Board ArchivesSite FeaturesActiveworlds SupportHistoric Archives |
alex grigny de castro (xelag) // User Search
alex grigny de castro (xelag) // User SearchWorldSchedule xelagot scriptMay 17, 2000, 6:11pm
For caretakers: the WorldSchedule xelagot script will change your world
attributes (including 3.0 and rights) according to a daily schedule, without editing the script file. You may at will include line-breaks and tabs in your WelcomeMessage specification. You can run it permanently, or once and stop it: it will always check the right time for changing things. See http://www.imatowns.com/xelagot/xlgasex_worldschedule.html for details. It requires the latest version of Xelagot. NaughtsAndCrosses script (TicTacToe)May 30, 2000, 11:30am
Xelagots have a new script: NaughtsAndCrosses (TicTacToe). See
http://www.imatowns.com/xelagot/xlgasex_naughtsncrosses.html for more details. It requires version 2.9999916 or greater. TicTacToeMay 30, 2000, 11:30am
LOL, trying from my second account, seems the moderator does not allow 2
identical posts in different newsgroups: Xelagots have a new script: NaughtsAndCrosses (TicTacToe). See http://www.imatowns.com/xelagot/xlgasex_naughtsncrosses.html for more details. It requires version 2.9999916 or greater. XeiaG Tic-Tac-ToeMay 30, 2000, 11:30am
Xelagot bots have a new script: NaughtsAndCrosses (TicTacToe). See
http://www.imatowns.com/xelagot/xlgasex_naughtsncrosses.html for more details. It requires version 2.9999916 or greater. Bots and PrivacyJun 10, 2000, 8:05pm
Bots and Privacy
I am writing this short essay because I have noticed that even people who are responsible for worlds and world hostings seem very confused about the powers bots have, especially regarding privacy. A bot can do many things better and faster that people using a browser. In fact, bots can sometimes perceive and do things browsers can not do. For example, a bot can detect when someont clicks on someone else, or clicks or selects an object. A bot can also detect who is present within its bot perception radius (the same radius that applies to browsers). But there there things a bot can not do. Here is a list of things which concern privacy: 1. A bot can not read whispers which are not addressed to it. 2. A bot can not retrieve IP numbers, unless its owner's citizen number has eject powers or is Caretaker. 3. Because a bot can not put on privs, even if its owner gets special powers by putting on privs, the bot does not get those powers. This applies to all rights: eject, caretaker, public speaker etc. 4. A bot can not get the url of the object path of a world, unless it is Caretaker. 5. A bot can not get the object password even if it is Caretaker. Bots can log conversations, just in the same way any browser can. Bots can hide their identity just as a citizen/tourist can, by not speaking. These two abilities of bots and people are controversial: why should a browser or a bot log what I say? Well, since browsers can do that, why not bots? More annoying is the fact that some people in public places do not wish to reveal themselves or their names. They may be logging what I say, but I do not know who they are. In fact, it could be people I do not wish to see or have near me. That, I feel, is a greater infringement on my rights of privacy than anything a bot can do. I saw today, in a world that allows all bots, a notice at GZ forbidding bots in that area for reasons of privacy. The penalty: ejection on detection. I have added that world to the file that prevents my bots from entering GZ, but still wonder what sort of reason drives a world owner to allow all bots, but use the argument of privacy for certain areas. Any person or bot that misbehaves can be warned and ejected, but using the reason of privacy to ban bots seems to me to rely on misconceptions. XelaG DON'T CRACKJul 15, 2000, 4:49pm
The latest AW newsletter has the following article:
DON'T CRACK! Get the real story on using cracked versions of the AW Browser. http://www.activeworlds.com/newsletter/0700/070016.html Although I fully agree with the spirit of the article as far as viruses etc are concerned, I fully disagree with the contents. AW has neglected to provide a trans-universe browser, thereby fractalising its own potential community and earnings. Many attempts to change the code of the aw browser are aimed at correcting this behaviour. There is still no way one can use ONE aw browser to surf the multitude of aw based software (not to mention that you can't even interact or load the rendering machine from a web page). The fact aw based worlds are only reacheable by downloading the 1.5 MB files, plus that this action will only work for one universe, handicaps the whole system... You will never be able to organise a multi-system, multi-universe event unless you tamper with aw's shortcomings: that is what most of the efforts to modify the aw browser have been aiming at. Instead of publishing such an article, it might have been much better if aw would have tried to solve (it's not at all difficult to do so, MUCH simpler that trying to push the rendering engine) their universality complexes. AW is worth a lot to users, and promises a bunch... but it still seems to be contemplating its own navel :( DON'T CRACKJul 19, 2000, 2:15am
