatar gesture. But
you don't really create any new way to interact. Interaction in AW is
limited to moving (moving to a certain area, or bumping into things),
talking, using gestures and clicking on things. Nothing more. This is how AW
restricts what you can do. You can use some of these things by standard
(clicking, bumping, coming near an object), and write little scripts for
them. But scripts are nothing special, it's a fairly common way to make
things happen. For example, the Creatures series of games is completely
driven by a scripting language. Creatures happens to be 2D, but it would be
nothing different if it were 3D. Also, you can write bots, but that's
similar to writing a plug in for a game. For example, someone has made an
excellent plugin for Quake, Reaperbots. This plugin controls a bunch of AI
players, and you can use it to brush up your deathmatch skills. (I can
recommend it to anyone who likes quake multiplayer)

> AW provides an environment
> where there are very few rules, and therefore handles any activity in a
> generic manner.

Just the same for games. Most 3D games provide an environment for the games
to live in, the game itself is created by the levels and the objects. Even
Wolfenstein 3D could run customizable levels!

> In the games you mention, the restrictions placed on the
> player represent the "fixed" aspects. You can only do what the game
supports
> which falls well short of a user's capabilities in AW.

In AW you can only do what AW supports, which isn't really all that much.

> It is hardly surprising that these games perform so much better than AW
due
> to the assumptions and subsequent shortcuts that can be made within the
> processing BECAUSE of these restrictions.

You seem to be working with *very* old knowledge, or you grossly
overestimate AW's capabilities.

> With the generic nature of AW's
> concept, everything must be handled in a "correct" manner ... and that
takes
> processing power.

In a game, stuff must be handled in a correct manner too. Take Carmageddon
II. There's a world, with various objects, and there are cars, which are
objects too. Now crash your car into a streetlight at 300km/h. As for the
game, this is just a matter of two objects hitting each other. Therefore, it
has to model the crash to see what happens. The streetlight might break off
and fly away, the car will deform, start to spin and maybe loose a few
parts. Nothing is constant, compared with other crashes - the size and shape
of the car, the size and shape of the streetlight, the overall world gravity
(lunar gravity bonus, anyone), the thickness of the free space around you
(you could be underwater), the speed and weight of the car, the speed and
weight of the streetlight (could already be moving), etc etc etc.

There are assumptions, of course. First of all, real world physics - gravity
for example. And the objects have been preprogrammed to tell the game that
they can break or deform at certain places. But *what* happens, and when and
how, has to be done in the game itself.

Now, for AW, the only physics it has to deal with are the movements of your
avatar. You'll fall down, unless you are flying, and you won't walk through
solid objects, unless you use shift. And if you are flying you'll keep on
going for a while after you stopped pressing the keys.

> Here's an example (of the point - don't take it too
> literally regarding AW). Imagine a ten-pin bowling alley. The rules are
> strict here - if the ball hits the pins at a certain point, from a certain
> direction, the fixed starting position of the pins can be relied upon and
> the after-effects of the strike can be rapidly rendered BECAUSE of this
> fact. Now imagine the same bowling alley in AW ... where the pins can be
put
> anywhere. Each object (e.g. the ball, the pins, etc.) must be handled
> discretely and all the impacts individually calculated and rendered before
> moving on to the next point in time (e.g. frame) because there are no
> assumptions that can be made. There is a massive overhead in handling
> real-world, flexible environments where rules are few and far between
> compared to those where the bounds of interaction are so limited.

Nice example, but it doesn't apply here at all. The physics of the bowling
alley aren't dealt with by the world server, nor by the AW client (unless
you try to walk through it). AW has no native support for moving objects
that influence other objects, and doesn't do any real world physics on them
either. What really happens is this: there's a bot (plug-in) that provides
the game. The bot only knows about balls and pins. The bot notices that you
try to throw a ball, and then handles the moving and the impact. This is
exactly the same as in a standalone bowling game, and everything happens on
the computer the bot runs on. The only thing your client gets through is
where the pins and the ball move, which is the same as when someone's avatar
moves, or when someone moves an object while building.

