1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  13  |   Order by default

Nov 3, 2002, 5:58pm

Terrain ownership system would act very much like the object ownership system:

- Terrain cells would be owned by a specific citizen number (default would be the world owner, of course)

- Citizens can edit and select terrain only if they have eminent domain in the world or if they own the terrain cell(s)

- Terrain cells can only be given away by citizens with ED

- Terrain cells that belong to another citizen may only be changed by citizens with ED

In this way, a terrain editing right shouldn't need to be added to the world rights dialog box. Bots such as Demeter are nice and all, but they get rather tiresome after a while. If this idea or some variant of it was implemented, a bot would only have to change the ownership of a specified area of terrain in order to allow public use of terrain.

Dec 1, 2002, 2:03am

Well, TechnoZeus is still a god even though he is technologically based. Being a modern god, he is naturally omnipresent.

So everywhere you look around, he will be there, replying. No matter where you go, you will not escape his Re:'s sent forth unto Earth from the heavens. He can reply to any post from any poster in any newsgroup made at any date, anytime, anywhere.

*opens closet door* Damn it, TZ, get out of there!

[View Quote]

Jan 4, 2003, 2:00am

Jan 4, 2003, 8:23pm

Considering the fact that global mode bots have to be logged into one of the world's caretaker's (which, in most worlds, number quite few) privileges, I really don't think that this would be a problem.

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2003, 2:03pm

Since presumably the world caretaker will be running the bots that you worry about being interfered with *along* with the global mode bots, then the world caretaker should quite easily be able to have his or her global mode bots not announce the presence of the invisible bots. If the caretaker can't even figure out how to do that, then it seems to me that he or she should do a wee bit of learning.

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2003, 2:26pm

No, I'm afraid that I don't. Most, if not all, of the popular bot programs currently used in Active Worlds have a simple mechanism that can be used to enable or disable public announcement of avatar entries or departures. It's good that you're trying to take all possible factors into account here, but ultimately doing so may not be practical for such small audiences. If the devteam implements this feature, which I doubt, they will decide how to do so in the best way possible.

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2003, 4:47pm

This is one of the reasons that I think that this should be implemented. Since my world is hosted by a friend and I don't have immediate access to the world log, it would be rather difficult for me to know whether there was an invisible bot running in my world or not. There is also the issue of less trustworthy worldhosters than mine simply adding themselves to the caretaker list and running and invisible bot in the world in order to do whatever they like without the worldowner suspecting anything.

[View Quote]

Jan 5, 2003, 5:27pm

Like I said above, there is still a slight but realistic security risk in invisible bots only being detectable by having direct access to the world log, which is cumbersome in itself, or by the invisible bot actually changing the environment and sending out events to other SDK applications.

"This is one of the reasons that I think that this should be implemented. Since my world is hosted by a friend and I don't have immediate access to the world log, it would be rather difficult for me to know whether there was an invisible bot running in my world or not. There is also the issue of less trustworthy worldhosters than mine simply adding themselves to the caretaker list and running an invisible bot in the world in order to do whatever they like without the worldowner suspecting anything."

Besides, they would only be visible to bots logged into global mode. It could even be made into another world option, if the prospect is that disconcerting to you.

[View Quote]

Jan 6, 2003, 11:52pm

Not really. Like I've been saying, not everyone has access to the server that hosts their worlds. If you haven't noticed, the server administration program gives access to all the worlds that the server hosts. Do you think that good worldhosters that host multiple worlds for multiple people are just going to hand out unlimited access to their server and expect to remain in business? If what you are suggesting were to work as a solution to this problem, then the world server administration program would have to be redesigned or at least amended with the capability of limiting remote access to specific worlds on the hosting machine.

[View Quote]

Jan 6, 2003, 11:58pm

Give away their session to what, exactly? Other SDK applications? Even so, invisible bots could sit and simply do something so benign as "spying" on the world.

And, if you didn't know, denial of service attacks are illegal (at least to my knowledge, in the United States - and probably in the UK as well. Check if you like.), so I'm afraid that's a rather weak defense.

[View Quote]

Jan 7, 2003, 9:33pm

Um, I know how to configure the administration program. You're assuming that the worldhoster is running a separate server for each world, which is not usually the case.

[View Quote]

Jan 7, 2003, 9:39pm

I probably did: I have seen the term "nuking" often used to describe DoS attacks, but that is used in a different group of people, or internet culture, I suppose, so the dialect is different. That is why I prefer to use more specific terms when possible. There is less chance of miscommunication taking place.

[View Quote]

Jan 7, 2003, 10:15pm

[View Quote] Well, yes, but that would make me think of a microwave oven, and I didn't think that Strike meant that the bots could be microwaved the death once they showed themselves. It's an interesting idea, though. ^_^

Jan 10, 2003, 10:47pm

Yes, there is a server-level password that allows complete access to the server program. This is obviously an issue that needs to be resolved. I may have been somewhat unclear, but that's what I was trying to say in earlier posts.

[View Quote]

May 31, 2003, 1:48pm

The propdump.exe *used* to be able to read cell.dat files and convert them to propdumps, but that doesn't work anymore. Andras and Ananas both have beautiful utilities that do the job, but there isn't any elevdat2dmp program that I know of.

It would be useful if someone had the time to write one, or, better yet, if AWI would fix the propdump program and implement the same functionality into the elevdump program.

