Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 208
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 8:12 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #208
champ-l-digest Wednesday, February 17 1999 Volume 01 : Number 208
In this issue:
Re: Paying END sporadically
Re: Virus (was: Paying END sporadically)
Unix (was Re: Paying END sporadically)
Re: teleporting through water pipes?!
Re: Virus (was: Paying END sporadically)
Re: Boo! Eeeeek!!! ZAP!!!
Re: Boo! Eeeeek!!! ZAP!!!
Re: Boo! Eeeeek!!! ZAP!!!
Re: Paying END sporadically
Re: teleporting through water pipes?!
Re: teleporting through water pipes?!
Re: Paying END sporadically
Re: Paying END sporadically
Re: Paying END sporadically
Re: Boo! Eeeeek!!! ZAP!!!
Reply-To
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 17:56:44 -0500
From: David_A._Fair@fc.mcps.k12.md.us (David A. Fair)
Subject: Re: Paying END sporadically
susano@otd.com writes:
>Possibly not for long. Macintosh OS X is going to be using a UNIX
>kernal
>as it's base, so it too may be more resistant to viruses. Of course, it
>will still have to deal with the Word Marco virus problem...
OS X is using a unix kernel. Note the capitalization. It does not
contain any x-windowing code, and is therefore not considered to be
Unix. Apple also gets out of paying royalty fees that way.
Thanks,
Dave
- ---------------------------------------------------------
David A. Fair
Montgomery County Public Schools
Office of Global Access Technology
Elementary User Support Specialist
David_Fair@fc.mcps.k12.md.us
- ---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 19:55:22 -0500
From: "Matt Korth" <kalten@sandwich.net>
Subject: Re: Virus (was: Paying END sporadically)
> I know the latest NAI scanner catches it. You can always get an eval
> version from http://www.nai.com assuming our website hasn't gone south
> recently.
Keep in mind, however, that NAI's policy regarding email addresses is that
if they obtain your address, they will send marketing email to it until
you explicitly tell them to stop, and may also sell your email address to
"other reputable organizations." If you don't like that sort of thing,
I'd be leery of downloading anything from their site.
- --M
- --
kalten@sandwich.net http://www.sandwich.net/kalten
Spammers will be reported. All HTMLized email will be deleted unread.
"If I destroy Kansas, the world may not hear about it for years."
--SPECTRE #1 Ernst Stavro Blofeld, _Diamonds Are Forever_
------------------------------
Date: 16 Feb 1999 20:38:56 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Unix (was Re: Paying END sporadically)
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
[Please honor the Reply-To and send responses to me, not the list.]
* David_A._Fair@fc.mcps.k12.md.us (David A. Fair) Tue, 16 Feb 1999 17:56:44 -0500
| OS X is using a unix kernel. Note the capitalization.
Unix is the kernel. A Unix operating system is a Unix kernel plus support
programs and utilities. Unix is always capitalized as such, unless you are
talking about the original Bell Labs UNIX kernel, which is spelled as such.
It is never spelled without at least the first letter capitalized.
| It does not contain any x-windowing code, and is therefore not considered
| to be Unix.
The X Window System or simply 'X' (but never 'X-Windows') is an OS-
independent GUI and network API. X has nothing to do with Unix other than
the fact that Unix was and is the primary development platform. Not having
X does not make it somehow 'not Unix'. In fact, Unix existed for a good 15
years before the dawn of X.
| Apple also gets out of paying royalty fees that way.
MIT X11R6 is freely redistributable and usable; Apple would pay no
royalties to anyone if it used that code. Apple is using its own GUI
layer, which is more akin to the NeXTStep GUI and more in fitting with the
Mac UI specs.
I dunnow who is filling your head with FUD. If I did, I'd whack him upside
the head with a hockey stick.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2yh2wgl+vIlSVSNkRAvIJAJ0RPhDf2UirHhtd0gYfmnnnhIVe4ACg9QMI
XzC7xPjtcDMv79YM69F/bkM=
=s7X6
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special container and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ kept under refrigeration.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:30:29 -0600
From: Lance Dyas <lancelot@binary.net>
Subject: Re: teleporting through water pipes?!
how about buying swimming very very fast.... and desolid only in h20
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 18:23:44 -0800
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Virus (was: Paying END sporadically)
Matt Korth wrote:
>
> > I know the latest NAI scanner catches it. You can always get an eval
> > version from http://www.nai.com assuming our website hasn't gone south
> > recently.