There simply *is* no real-world, flexible environment with few rules. AW has
very strict rules, even. You seem to think of AW as something much more
sophisticated than it is.

Rolu

Jan 5, 2001, 5:52pm

[View Quote] lack of time, probably. Or maybe they are already busy...

Rolu

Jan 5, 2001, 6:03pm

what kind of lame argument is that?

When you can't x, that doesn't mean you are not allowed to comment on
someone else doing x. (substitute something for x... for example,
programming)

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2001, 7:40pm

[View Quote] Why not? If we feel the need to complain, there is something to complain
about. Whether or not it is very hard to do what you are complaining about
doesn't matter. People like Mr Use A Capital Everywhere down here probably
don't really know what they are talking about, but I do think you may
complain if someone does something wrong in your opinion. Whether your
complaint is valid or not is something else, of course.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2001, 7:48pm

[View Quote] hm, something like "we pay for our citizenships, so we do something too, so
we should get the beta too", and "who cares about feedback", then something
incomprehensible, then "why do we have to wait so long"?

> At
>
> They DO have a newsgroup for 3.1, it's called Beta. :) Usually, the people
> who have a lot to say when they are beta testing the new program post
there,
> even though when something is in beta, ALL of us should be posting our
> comments there. *stares* They ARE going to release it into beta for anyone
> to test, but it has to be EXTREMELY buggy right now if they are doing a
> closed beta testing, where only a few people are testing 3.1 :)

plus, a closed beta minimizes the risk of a very buggy client becoming
available for everyone, and the mess that would give.

> YOU selfish little kid just want to get the newest and latest toy like
every
> other spoiled brat. And then, if they release it early, YOU'LL be the
first
> complaining about the 8,000 bugs and why your AW browser won't work.
> Pathetic, and you probably haven't even ONCE posted in the beta newsgroup
> (which i don't reccomend either, since you seem to have very little
> knowledge on how AW is run in the big AND little scheme).
>
>
> YOU want 3.1. :) The rest of us can wait until the cow comes home for all
we
> care. We're happy with a 3.0 and can live months later than the expected
> release date for 3.1 if we had to. :)

yup... we want a good, stable product.

>
>
> They have made it better for people who are using 2.2, silly. :)

although it would be even better when they'd adapt 3.0 or 3.1 so it works
without acceleration.

>
>
> There's a lot of reasonable explanations as to why we're not getting 3.1
> yet. :) It's still being tested is one, we're really not all that smart
> technically is 2, it's not uncommon for a release to be delayed, after
all,
> it's only a PREDICTED date is 3. :) There's a handful of others. :)

A release date only says "You won't get it before this date" :-)

>
>
> Doubt AW will even last THAT long.

who knows. Windows, for example, is already at about 100 times that.

>
>
> That's the STUPIDEST thing AW could do (which, in some instances, they've
> been stupid enough to do).
>
> Do you want a REALLY buggy program that never works, including it's
> features...OR, a tested, tried out, ready to go program that will work 99%
> of the time like 3.0 and 2.2? :) Your loss if you pressure AWCOM too much
is
> my thinking. :)

I think he just doesn't get the point of feedback...

>
> If You Are Reading This Part Then Thank You.. Yours
>
> I can agree with the "Yours Stupidly".
>
>

Jan 12, 2001, 10:09am

[View Quote] ....which makes it a mess working with two different versions. And 2.2 might
be close, but is not nearly close enough.

Rolu

Jan 5, 2001, 5:52pm

can't you at least try to post something coherent and comprehensible for a
chance?

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2001, 6:07pm

A lot of chaos and bureaucracy flamewars, combined with asskissing and
"choose me"-adds. Just like real politics.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2001, 5:52pm

[View Quote] Well, actually every world in AW is about the same. A world is just a
collection of objects. What objects, and how they are placed, is different
in each world, but if you look at it in an abstract way, it's all more of
the same. There are no special or extra abilities in any of the worlds.

