Cybr1d, I believe I know why negative points may be assigned unjustly here, which gives me a chance to bring up one point about this system I really don't agree with. If you assign "too many" positive AntiPoints (as I have), you get a warning saying that you need to assign more negative points in order to achieve balance. I'll bet you that's what's going on. Why is that? Most posts I read are positive, so it's really unfair to try to force me to pick ones to down on.
So this is a really interesting discussion going on here. So, you guys who are the Jedi of AntiOnline -- Is my Trillian idea valid? Would that remedy any possible security holes, or be pointless? I'm just really curious on that (and will be amazed if one of my ideas ACTUALLY works! Ha!).
It's a lot more thorough than msconfig, and will display the quiet processes, as well as other useful information.
February 7th, 2004, 11:06 AM
Whilst you are on the site that Norrisk suggests, pick up a copy of "HijackThis" another good free tool, and you can never have enough security tools?
Phishphreak...................do you realise that just about every US combat plane since the Korean war has had a British HUD..............and who is building the "stick and throttle" assembly for the JSF? So hacking a webcam is well within our capabilities.
Jinxy.......that was a beta prototype I gave you.....you should not have tried it in combat!
February 7th, 2004, 01:43 PM
Angelic, just dont give APs to everyone for making a post :). Instead, if they respond to someone and they're productive, then they deserve APs. As for evening them out, you have to neg who deserves it and not someone else for no reason. Whats the big deal anyways :D, if you assign too many positive APs, then all that means is that next time you assign APs, it wont give the person as much as it would have if you had an even AP assignment. I dont think that really matters much. Hope this answers your question .
PS. Negging someone for a legit question or post makes us all look like a bunch of asses :).