>
> Keep in mind, however, that NAI's policy regarding email addresses is that
> if they obtain your address, they will send marketing email to it until
> you explicitly tell them to stop, and may also sell your email address to
> "other reputable organizations." If you don't like that sort of thing,
> I'd be leery of downloading anything from their site.
Anybody wants to send an e-mail with the subject
"Stop NAI spam" to mmorgan@nai.com.?
Quotes and such will be appreciated since I can't seem to convince
the marketting weasels on my own. Any e-mails I forward will have the
address chopped out.
While I'm at it, I'm looking into the "unsubscribe" option. It's
available, but I want to make sure an unsubscribe is permenant.
- -Mark
p.s. My last input on this subject.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 23:28:06 -0500
From: "dflacks" <dflacks@ican.net>
Subject: Re: Boo! Eeeeek!!! ZAP!!!
>> > On 16 Feb, I could have sworn that Michael Surbrook said:
>> > > So... if I have a character (a 13 year-old girl) with pryokinetic
powers,
>> > > and some of these powers tend to go off if she's frightened or
startled,
>> > > how would I define this?
>>
>> Doing the HERO version of Charlie from _Firestarter_?
>
>Naw, a character from "Phantom Quest Corp"
Great! Are you planning to do any of the other characters, or is Phantom
Quest Corp the inspiration for your character.
>> No Conscious Control doesn't seem right either...that's more for powers
>> that the user has /no/ control over. It might be OK for any portions of
>> the power that /only/ happen involuntarily - i.e. if she's a more
powerful
>> pyrokinetic when it's startled out of her than when she's under normal
>> circumstances.
I thought that the Pyrokenetic girl in Phantom Quest Corp. had no conscious
control. That is why they had to let her get caught before her power was
unleashed. I do not remember anywhere in the Anime where she was able to
consciously trigger her powers.
>
>"Limted Concious Control at -1 has been bantered about.
>
>> Dangit, GURPS has a limitation that does exactly this: I think it's
called
>> Uncontrolled, I think it's a 40% lim, so that would make it about a -1/2
>> in HERO. (The name is kind of a misnomer...the user can use the power
>> normally, but it will also 'use itself' in times of stress...)
>
>That would be perfect!
I like this too for any character with partial control. I have been
thinking of modelling a character on Mai, the psychic girl, and this would
come in handy.
Daniel Flacks
dflacks@ican.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:36:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@dedaana.otd.com>
Subject: Re: Boo! Eeeeek!!! ZAP!!!
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, dflacks wrote:
> >> Doing the HERO version of Charlie from _Firestarter_?
> >
> >Naw, a character from "Phantom Quest Corp"
>
> Great! Are you planning to do any of the other characters, or is Phantom
> Quest Corp the inspiration for your character.
I'm hoping to adapt several of the main characters to go along with all
the other anime characters on my site.
> >> No Conscious Control doesn't seem right either...that's more for powers
> >> that the user has /no/ control over. It might be OK for any portions of
> >> the power that /only/ happen involuntarily - i.e. if she's a more
> powerful
> >> pyrokinetic when it's startled out of her than when she's under normal
> >> circumstances.
>
> I thought that the Pyrokenetic girl in Phantom Quest Corp. had no conscious
> control. That is why they had to let her get caught before her power was
> unleashed. I do not remember anywhere in the Anime where she was able to
> consciously trigger her powers.
I thought she could... didn't she cut loose in the 4th episode? I haven't
seen it in a while (I just got the tapes Sunday).
> >
> >"Limited Concious Control at -1 has been bantered about.
> >
> >> Dangit, GURPS has a limitation that does exactly this: I think it's
> called
> >> Uncontrolled, I think it's a 40% lim, so that would make it about a -1/2
> >> in HERO. (The name is kind of a misnomer...the user can use the power
> >> normally, but it will also 'use itself' in times of stress...)