> You can
> change them dynamically from from any location.

And with that, you change the definition of the world a little. You can't
change the levels in most 3D games while you are playing, *not* because it's
hard to do, or impossible, or would mess with something 'precompiled', but
because *it would ruin gameplay*. Imagine running through a maze, and
instead of solving it, you delete walls until you get to the exit. That's
why.

> I know exactly what I mean,
> but I seem to be having a problem articulating it ... sorry. I still see
> vast differences between the scope of AW and those of an environment
> tailored to specific environments (such as games with massive level
> definitions).

AW *is* tailored to a specific goal, namely a 3D chat program. AW itself
does nothing special outside of that scope, all games and other things come
from 3d party bots, which are specifically suited for a particular game.

>
> In terms of my views on AW ... the concepts behind AW are so much more
> generic than anything else we have been discussing here. Sophistication
> isn't the point, its the capabilities that the product allows over the
> alternatives that set AW aside.

It's quite possible to make a fully functional bowling alley in Quake. Duke
Nukem 3D has a billiard table somewhere in one of the first levels. By
modifying the data files of Carmageddon you can play as a pedestrian instead
of as a car. You can always use things in other ways than intended, nothing
special about that. It's even more fun.

> The "rules" that AW applies to its worlds
> are far less restrictive than those in games. The two sets of rules are
> focussed on different subjects. As I was saying to Eep, in my view, the 3D
> game environment that people compare AW to equates to a completed and
> published world.

That's a false assumption. A level is just a data file telling the game how
that level is built. Nothing, except a decision of the creators of the game,
prevents you from adding things. Your whole point, and excuse for why AW is
behind 3D gaming, seems to be that you can add/delete/move objects when in a
world? If so, this is silly at best.

> With the lack of an ability to state/script specific
> actions within an object definition for AW to the extent that is afforded
to
> games programmers who are writing a specific game, AW falls behind in
> functionality and interaction whilst still having to follow the same
> processing.

Why do you think AW doesn't have a better scripting language? Not because it
is needed for generality. It's mainly a lack of time.

> BUT is not the key point I have been trying to make ... which
> was that level editors create predefined environments (and new/updated
> environments which manifest themselves as your "mission packs") for a
game.

If that's your key point, your whole argument falls, because it is false.
You assume that all game levels, once completed by the editor, are somehow
magically optimized and after that are completely static. But then what? If
the game allows you to, you can change the level while playing it. That's
just a matter of adding/deleting/changing things, it's just not desirable
for gameplay.

> These environments are interacted with by the game itself ... but NOT
while
> the level is being built. That is the focus of the game concept ...
there's
> always a theme and a set of rules which relate to that theme, whereas AW
is
> an attempt at a kind of "global interaction". I basically see no
comparison
> because there is no theme defined for AW at all - no related
> rules/assumption.

AW has a theme - 3D chat. It has rules - there is a world, in which you are
represented by an avatar. This world is composed of a bunch of objects. You
can move your avatar through that world, and might occasionally bump
something. And AW assumes it has to take care of nothing, except for making
sure your avatar doesn't move through solid objects, except for when you
want to.

> What games don't have to worry about is someone coming
> along and unexpectedly MOVING the walls of the U-Boat you're navigating.
If
> they move because someone has pressed a button, then there is specific
code
> to make the walls move in which is then executed within each of the
> instances of the game to which it is relevant. AW allows much, much, much
> lower-level activities than that. AW is aimed at mimicing the core
> activities within a "virtual world", not the instigation of predefined
> action.

Suddenly moving walls doesn't matter at all - see below.