Hi Agent1,
I am not blaming Roland at all for this. Roland works for AWCI for his money, and does his best. He is not the policy maker, nor does he have the final say on priorities, as far as I know. Who does, I don't know, and I frankly don't care. But many people have a lot of hopes and illusions set on AW, it is by far the best system around. I have been around long enough to see that many many oportunities are being missed because of small and not so small negligences. If AW wants to 'break through', they should try to make their system more available and user friendly. RW 3.0 may be great, and I am full of awe at the effort being done, but it does not favour in any way AW in the short run: it requires restricting software and hardware, by which I mean, AW's potential user base will get smaller, not larger. Do you imagine new people and organisations trying to use AW, for instance for educational purposes, or commercial ones. How do you explain to them: you need to download our very special browser... oh no, not fronm a web page, OUR browser... go delete your cache...download our other browser (AW and Eduverse belong to AWCI, they can't communicate)... no we can't teleport you cross-universe, no cross-universe features... well no, no interaction between your WWW browser and AW unless it is the imbedded browser... no streaming audio nor video, no support for new technologies... oh sorry, only wav and midi... please don't have your bots query the universe server for citizen numbers, sorry we can't provide them automatically, no not even the acting citizen number - no, no inmediate identification... All these things may seem trivial, but you can not explain them to outsiders who inquire about how to use this system, and you can not implemaent very basic commodities required by potential users :( The focus still seems to be: THE Active Wordls universe, THE Active Worlds browser. The bot SDK, a wonderful acquisition, still thinks, looks, acts the browser way. In fact, we have in the bot SDK a sub-set of the browser SDK... as if that was the limit to what should or could be achieved. It all depends on the policy making department, not on the programming department. Alex :( [View Quote] > Roland tries very hard to implement features in new releases of AW. In fact, I find him to be the one that that actually interacts > with the community the most out of all of the AWCI members. > > Anyway, if people need to crack the browser to do something, then I'm sure AWCI (or at least Roland) would want to implement it. > This way, people wouldn't need to crack the browser at all. > > -Agent1 > [View Quote] DON'T CRACKJul 19, 2000, 2:15am
Hi Agent1,
I am not blaming Roland at all for this. Roland works for AWCI for his money, and does his best. He is not the policy maker, nor does he have the final say on priorities, as far as I know. Who does, I don't know, and I frankly don't care. But many people have a lot of hopes and illusions set on AW, it is by far the best system around. I have been around long enough to see that many many oportunities are being missed because of small and not so small negligences. If AW wants to 'break through', they should try to make their system more available and user friendly. RW 3.0 may be great, and I am full of awe at the effort being done, but it does not favour in any way AW in the short run: it requires restricting software and hardware, by which I mean, AW's potential user base will get smaller, not larger. Do you imagine new people and organisations trying to use AW, for instance for educational purposes, or commercial ones. How do you explain to them: you need to download our very special browser... oh no, not fronm a web page, OUR browser... go delete your cache...download our other browser (AW and Eduverse belong to AWCI, they can't communicate)... no we can't teleport you cross-universe, no cross-universe features... well no, no interaction between your WWW browser and AW unless it is the imbedded browser... no streaming audio nor video, no support for new technologies... oh sorry, only wav and midi... please don't have your bots query the universe server for citizen numbers, sorry we can't provide them automatically, no not even the acting citizen number - no, no inmediate identification... All these things may seem trivial, but you can not explain them to outsiders who inquire about how to use this system, and you can not implemaent very basic commodities required by potential users :( The focus still seems to be: THE Active Wordls universe, THE Active Worlds browser. The bot SDK, a wonderful acquisition, still thinks, looks, acts the browser way. In fact, we have in the bot SDK a sub-set of the browser SDK... as if that was the limit to what should or could be achieved. It all depends on the policy making department, not on the programming department. Alex :( [View Quote] > Roland tries very hard to implement features in new releases of AW. In fact, I find him to be the one that that actually interacts > with the community the most out of all of the AWCI members. > > Anyway, if people need to crack the browser to do something, then I'm sure AWCI (or at least Roland) would want to implement it. > This way, people wouldn't need to crack the browser at all. > > -Agent1 > [View Quote] DON'T CRACK!Jul 15, 2000, 4:50pm