> >
> >That would be perfect!
>
> I like this too for any character with partial control. I have been
> thinking of modelling a character on Mai, the psychic girl, and this would
> come in handy.
I'll see if that fits.
- --
Michael Surbrook - susano@otd.com - http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"What would you do with a brain if you *had* one?"
Dorothy (Judy Garland), from _The Wizard of Oz_
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 07:55:47 -0600 (CST)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Boo! Eeeeek!!! ZAP!!!
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Michael Surbrook wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
> > Dangit, GURPS has a limitation that does exactly this: I think it's called
> > Uncontrolled, I think it's a 40% lim, so that would make it about a -1/2
> > in HERO. (The name is kind of a misnomer...the user can use the power
> > normally, but it will also 'use itself' in times of stress...)
>
> That would be perfect!
Now that I'm home and have my books:
Uncontrollable -30% (This translates roughly to -1/2 in HERO)
"Your power tends to manifest by itself - even against your will - when
you are angry or excited...Whenever you are under stress (GM's
decision) you must make a Will roll [HERO: EGO roll] to control your
power. If you fail the roll, the GM takes over your power, playing it as
though it were a separate entity of hostile or prankish nature."
[ Hmm, there's an idea...buying it as a Hunted. An...odd idea, but it
could be interesting. ]
"GMs may wish to base the actions of an uncontrollable skill on the
characters "supressed desires" as reflected in his Quirks and mental
disadvantages. Your Power will go after obvious foes first, and will never
turn on /you/, but nobody else is safe." It goes on to suggest giving
another Will roll before the power attacks a dependent or another loved
one.
The rest of it is mostly GURPS mechanics, although it notes that the power
can use Psi skills that you don't even have, which is kind of an
interesting concept. (Any such powers in HERO would obviously be bought
with full No Conscious Control)
GURPS also has 'Unconscious Only' which goes with the above limitation.
It's a -20%, which maps to about HERO -1/4, and it means that you cannot
consciously activate the above power - it only goes off in times of
stress. I'd give it a -1/2 (so the total with 'Uncontrolled' would be -1)
- - even though it's sort of like NCC, the fact that it comes up in
stressful situations makes it slightly more useful than the -2 limitation
for NCC would imply. (I get the impression that NCC stuff comes up pretty
rarely.) The character can always seek out stressful situations, after
all...
J
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:39:07 -0700
From: "Terry Wilcox" <terry@arcane.com>
Subject: Re: Paying END sporadically
>OS X is using a unix kernel. Note the capitalization. It does not
Actually OS X is using a Mach kernel with a BSD layer on top of it.
BSD is Unix, so OS X is Unix.
>contain any x-windowing code, and is therefore not considered to be
>Unix. Apple also gets out of paying royalty fees that way.
X is free and there is no Unix spec in existence that requires X. Unix
existed long before X.
On the bright side, X sucks, so not having it is no loss.
Terry Wilcox
ex-registered Nextstep developer
ex-registered Apple developer
------------------------------
Date: 17 Feb 1999 12:23:05 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: teleporting through water pipes?!
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Lance Dyas <lancelot@binary.net> Tue, 16 Feb 1999 20:30:29 -0600
| how about buying swimming very very fast.... and desolid only in h20
That does nothing inasmuch as 'fitting' inside a water pipe, some of which
are about a half-inch in diameter. Try Shrinking instead.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2yvr5gl+vIlSVSNkRAk/KAJ0SNF+GmK1Pfk3wk4DMIXTt5Kd3MgCfUwtM
B2JEH7tJx4bVsbGC4czkdYg=
=o/j+
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ Earth, presumably from outer space.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 10:51:21 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: teleporting through water pipes?!
>| how about buying swimming very very fast.... and desolid only in h20
>
>That does nothing inasmuch as 'fitting' inside a water pipe, some of which
>are about a half-inch in diameter. Try Shrinking instead.
I allow people with certain sfx of shapeshifting to be able to fit into
stuff like pipes and under doors and such, not quite enough to be desolid.