> The bowling example was meant as an example for the point, not AW. AW's
> infrastructure doesn't allow such scenarios to be created efficiently ...
> (even bots wouldn't be able to perform that kind of task and keep the
effect
> realistic to all client's). The Carmageddon II reference you made forced
me
> to think a bit more (thanks for that!!), but I still came up with the same
> basic thoughts. The car is an object and it therefore a set a rules that
> define how it interacts with things such as how it deforms when hit
> (although I would imagine that the basic shape of the car isn't actually
> effected in terms of the object itself rather than just how it looks) and
> the rest is just a change of velocity that is then handled by the game.

Yes. And now for AW?

> AW
> doesn't deal with specifics - all activity is handled in a generic way but
> you can't describe an object to the extent that a real-world needs. AW is
> the very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, poor cousin of the
> "Thirteenth Floor" environment - modelling a world and not a scenario.

There you go wrong. AW doesn't handle any activity in a general way. It
doesn't simulate a real world. In the eyes of the program, the world is just
a static bunch of objects. Every now and then, the client gets messages like
this: "That walk01.rwx over there is now moved to this position" or "This
avatar moved to that position". And if you try to move, it goes like this:
"hm, the user tries to walk forwards. Let's see, is there some solid object
at the new position? If not, move, if so, don't move.". That's all AW does -
it doesn't care for any physics, except for some general things to make your
avatar move. It doesn't care about the physics of the other avatars in the
world. There is *no* object interaction, for example a ball hitting a stick.
If you are looking at a bowling game, there is nothing simulated or whatever
by AW. Everything about the game is handled by a bot. The AW client just
gets a bunch of messages about objects that get other locations. And when
there is no bowling bot, there can be no bowling, because AW doesn't support
such things.

> Thinking about it though ... is the AW performance really that bad? v3.0
> flies on my machine (PIII 500, 128MB, Voodoo 3 3000). The restriction is
> this pathetic dialup I have here. Bet there wouldn't be half the compaints
> about it if they had a "full screen" mode rather than windowed.

Considering what it does, it isn't really nice at all. It could probably be
much better.

>
> Interesting discussion, but I think we're going to have to agree to
> disagree. Shame no-one else wants to join in.

Agreeing to disagree is ok, but only as a last resort, or on things clearly
subjective (blue is a nice colour).

Rolu

>
> Grims.
>
>
>
>
[View Quote]

Jan 7, 2001, 5:00pm

They wouldn't because this would give a huge riot. If they want to wipe
AWprime, they'd do it in a sneaky way. And besides, the size and amount of
stuff in AWprime is a nice thing to brag about to large companies.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 7, 2001, 8:04pm

Moderation sucks way more than someone posting something stupid now and
then.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 10, 2001, 1:44pm

erm. netstat is a very common tool. Shutting up when you have a security
problem and hoping nobody will notice is lame and dumb. People *will* find
these things out eventually, sticking your head in the sand will only buy
you some time if you are lucky.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 10, 2001, 7:47am

[View Quote] Not always. I have an 800x600 LCD here, and when I run something at a lower
resolution, I can choose to have the picture enlarged (which blurs it a
bit), or have a black box around it. Depends on what you prefer. Of course
you can also just run it in the natural resolution of the screen.

> So obviously, this would be a very bad choice to use
> with 3D gaming glasses.

I found that the blurring sometimes actually improves the picture quality in
games.

> As far as monitor size goes, I would go with at
> LEAST a 17" monitor. I've read reviews of 3D gaming glasses that
> basically implied "the bigger the monitor, the better the experience."
>
> Dennis13: What brand/type of 3D gaming glasses are you getting? 3D
> shutter glasses? Glasses from http://www.i-glasses.com/? Some other
> type?
>
> -Builderz
> Has been a citizen since 1995 and wishes he had a copy of the AW 3.1
> beta =)
>
[View Quote]

Jan 9, 2001, 9:43pm

[View Quote] I think the pk's may tell people to stop spouting vulgarities at awgate, and
also kick them out when they behave like assholes. But this process should
*never* be automated by a bot or something. And a "bad word" every now and
then is not a problem, imho. Filtering sucks, just mute someone if he annoys
you, and above all don't pay attention. Censorship is very bad, of course,
but kicking ill-behaving people out of awgate is not censorship, but more
like cleaning up.

