1  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  14  |   Order by default

Feb 23, 2002, 12:19am

Well, worldbuilders and server runners are a tad bit different, some people
who host servers don't necessarily own the worlds now do they? Ananas
wanted to confirm what this was, the best way to do that was to post in the
community newsgroup. Now, if you're in such a bad mood about it, quite
simply, don't read it. Block the darn thread if you want, who cares? Since
you feel the need to point out the moot, your post has nothing to do with
the original point of the thread, it belongs in general dicussion, please
post it in accordance.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 23, 2002, 3:31pm

AW doesn't own the world you payed money for, no. You payed for use of the
browser with your citizenship. Paying for a world is an entirely different
license. And it's yours, not AW's.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 23, 2002, 3:36pm

Why don't you get common sese if I'm an idiot? Do I need to point out that
world builders and world hosters are two *entirely* different group of
people? It's not that it's to argue, it's that our privacy was violated.
Why are you complaining anyways? If you don't want to read it, DON'T. No
one is forcing you to be here, no one is forcing you to read it.

No one said you had to post in this thread either, you have free will there
buddy.

-Silenced

Feb 23, 2002, 4:10pm

What can I say, it makes life interesting. Seems like his key point is to
continue the bickering as well. Why else would he continue arguing that
it's offtopic (when it's not.. people just are sensitive to privacy) and
call me an idiot?

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 23, 2002, 4:21pm

I would stop if we got an apology and a promise that they'll inform us of
any more information that pretains to us or the future browser in which they
need information in any way, shape, or form.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 23, 2002, 5:50pm

Then maybe it's your website hoster? Check google for omegauniverse.com ..
it'll end up with no information. Robots check it daily as well. I've
never submited mine either ;)

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 23, 2002, 11:59pm

Um? What did I say for being "absolutely right." I just said I never
submitted mine. Yours doesn't have any meta tags on it either from what
I've seen, besides the obvious <meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">

That would stand to prove that you or someone you know submitted it. I
don't have the meta tags on mine, it hasn't been indexed either. It's
recommended if you want to be indexed, I didn't want to be indexed at the
moment, so it doesn't matter to me.

The whole point is, why should we have our worlds included in the index? If
we want it to be, they should use a bot privilage that doesn't have rights
to the entire universe. And then they post it on their website, and provide
it in an e-mail to all world owners, if you want your world indexed, put the
bot's citnumber in the allow bot's field. Or better yet, include a webpage
where we can post *exactly* what it is that we want included in an index of
the world.

Why do they even need to do these beta's in secret? What in the world do
they have to hide from us that they can't tell us or send an e-mail? It's
very easy to use that database which sends out the newsletters to send an
e-mail. Then the issue of spam, but oh well, it's better then having things
go on behind your back.

I am sorry if you don't care about these things, but I do. And it seems I'm
not the only one. I hate when people, much less a company, does things
without the knowledge of their users.

It seems that some people like to complain about us "debaters" concearned
with privacy as much as we like to argue and complain. Really, if you don't
want to read it, quite simply, don't. If you don't care that a bot is
indexing your worlds, don't post in this thread. If you're sick of reading
these posts, don't read them. I'm not saying this to you, but to everyone
that is mad that we're trying to find out exactly *why* they need to keep it
secret in the first place, no matter if it is a beta run.

And as for Moff's post.. I don't feel like posting a new message for it, so
I'll say it here since it ties in with, "don't read it if you don't like
it." Although it's true, we do have some heated debates, these newsgroups
are some of the best palces to discuss ideas,problems, and get help. I seem
to notice that moff needed help with something the other day.. what if these
newsgroups weren't here? He might've been asking around a while to find the
answer. If you don't like what is said, I'll say it again, don't read the
darn post/thread. There was no reason to post that, if he's sick of it, too
bad so sad, just leave.

That's my opinion of the whole thing.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2002, 8:08pm

Yeah, that's what I was concearned about, that they didn't tell us they'd be
doing it.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2002, 5:25pm

More like they're the publishing company, and you should have the choice if
you want your work into that book.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2002, 5:32pm

Contract? I don't remember signing a contract. An illegal business practice
is an illegal business practice. (that is using a backdoor to get
information that is not allowed.. ie using a bot when bots aren't allowed)

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2002, 5:40pm

Uh, I'm not crying about it. It's very illegal to use a backdoor to get
information on something. I would just liked to have known if they were
going to do this.. maybe a universe message would've been nice. Why do
people complain about other people complaining? If you don't like it, don't
read it, simple as that. Much less respond to it.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2002, 5:56pm

It's the principle of the thing.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2002, 5:58pm

You don't need to "enlighten" us. You're not the all knowning person, it is
a back door, read one of the previous posts to see why it is. Yes it's
always been there, yes they have access to everything, and yes they always
wil, does this make it right? No, it doesn't, it's supposed to be a last
resort. Why not allow users to have their world indexed if they want it to
be? It's not AWLD1 btw, it's just AWLD.. get it right if you're going to
"enlighten" us please.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2002, 6:13pm

> Hey, I explained this before. Citizen 1 is the owner of the ActiveWorlds
> Universe. In all Universes, the caretaker of the universe may enter any
> world, private or not, allowing bots or not. He has full control of
> everything. You did agree to a TOS when you bought the world. That TOS is
> the 'contract' in this analogy.