The latest AW newsletter has the following article:
DON'T CRACK! Get the real story on using cracked versions of the AW Browser. http://www.activeworlds.com/newsletter/0700/070016.html Although I fully agree with the spirit of the article as far as viruses etc are concerned, I fully disagree with the contents. AW has neglected to provide a trans-universe browser, thereby fractalising its own potential community and earnings. Many attempts to change the code of the aw browser are aimed at correcting this behaviour. There is still no way one can use ONE aw browser to surf the multitude of aw based software (not to mention that you can't even interact or load the rendering machine from a web page). The fact aw based worlds are only reacheable by downloading the 1.5 MB files, plus that this action will only work for one universe, handicaps the whole system... You will never be able to organise a multi-system, multi-universe event unless you tamper with aw's shortcomings: that is what most of the efforts to modify the aw browser have been aiming at. Instead of publishing such an article, it might have been much better if aw would have tried to solve (it's not at all difficult to do so, MUCH simpler that trying to push the rendering engine) their universality complexes. AW is worth a lot to users, and promises a bunch... but it still seems to be contemplating its own navel :( DON'T CRACK!Jul 18, 2000, 1:27am
--------------FB04BC253507012D7A0DBD17
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No, not really. To be able to cope with various universes, AW would need to incorporate a few very simple features. They would have to make, for example, a unique naming convention for universes (as for worlds within a universe), and separate folders for each universe, to hold the cache, help and messages folders appropriate for each universe, and the universe ini files and splash files. They could add a 'shared' folder for files used by all universes, or use the program folder for that. They would need to add a bit of code to their program to manage these options. If my xelagot bot has it, why can't AW do it? Not a priority, I guess, on against their policy, or maybe for the same reason why they have never added a 'clear this cache' button (that seems to be the remedy for most of the problems as far as aw technicians are concerned).... who can guess ? Anyway, their lack of interest in furthering this line of action is really their problem. I do not need to show them the way (nor could I) they have specialists working there... I can only give my opinion based on my experience in 2 and a half years AW. Alex. [View Quote] > Well.. couldn't one just goto their 'aworld.ini' file, type in a new > section celled '[universe]' then enter a host address or port number > to access another universe?. Saves that download time and only takes a > few seconds. It's a rather efficient way to travel across different AW > universes, without a large download...Seems simple enough? (Not to > mention obvious) M u n k u y "Alex Grigny de Castro (XelaG)" [View Quote] --------------FB04BC253507012D7A0DBD17 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> No, not really. To be able to cope with various universes, AW would need to incorporate a few very simple features. <p>They would have to make, for example, a unique naming convention for universes (as for worlds within a universe), and separate folders for each universe, to hold the cache, help and messages folders appropriate for each universe, and the universe ini files and splash files. They could add a 'shared' folder for files used by all universes, or use the program folder for that. They would need to add a bit of code to their program to manage these options. If my xelagot bot has it, why can't AW do it? Not a priority, I guess, on against their policy, or maybe for the same reason why they have never added a 'clear this cache' button (that seems to be the remedy for most of the problems as far as aw technicians are concerned).... who can guess ? <p>Anyway, their lack of interest in furthering this line of action is really their problem. I do not need to show them the way (nor could I) they have specialists working there... I can only give my opinion based on my experience in 2 and a half years AW. <p>Alex. [View Quote] </body> </html> --------------FB04BC253507012D7A0DBD17-- |