There are imo different ways to say those words. To give an example:

"That book fell on my head, and now it hurts. That sucks." This is
completely ok, imo.

"You suck." This is meant in a personal way, and not polite at all. I don't
think this is ok. You may say it, but people won't like you, and it's a good
reason to be kicked out of somewhere. There are much better ways to tell
someone you don't like him.

> 1) The peacekeepers do a lot more than tell people to back off with the
> vulgarity. They have helped me and my friends out numerous times when
> settling domestic disputes over land and what should be put on it or be
> taken off of it.

Seems like good work. Seems like a high-risk job on pissing people off too.

> 2) The Gatekeepers also do more than stand around the gateway of a world
> and eject people who annoy them. They help out the tourists and get them
> oriented with using AW. Think of what would happen if a bunch of tourists
> ransacked you with tons of questions because you just happened to be at
the
> AW GZ at just the right time!!! It's annoying, and you wouldn't be able
to
> eject them.

ya, so? You wish to eject a ton of tourists because they ask questions? You
can always just bail out to another world if you get into such a situation.
I, for one, wouldn't mind to be in such a situation, see how much answers
you can give as fast as possible.

> 3) If censorship in all its forms were to be banned, the porn industry
> would move right in to "aw."

Porn made VHS tapes big... maybe it can do something for AW too :-) The porn
industry *is* a multi-billion dollar industry, whether you like it or not.
But people who can't handle it should be able to shield themselves from it.
We already have world ratings, so that's pretty much ok.

> Some of us don't want that trash littering our
> streets.

porn != trash (and != means "is not equal to")

That's just your view. And you don't have to worry, any porn would probably
be x-rated, just don't go to x-rated worlds. AWprime and AWgate are both not
x-rated, so you wouldn't have to worry there.

> For those of you who are saying that "aw" is big enough for
> everyone, I would just like to remind you that there is a reason that
worlds
> are rated G through NC-17.

whatever that rating means... there are many rating systems all over the
world. Rate yourself the way you like best.

> 4) "Most people are ejected for saying an innocent cuss word, not
> harrassment." There is no such thing as an innocent cuss word.

Now what would be non-innocent about them?

> Usually
> when someone says a cuss word, they mean to say it.

No, they mean to express something to others. And they use the words they
think are appropriate to do so. Unfortunately, other people can see those
words in a different way. Some people are raised with the idea that "shit"
is a word someone should be hanged for, and other people learn that it is a
usual word to express frustration. When you put those people together, you
get problems.

> And there are children
> around here, you know.

That's one of the lamest arguments used around this topic. As if children
don't use cuss words themselves. And even if they hear one, they won't die
or become an instant criminal or something.

> The language should be kept toned down around Ground
> Zero's at least.

Sure. People harassing other people should be kicked out, as this clearly
spoils the fun for someone. And it doesn't look good when people are cursing
all around.

> If that optional filter Shred talked about was actually
> put into AW, I doubt a first-time user would know how to turn it on.

If it was on, it wouldn't work well. It would either filter out too much or
not enough. There are almost an infinite different ways to spell some of
those words, and if that doesn't work you can always start in another
language.

> Believe me, I work at a computer store, and you don't know how computer
> illiterate some of the smartest people I've ever met can be.

I know some tech stories :-)

> 5) AW is not the ACLU. ACLU says that they are not "anti anything."
> That's absolutely true. Anyone remember that NAMBLA fiasco? For AW to
> succeed, it needs limits, or it will alienate part of its user base (in
> which case this means the kids who have parents monitoring their Internet
> usage.) Alienation = less profits.

hm... I know some other things they might want to do too if they really like
the profits coming from their users.