Not the owner, but the "caretaker." You don't agree to a TOS when you buy a
world, maybe an agreement if you run the windows server.. but if you run the
unix one.. you don't get that.

> The caretaker of the world and universe can over-ride all the permissions,
> including bots and enter privelages. Citizen 1 is AWLD, which is a
universe
> caretaker and may enter and over-ride any and all privelages that you
> cancel. It is not a backdoor! Are you clear about this? This is not a
> secretive thing? A backdoor is if they had added a thing on your computer
> that opened a port allowing them to connect directly to your computer and
> take information off of it that did not have anything to do with your
> ActiveWorlds World! This information in your rights and privelages and
> features is not private. It is sent out to every person that enters your
> world.

Do you know what a backdoor is? It's something programmed in to allow
unrestricted access to information (in general). It doesn't have to be
secret to be a back door. Allowing access to a part of your computer is a
trojan backdoor, but where do you think these worlds are hosted? On someone
else's computer.. so it's accessing their computer. It still took
information off it, even if it was part of the universe. You're right, it's
not, but the way in which they went about to get it was.

> If you consider that a backdoor, to grab information that is sent to
them...
> then you are a nutcase.

No, it's a backdoor, look up the definition. Do you not realize how serious
this could be? All we have is MrGrimm's word that he didn't do anything,
but we don't exactly know.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2002, 6:18pm

If I was going to take it to court, I'd pick a more suitable reason. Since
this is a newsgroup, I have no need to. And why isn't it illegal? No one's
said anything different then "it just takes things that are already
transmitted." But what about the way they went about getting it? Entered a
world where the owner didn't explicitly give them rights to enter, or
without consent of a world owner. That my friend is illegal. It's someone
else's data on someone else's computer, and is most definately not AW's data
when you host it yourself. Even if they have AWLD's priv, it still doesn't
make it right to violate someone's privacy (which means entering a world
where the owner didn't specificy them to be allowed). If they had asked or
posted something, it would've been fine, but they didn't, they did it in
secret.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2002, 6:21pm

Listen, the way the bot got that information was wrong. A bot and a browser
are two entirely different entities. If the user wanted them to enter and
index, they would've, but they did this in secret, do you think they were
going to tell us until 3.3 came out? "Oh yeah, we did that when you weren't
looking." I've had enough secret's going on behind my back from a
respectable company/

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 25, 2002, 6:44pm

> LOL, maybe they wanted to surprise us a bit with the new features, that is
> why they haven't told us them all iether. Maybe there will be a feature
that
> allows you to not be indexed. Infact, you can delete those entries in your
> world features and you won't be indexed, although the bot will check your
> world features periodically.

Maybe, but I'd rather know what they're doing with my information before
hand.

> When the world server starts, the information showing that the world is up
> and if it's public or private and how many users it has is transmitted to
> the universe server so that they may index all worlds in the world list.
Are
> you going to complain about this too?

Are you really this clueless? The whole point of what I'm arguing is that
they're doing it without my knowledge and using the backdoor that's been
programmed into their software to get that information. World servers
transmitting data to be listed is an entirely different thing. I know about
them doing it, and I'm allowing them to do it.

> If there was no TOS, then there is nothing that says they cannot do this
and
> nothing saying that they can. Therefore they can do whatever is within the
> law.

And it's illegal to gain information through use of a backdoor, unknown or
known.

> I suppose you could consider that little "feature" a backdoor, but it is
in
> no way harming you or your world and does not retrieve any information
> unnecessary for it's uses therefore is perfectly legal.

And it is. It's invading my privacy as a world owner. So if I sent a virus
and you run it and it's transmitting data back, but it's proforming within
it's uses, it's perfectly legal? Although viruses are not the same, what
the awld priv can do, can be considered a virus like entity.

> Microsoft recently upgraded Windows media player. A special thing on the
> media player sent information of what music you were playing to the
> microsoft website. They did not tell anyone of this "feature" and it was
not
> apparent that it was sending the information. After someone found out
about
> this, they made a pettition and Microsoft added a thing in the help
> documentation showing how to remove this if you would like to, although it
> is still default.

Are we talking about Microsoft? No, we're talking about Activeworlds. It
only sends what DVD encoded material you play. I would like to be able to
disable AWLD priv's in my world.. I don't see the option.

