|
aule // User Search
aule // User Search
Jul 21, 1998, 4:53pm
If any limit is imposed retro-actively, then I would request that all
the property in AW be deleted (Yes, a comet strike). I give just one
example of why: LittleBull. Just one section of his southern forest
covers over 1.5km² that's approximately 22,952 objects (just to cover
the area mind you, not the trees, lakes, bridges, buildings, etc. that
are also there). This is not the only location that LB built, nor is it
even all the area built in and around that forest by LB. Which
properties of his go and which stay? AWHS and friends worked hard to
"save" such properties from the NAC to tourist conversion once already,
must it essentially be done again? Where does one draw this arbitrary
line of 50,000 objects?
[View Quote]Dthknight wrote:
>
> I think any limit on building would have to be in LAND AREA COVERED, not
> in objects. Some of the more prolific builders who have indeed built
> good things have probably crammed what they can into each area and so
> have not taken up too much actual space, but possibly used a lot of
> objects.
>
> I took the square root of Roland's 50,000 and got 223.61... meaning each
> user would get (if it was land cover alone, in H walks) rougly 2.23km
> of space. I know I have an (unused, unfortunately) area rougly 1km x
> .65m in AW, covered, as well as land cover for two towns (one 1km², the
> other approximately .5km x .4km, although that one is built in by others
> so it's probably not quite as bad.) And I have built other things too -
> I'm not a prolific builder, I would have said an 'average' builder, and
> that's probably pretty close to the limit as it is.
>
> If we all built structures on it - lets say a floor and 2 pieces of
> furniture or other such stuff, for each cell - that's 4 objects per
> cell, instead of just 1... cutting the amount of space dramatically. I
> wouldn't be surprised to hear there's 25,000 objects or something in
> 'big' projects like Mount Bob, for example.
>
[snip]
|
Jul 22, 1998, 3:53pm
Now this is not only a great idea but would make it possible to remove
the telegram traffic from the server!
[View Quote]Eep² wrote:
>
> Thought this would be neat: if the person isn't in AW when a telegram is
> sent, have it automatically rerouted to the email address (as stated in
> the citizen options) and sent as an email (duh). Of course this should
> be togglable.
|
Jul 29, 1998, 12:15pm
Using Netscape or Outlook for your email? Better have a look at this:
<http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,3441,2123238,00.html>
Jul 29, 1998, 8:26pm
[View Quote]Paul Barrow wrote:
>
> That only applies to Local Area Networks and the hacker has to be on the
> local network. Can't be hacked by remote (as the article itself says).
>
|
Close but wrong, you're thinking of the privilege elevation attack on
NT. My post is regarding the email clients mentioned further down the
same article. See also <http://www.slaughterhouse.com/pick_072998.html>
for further information on the subject (this article deals with Outlook
only).
Jul 30, 1998, 2:54pm
Correct, if one is using Outlook one has to work at it to allow this to
happen, should a "malicious" email be received in the first place. For
Netscape users, the problem is easier to trigger.
Quote
For Netscape Mail users, malicious code can be launched by simply
highlighting the message -- without launching the attachment or opening
the message -- and then accessing the File menu, Cooper said.
End Quote
Right now it takes a bit of know how to produce a "malicious" message.
However, like Winnuke, how long before a GUI "Nuke your neighbor"
appears allowing anyone to create them in a few short steps?
[View Quote]Raven Shadow wrote:
>
> But still threat is fortunatley limited
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------
> Outlook Express users and Outlook 98 users who are installed with an
> Internet Mail Only configuration or with an Internet Mail service in a
> corporate/workgroup configuration are at risk. They can be affected when
> malicious code is sent in a message and they highlight the name of an
> attachment, right mouse click on it and then move the mouse over the
> attachment, Cooper explained.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------------------
>
> The "bug" is still only a threat under certain conditions
> But , of course one should always be safe and get the fixes ... no telling
> what else these problems could be capable of
>
> Outlook Express users and Outlook 98 users who are installed with an
> Internet Mail Only configuration or with an Internet Mail service in a
> corporate/workgroup configuration are at risk. They can be affected when
> malicious code is sent in a message and they highlight the name of an
> attachment, right mouse click on it and then move the mouse over the
> attachment, Cooper explained.
>
> Aule wrote in message <35BFA1A5.D14A9086 at utah.uswest.net>...
|
Jul 30, 1998, 9:37pm
[View Quote]grover wrote:
>
> oh man! how do we stay safe from this one?? (i have a jumperless motherboard,
> paul!)
>
> grover
>
> Paul Barrow wrote:
>
|
Just to help further the paranoia (note, check your harddrive for CIH
using the link at the bottom).
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,3441,2123156,00.html
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/zdnn_smgraph_display/0,3441,2122748,00.html
http://www.antivirus.com/vinfo/alerts.htm
http://housecall.antivirus.com/
Jul 31, 1998, 5:53pm
CIH v1.2- April 26th
CIH v1.3- June 26th
CIH v1.4- 26th of every month
[View Quote]Paul Barrow wrote:
>
> The article I read said July 26th.
>
> Paul
>
> Athena wrote in message <35C1F08F.69CB at neosoft.com>...
> of
> the
> message.
> Win95/CIH......a
> have
> already
|
Aug 3, 1998, 4:06pm
It is, just set it to no limit.
[View Quote]Mauz wrote:
>
> I wish the disk usage limit could be set higher than 999 MB.
>
> --
> Mauz
> http://tnlc.com/mauz/
|
Aug 3, 1998, 6:25pm
**Snicker**, I use unlimited and a 15 day limit...never above 75MB and
there is quite a bit of world hoping done from this machine.
[View Quote]Dthknight wrote:
>
> yes, and have it eat up all of a 2 gig partition? or the whole hard drive
> with Win98? no thank you :)
>
> *happily sticking with his 500MB limit*
>
> Aule wrote in message <35C5FC16.22CB8602 at utah.uswest.net>...
>
> --
> Dthknight - dthknight at earthlink.net - ICQ: 2603180
> Dthknight Central: AW 1875N 2225W
> Home Page: http://home.earthlink.net/~dthknight/
>
> "But the beginning of things, of a world especially, is necessarily vague,
> tangled, chaotic, and exceedingly disturbing..." - Kate Chopin, "The
> Awakening"
|
Aug 3, 1998, 9:33pm
I am obviously forgetting the difference between connections here (modem
vs T1). With a modem you are much better off with a fixed limit and no
expire...my mistake.
[View Quote]Dthknight wrote:
>
> 500MB and no day limit (had been using 60 - but then it was sticking around
> 120MB... When I went into A'tuin it went up to 160MB (yes, 40MB for one
> world!) and I said 'ok I'm gonna make sure this stays forever, or at least
> until I get a new computer'... and took off the 'expiry date' thingy...
> Would use unlimited but not sure how the other apps on that 2 gig partition
> (F:) would take it...
>
|
|