> So in conclusion, Shred has it all turned around. The reason for Active
> Worlds doing so poorly is not because of censorship,

Censorship is just something stupid hanging around. I don't think it's the
reason for AW doing poorly either. (on the other hand, AW doesn't do all
that bad either... it just could be so much more)

> it's because the idea,
> while good, was not implemented correctly. Protagonist has more to say
> about that at awnews.com.

quite right.

>
> Chris.
>
>

Jan 9, 2001, 10:00pm

[View Quote] That has something to do with those weird people from the Victorian age.
They were completely affraid of anything that had to do with body functions
and nudity, and therefore banned anything that relates to them. Before that
time there was nothing weird about them.. Other cultures don't really mind
about body functions, but have other topics, like diseases or so that are
taboo. Things like "shit" and "fuck" are *not* bad, they are *made* bad by
society, in some countries more than in others. And because people had to
talk about these things anyway, they usually make up euphemisms - other
words or expressions - and use them as something that is "polite". Whether
or not a word is bad or whatever is just something most people in the
society deceide on, yet most people don't even know they do. They just do it
because everyone does, or because they are raised with those idea's.

> 5) Gee, and here I thought AW was supposed to be about *not* having
> limits, about having only your imagination (and AW development :P) to
> limit you. As for alienation, what about alienating all the people who
> abhor limitations on their creativity/expression? AW was practically
> tailor-made for these kinds of people. I think you'll find that they
> vastly outnumber any group of "parentally-controlled kids". (Exactly how
> many kids in here do you think have their parents watching what they do
> in AW, anyway?)

Ever noticed how people always want restrictions and limits to control
*other* people? It's always "I don't want *them* to do this-or-that because
*I* think it's bad".

> It has always been my belief that there is only one person who knows
> what's good and bad for you, and that's yourself.

There are some restrictions. Society always overrules the individual, so if
you think killing little sheep is ok, and everyone else thinks it's not,
it's considered "bad" and you should not do it or people will get angry at
you. (btw, I do not advocate killing little sheep here, it's just an
example)

> If you don't like what
> your reading, stop reading it. If you don't like what you're seeing,
> stop looking at it.

And if you have a happy little place where nobody does something you don't
like, and suddenly people come in and do things you don't like, you'll get
angry. Even if you think they are coming, you'll get angry.

> The idea of forcing your ideas and beliefs on
> someone else just because you feel you are just and right is ludicrous.

Quite so. Usually people don't even know *why* they are just and right.

> Censorship, after all, is the root of all ignorance. Keep that in mind.

Yup.

Jan 9, 2001, 10:04pm

[View Quote] Give the people who want to talk about porn their own chat room, and
everything's ok.

> for a chat comunity to survive their must be rules and they must be
followed
> if they are not followed the person must be punnished in some way
> if you dont follow the rules in aw then you should be ejected

AWcom can do this because they own AW and therefore make the rules. The
rules are here to make sure the kind of people they don't want in here are
kept out.

> i my self dont see rules as sensorship maybe you and others do thats all
> amatter of opinion

If the rules tell you not to talk about something, it is censorship, since
that is what censorship is (amongst others)

Jan 9, 2001, 10:11pm

[View Quote] AW is owned by AWcom, so they make and enforce the rules. Since they are
based in the US, it will probably be US rules.

> and to put it another way in the us we have laws to protect kids from porn
> and the like if you do not censor some one for cybering in public in a g
> rated world maybe we should just let any one go and by a porn mag or go to
a
> xrated movie even if they are 8 9 10 years old. while were at we could
make
> child porn legal

child porn is illegal because it usually goes hand in hand with child
molesting. And since the adults involved usually have a strong influence on
the children, they don't have much choice. Therefore it's bad for the
children. This is not censorship, it's a law to prevent children from sexual
abuse.