> You don't know what will come of 3.3, maybe they will give you the option
of
> disallowing it, but even when they don't, it's legal. If you download a
> program and run it on your machine, it's up to you to decide if it's safe.
> Now that you do know of this, will you be closing your worlds? Probably
not.

No it's not legal, as I stated above and in previos posts. Only one of my
worlds was open to the public.

> Sure, I suppose the principle is in question, but there certainly is no
> logical reason to be angry of this as it causes no harm.

It takes information without my knowing. They should ask before they do
things like this.. I don't care if it's a new "feature," honestly, I don't
like a search feature.. I like to go world hopping and find awesome looking
things.

-Silenced

Feb 25, 2002, 8:22pm

> You cannot disable AWLD! Ok, here's the heap of facts.

I never said you could, you implied this was the same thing as microsofts
little deal.. and they could disable it. So I was being a wee bit sarcastic
in saying I'd like to be able to, but there's no option.. this implying it's
not the same thing.

> Right now, you understand how ActiveWorlds works. AWLD is caretaker of the
> universe and may enter your world whenever it likes, regardless of your
> privelages that you set. A bot uses this privelage password to get into
> worlds so that it may index them into a listing. This same information
could
> be gotten in another way. The world server could send this information to
> the universe server when it is started without using a bot. But then it
> would only update everytime the world was restarted. That would be very
> inconvenient for lots of people, especially for worlds that are always
> populated. So, they have decided to use a bot to do this. You are unsure
of
> the options that will come with this bot yet you are already arguing
against
> it. You first said that you were only debating the principle, now you say
> you are debating your privacy.

Yes, it could be gotten any other way, but the fact they used the bot when
bots weren't allowed is one thing, and they did it without our permission is
another, and they did it without telling anyone is yet another. They didn't
have to use a bot, I'm arguing on what I was told, which wasn't very much..
perhaps if the divulge more information I can make a more educated guess,
but I'm still against a bot indexing worlds without owner consent. I never
said I was only debating the principle, but the principle is that it
violated our privacy and we weren't given the option to not have our worlds
indexed if we so choosed.

> If you know of this 'backdoor' and know how to stop it from allowing this
> 'privacy invasion' than AWCom certainly cannot be held accountable for
using
> the 'backdoor' you have left for them.

There's no way to stop it without knowing the IP of the user that's using
it. This is why they can be held responsible for their actions.

> You say that information will be sent without your knowledge, yet you are
> telling me that there is a "backdoor" and it will be used for certain
> things. Surely, then, it is with your knowledge. So you don't mind if your
> world is listed in the world index that is available right now... does
that
> mean other people don't mind? If someone was against their world being
> indexed as they are now, would you support them because it invades your
> privacy? It is a "backdoor" in your definition. It sends your information
to
> the universe server.

Very very good, the information was indexed without my knowledge or anyone
elses until we were told. That would mean if we didn't post this and
MrGrimm didn't post it was his, that we would never have known. Other
people do mind, duh. That's why everyone is fussing.. just because you
don't care doesn't mean others don't. How does someone else's world being
index violate my privacy? It's only a backdoor if someone else can use it
to access things they shouldn't normally be allowed, but sending information
to the uniserver such as world size and user limit, is part of the function
of the world server. But even that information isn't sent to the uniserver.
The only thing sent to the uniserver is that the world is up, and if it's
open to the public or not. As far as I know.. I've seen hacked worldservers
where they have unlimited users and size.. that would mean that information
is not sent to the uniserver.

> How you like to go through worlds is not in question. You can still "world
> hop", but soon you may search for worlds as well. That option may be more
> popular with other people than you, but what you want as an individual is
of
> no importance to AWCom.

And your opinion is of no importance either. Neither is mine, why do you
need to argue you're right and I'm wrong then? Clearly when you use
something you shouldn't use to get information that's not yours, it's
something that's illegal. Especially without owner's permission before
hand. That's the key point.. the owners did not give permission, had they
have posted this there would've been little or no problem. If you honestly
don't care, stop posting, because the rest of us do care that our privacy
was violated in some way shape or form. If it's my privacy and not yours,
you have no reason to say that I'm the wrong one. Or that AW has every
right to violate my privacy. If you want them to violate yours, go ahead, I
don't care, I don't need you to tell me my privacy isn't important.

-Silenced

Feb 26, 2002, 7:33pm

It can if it has bot rights to enter, but that's the point, this bot didn't
have the right to enter given to it by the >>>owner<<<. Like I said, it
probably wouldn't have mattered if they said they were going to do it, but
they did it in secret.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 22, 2002, 6:58pm

Please filmkr. I know you're upset when people target you, and I don't
agree that agent1 did that. But please just don't add in stuff like
"Observe http://www.heartfall.com/eqrelief/ to see the lengths of his
charity." I know you want to boost your self image, but truely, no one
cares about it. The more you post stuff like this, the less we really want
to read.