Jun 2, 2003, 2:30pm

Negative on that, Houston. I'm talking about reading _cache_ files and converting them to dumps. The propdump executable used to be able to do this, but it hasn't been updated for 3.4 cache files. You can check the help files - the documentation is still there, but try running the program through a cell.dat file and you'll get gobbledegook. The elevdump utility never had the functionality implemented at all - it won't even try to read an elev.dat file. -_-

[View Quote]

Jun 21, 2001, 12:48am

[View Quote] Bleh.

Now how about getting the names capitalized like they should be in here? :-)

Jun 21, 2001, 3:43am

In the last beta, Roland selected a hand picked group of beta testers. Then,
I think, the first twenty-five people at tech-talk that asked were put on
the beta. I was put on the list because he needed me to test a bug.

Eep is probably one of the most qualified, but he wasn't added to the beta
because Roland doesn't like him (blah blah blah).
That's the way it works. Illogical, random, and irrational.

[View Quote]

Jun 23, 2001, 6:41pm

Testing line length setting:
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Jun 25, 2001, 4:06am

I'm starting to agree with Eep here. Although I didn't know the group would degenerate this much. This group is for general *discussion*.

It's NOT for:

1) Useless HTML posts
2) Useless HTML posts with pictures
3) Things that no one wants to here about
4) Posts regarding your butt
5) Tasteless spamming

.... and the list goes on. Please, people, just use your brain.

Some tips:

Post LINKS to pictures, don't attatch them.
The same thing goes with files.
Post something that's interesting or useful (or possibly entertaining).
Do not post in HTML.

Jun 25, 2001, 4:15pm

[View Quote] [View Quote]
<snipped>

>
> This is the last you posted
>

I made an adjustment to my newsreader and had to test it. Would you have rather me put this in Community?

Jun 25, 2001, 7:16pm

[View Quote] > As you were making a complaint about intelligent and not intelligent posting I thought better to let you know, I am not sure your post is scholar enough for the community NG you would need to revise it a little, for example I would also examine the height and the millimeters to the left and right, I would check font size and make a report to the postmaster before attemting to send your mail, surely it is a way too weird for general.d...I feel like laughing...I can't resist..hold me


I was just making a comment about posting stupid crap like "my butt itches". I guess Nornny is right... it's just a dumping ground for the morons. Goodbye, general discussion. *waves*


--
Shred
Right click, unsubscribe...

Jul 14, 2001, 7:16pm

[View Quote] > I am going to post in html from now on just because I can. I am
> personally sick and tired of this *shit ass* cry baby crap in the NG
> over 1 html post. Now you all can take your ettiquete and opinions and
> shuv it where the sun don't shine. :)
>

Reasons for not posting in HTML:

1) Some people pay by the megabyte and download all messages for offline reading. Point being that 300 1-2 KB post is 300-600 kilobytes, whereas 300 3-20 KB HTML posts could be anywhere from 900 KB to 6 MB.

2) It's inconsiderate of other people who might not be as bandwidth-fortunate as you are.

3) Why waste space and bandwidth simply because it's there? That's Mircosoft's tactic.

4) Quite a few newsreaders do not support HTML reading.

And the list goes on. I'm not trying to whine here; I'm just trying to show you the reasons why I think HTML posting is not wise. So if you decide to insult me, you'll just end up on my killfile.

Aug 18, 2001, 6:01am

[View Quote] > Windows 2000 does not have the general software support for most programs.
> That means if you install a game or image editor, there's a chance that some
> incompatibility with Windows 2000 will goof it up. Another reason why XP is
> "a good upgrade". If you want some good information, wait till you get a
> program that requires XP to run before you upgrade. It might save you a bit
> of money. After a few months you can search for deals on operating systems
> and get them cheaper sometimes.


I've been running Windows 2000 for months, and I have barely seen any software compatibility issues that concerns me. 3D performance actually improved on my machine. A lot of it depends on quality of hardware. I'm not downgrading to Windows XP anyways, because it's another 25% slower than MS' LAST operating system.

Aug 26, 2001, 9:19pm

For those of you that hate the new 3.1 splash screen, Basix converted the
3.0 beta splash screen to say 3.1 and removed 'beta'.

It's at http://zionworld.virtualave.net/31splash.zip

--
Shred

Aug 27, 2001, 1:17am

Eek, sorry about that. Zipped the wrong file (doh).

[View Quote]

Aug 27, 2001, 1:18am

[View Quote] No, it's not particularly new, but it's new compared to the old 3.0 beta
splash.

3.2 is not out yet. 3.2 is in BETA. Huge difference.

Aug 30, 2001, 12:03am

[View Quote] Not everyone can get cable or DSL, moron, and even if they CAN, not everyone
can afford it.

Sep 22, 2001, 3:16pm

[View Quote] And you're replying to... what, exactly? Please don't post in HTML. Please
DO reply in the same thread, and include a quote of what you're replying to.
Try going to a good search engine (www.google.com, for one) and searching
for 'Usenet etiquette' or just 'netiquette'. Welcome to the newsgroups. :)

-Shred

Sep 26, 2001, 9:48pm

[View Quote] 1GHz is not slow by todays standards *pats his 1.2 T-bird*. Hell, how many
people are still out there playing Quake III? A game released in what...
1999? Get real, IA.

And for your information, I have a job, and I built my own damn computer
(and have been doing so for others for some time now).

So, fuck off, and henceforth, consider yourself filtered.

Reasons:
I've watched you act like an arrogant little brat for several days now. Just
because your mommy and daddy never bought you any presents on your birthday
doesn't mean that you should be an asshole.

Good day, sir.
Shred

1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  13  |   Order by default