> as thats a form of sensor ship as well it just happens to
> be to protect children from harm just like aws rule of noprofanity in g
> rated worlds. yes childporn is a hundred times no a 1000 times worse than
> some one cussing but where do you stop when not sensoring?
> do you stop at allowing foul language or cybering in public in a grated
> world or do you just keep going?

"where do you stop" is always a valid question. But it shouldn't be a reason
to not to do anything, just make it very clear for yourself where you want
to stop. And never loose your original goal.

> we have rules in aw for a reason that reason being to protect children and
> any one else from hearing what they do not want to hear if i wanted to
hear

How do you know they don't want to hear those things?

> public cybering i could go to a xrated world so i dont see aw as sensoring
> any thing there are world from g to x rated that is not censorship in
the
> least.

It *is* censoring.

>
[View Quote]

Jan 13, 2001, 7:10pm

[View Quote] You could do it on a smaller scale with normal objects. For example, you can
put a large wall just outside someone's property, and then turn it 90
degrees. Or you could block roads this way.

Rolu

> Casay
[View Quote]

Jan 14, 2001, 8:04pm

what the heck are you talking about? From the collection of words you wrote
there I get the idea you have a problem with something, and you think 3.1
will solve it? Who are "the shaw guy and the intel guy"? What exactly
doubles the system requirements for what exactly? And how will 3.1 solve
that? Who told you a newer version will work? Could you please save your
crap writing style for some obscure usenet newsgroup, and *try* to write
something other people can understand?

[View Quote]

Jan 15, 2001, 1:55pm

You don't need a big HD for high speed internet, if that's what you are
saying.

[View Quote]

Jan 15, 2001, 1:55pm

At least you produce readable english text.

[View Quote]

Jan 15, 2001, 1:55pm

....then change it...

[View Quote]

Jan 15, 2001, 1:55pm

Talking about detail. Let's examine the headers.

Post 1 (of which afm claims he didn't write it)
Newsgroups: community
References: <3a620fc9 at server1.Activeworlds.com>
<3a6219f0$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com> <3a621fb3$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com>
<3a6228e4 at server1.Activeworlds.com>
Subject: Go Fuck A Donkey
Lines: 4
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.68.170.5
Message-ID: <3a623805$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com>
From: "agent fox mulder" <jarync at home.com>
Date: 14 Jan 2001 18:36:37 -0500
X-Trace: 14 Jan 2001 18:36:37 -0500, 24.68.170.5
X-Authenticated-User: agent fox mulder
Path: server1.Activeworlds.com
Xref: news community:3299

Post 2 (where he claims he didn't write above post)

Newsgroups: community
References: <3a620fc9 at server1.Activeworlds.com>
<3a6219f0$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com> <3a621fb3$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com>
<3a6228e4 at server1.Activeworlds.com> <3a623805$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com>
<3A623A20.51B3C50F at acsu.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Re: Go Find A Dictionary! (was Re: Go Fuck A Donkey)
Lines: 5
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.68.170.5
Message-ID: <3a626092 at server1.Activeworlds.com>
From: "agent fox mulder" <jarync at home.com>
Date: 14 Jan 2001 21:29:38 -0500
X-Trace: 14 Jan 2001 21:29:38 -0500, 24.68.170.5
X-Authenticated-User: agent fox mulder
Path: server1.Activeworlds.com
Xref: news community:3318

Funny. Exactly the same newsreader. Exactly the same IP. About the same
writing style. I think you are lying.

[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 5:59am

Sure of that?

Rolu

--
"Hi, I'm a signature virus. Copy me into your signature to spread the word."

[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 6:32am

well I see several zero's in the headers...

[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 5:59am

It's possible - after all, agent did it.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 27, 2001, 11:46am

They only get bashed after they do something stupid. You have to teach them
to behave in some way.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 28, 2001, 9:21am

As I said: when they do something stupid. And especially when they keep
doing it even while we ask them to stop.

Rolu

[View Quote]

1  ...  9  10  11  12  13  14  ...  20  |   Order by default