I'm not saying this to attack you, I'm just pointing it out.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 22, 2002, 7:28pm

I know, I know, this was an attack on you. He really didn't need to post
that he's going to stop reading or posting because of, as he said, people
like you. Don't attack me for saying that, just implying from his post.
I'm just going to let agent1 go do his thing, and forget about it. It's of
no real point anymore since he's leaving.. that post won't be there for
long, let's just forget about it.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 23, 2002, 1:19am

No you're right.. Tourists can't access AW from last I checked.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Mar 2, 2002, 12:07am

More alone the lines of in a finate universe nothing is possible. :)

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Mar 2, 2002, 12:39am

> already thought of that, although also an opposite(depending on how you
> would define opposites when multiple terms exist, linguistically or
> logically), it doesnt really fit the point.

Maybe a better one would be "in a finate universe, not everything is
possible."

>
> but i still claim that it's self contradictory to claim that "in an
infinite
> universe everything is possible"

Not really :) if it's infinte.. there's an infinite possibility of what can
happen. Thus making everything possible. But that's just semantics and
theories.. we don't know if our universe is finate or infinate.

-Silenced

Mar 2, 2002, 12:49am

Well that's another paradox. No space can be truely infinite. In order to
measure distance it'd need to be some finate size.. if it's increasing in
size it's finite. LoL... But if it's expanding infinately .. well then that
would imply it's never the same size at any point in time.. and since no
point in time is ever the same, the universe would thus be infinite. What a
brain teaser that is. I'd say it's infinte by our standards, but who knows
what it'll be. Just like objects traveling at the speed of light.. they
gain near infinite mass before they achieve it (so I heard) then when they
do hit the speed of light, they go to no mass until they stop moving.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Mar 2, 2002, 1:14am

> hmmmm thats not how i see it re the speed of lite
> once they hit the speed of lite they would be an infinite mass, n from
what
> i have read m sure that when something reaches infinite mass, something
like
> a black whole forms ?

No, that's a singularity. Photons are moving that the speed of light
constantly (they have no mass).. so that wouldn't happen. It might, but a
lot of things move at the speed of light :). So I'd say it's doubtful.


> "I'd say it's infinte by our standards" hmmm not so sure infinate is
defined
> by any standard ;)

I meant by what our minds can think.. it may be like a spherical object of
some sort. Like you hit the end of one side you move back to the other.

> "No space can be truely infinite. In order to measure distance it'd need
to
> be some finate size.. " - thats exactly the point, being infinate means
that
> it cant be measured, it never ends, so would be immeasurable. One other
> point tho, i dont think its just physical size that the quote refers
to.(now
> that one is a brain teaser to explain)

Actually I was referring to it's size.. what else do you want it to include?
:)

> "and since no point in time is ever the same" - not sure we can claim that
> as a known, along with most of our other supposed "knowledge". Kant had
> this all written in some real BIG sentances, was a nightmare to understand
> the guy, but have a read, he explains it at some point in his "Critique of
> Pure Reason" if i remember rightly, something like a chapter called "Time
&
> Space", wait m gonng go check for you.

Actually, time is never ever in the same position.. it's always changing,
that's a fact. :) It's just realitive to us since we measure it on
geological standards. But you can measure to the smallest amount you could
think of like .0000000000000000000001 of a second.. there'll still be
something smaller :). Thus making time never in the same position (it
constantly changes).

> its in "The Critique of Pure Reason", its in section 1 called
> "Transcendental Doctrine of Elements" and there are to subsections , one
> called "Time" and one called "Space", if you read on quite a bit there is
> more on the 2 subjects, but u would have to b a total sadist to read it
for
> too long.
>
> damn that was a mission, had to dig thru a pile of books, hehe they aint
> been moved since i graduated, i reall should clean this place up, 2 years
> lmfao, m surprised the dust hadnt stuck it down to the floor !!!

LoL guess it holds true here too, Entropy, our universe procedes from an
organized state to an unorganized state. :)

-Silenced

Feb 24, 2002, 4:42am

Quick to judge perhaps? My question is, how do you know any of what you
said is true? It's all just maybe's and supposedly's. Oh grand pubah, I am
in worship of your awesome spelling and grammar abilities.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2002, 5:01am

That's what ignorance leads too. If people would not be so closed-minded,
there would be no need to argue.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2002, 5:25am

Ooo, I liked that one.. nicely put. You sumed up everything that's wrong
with the adult mind and blaming it all on "the kids nowadays."

-Silenced

[View Quote]

Feb 24, 2002, 10:53am

I can't post with Bowen, duh. Your point is proven with your ignorance,
thank you. It's the "old man" theorum.

-Silenced

[View Quote]

1  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  ...  14  |   Order by default