But in his defense, I suspect he is thinking of the desolid that lets you
ooze through keyholes and such, you know, the "not through solid objects"
desolid, which would probably allow him to do this, and would have other
logical effects (like going through screens or drains).
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:02:44 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Paying END sporadically
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
<snip>
>| Eventually, I expect a major part of anti-virus defense is going to
>| consist of electronically "signing" every app or component made, with
>| the OS checking signatures automatically.
>
>*snicker*
>
>Sun and Netscape have been doing this since Day 2 (Day's Navigator has no
>Java VM).
No, Sun and Netscape have been using low-level checking like CRCs. Not so
hard to defeat. I'm talking about actual one-way hashes, possibly with
encrypted signatures as well.
>Me, I say use an OS that is inherently immune to infection.
Resistant. Not immune. There is a difference. There exist viruses found _in
the wild_ that will infect Unix.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:53:11 -0700
From: "Terry Wilcox" <terry@arcane.com>
Subject: Re: Paying END sporadically
>>Me, I say use an OS that is inherently immune to infection.
>Resistant. Not immune. There is a difference. There exist viruses
found _in
>the wild_ that will infect Unix.
In a decade of Unix administration, I've never come across a Unix
virus.
Why not? There's no standard Unix OS and no standard Unix hardware.
And a virus is only going to bother a Unix box if it has root access.
You might find a virus for a specific Unix, like SunOS or AIX, but you
won't find a Unix virus. The only example I can think of is the
infamous Internet worm, which only hit SunOS boxes and VAXes running
BSD. It didn't affect AIX or HP-UX boxes, both of which are Unixes.
Terry Wilcox
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:31:17 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Paying END sporadically
From: Terry Wilcox <terry@arcane.com>
<snip>
>In a decade of Unix administration, I've never come across a Unix
>virus.
The only virii to be _successful_ in a Unix environment appeared recently,
with the increased popularity of Unix variants on desktop machines.
Specifically, most if not all of these virii run on Linux.
>Why not? There's no standard Unix OS and no standard Unix hardware.
>And a virus is only going to bother a Unix box if it has root access.
And virii have been able to take advantage of security flaws in Linux to get
the necessary permissions.
>You might find a virus for a specific Unix, like SunOS or AIX, but you
>won't find a Unix virus. The only example I can think of is the
>infamous Internet worm, which only hit SunOS boxes and VAXes running
>BSD. It didn't affect AIX or HP-UX boxes, both of which are Unixes.
Technically you are correct; a universal Unix virus does not exist.
Similarly, there are few generic "Windows" viruses; most viruses go after
DOS, Win 3.1, or Win95/98. NT is rarely a target for many of the same
reasons that Linux and other Unix variants aren't; it has defenses such ,
while the others do not; the others are popular; it is not.
However, virii that can infect versions of Unix do exist, and the specific
variant that Rat was bragging about being "immune" has a majority of the
successful ones.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 99 08:56:31
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Boo! Eeeeek!!! ZAP!!!
On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 11:27:58 -0500 (EST), Michael Surbrook wrote:
>So... if I have a character (a 13 year-old girl) with pryokinetic powers,
>and some of these powers tend to go off if she's frightened or startled,
>how would I define this?
>
>Trigger? <trigger being scared or frightened>
>Side Effect? <except that Side Effects are vs you, not them...>
>Phys Lim? <Power X goes off if Y happens>
>Accidental Change? <See Phys Lim>
>A variant of No Concious Control?
>Or just a pre-defined Limited Power?
I would suggest that the key word is 'tend'. Go for NCC at a reduced
level if this is to be a disadvantage.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: 17 Feb 1999 19:59:56 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Reply-To
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
You see, this is why Reply-To headers pointing to a mailing list are a Bad
Idea.
Each time (at least most of them) I have posted to the virus thread I have
included a Reply-To pointing back at myself, specifically so as to remove
discussion from the list. So much for that idea.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2y2YLgl+vIlSVSNkRAs49AJ4uGb/HBuxZTGLq8CJxUHM9yF4LLgCff0Q9
5pYGyrQ/KbWvdHyR9D6mans=
=E/+D
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ head.
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #208
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 10:34 AM