Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!apd.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Apd" Newsgroups: alt.computer.workshop Subject: Re: FORGERY Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 12:31:14 +0100 Organization: ad hoc Lines: 96 Message-ID: References: <3498b3a9-2a15-47d2-9b60-91099ce06c8co@googlegroups.com> <1421306b-b952-492e-89f3-186d153cbff6o@googlegroups.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 11:32:24 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: apd.eternal-september.org; posting-host="825cf2b1603e0e003ea15e0d4e946f69"; logging-data="27025"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/2R9FJW6FkvVkgrQ8zQNnQ" Cancel-Lock: sha1:r+pPg0qiJGw7P9LNugGDpxr4AIc= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Bytes: 5673 "Snit" wrote: > On 6/16/20 6:08 PM, Apd wrote: >> "Snit" wrote: >>> Apd wrote: >>>> No I didn't say he changed topics. The talk about code in general was >>>> directly related to the topic of the bot code itself. >>> >>> How? >> >> You were talking about the output the flood-bot generates. You said >> one had to see the code. Diesel said you don't need to see the source >> code to "determine what the program most likely is, if the programs >> output can be sampled". He then gave a 'not-seeing-the-source-code' >> example of how a program disassembly, despite looking nothing like >> its source, will reveal what the program is doing. > > And example that was not relevant to the topic (assuming he did not have > the executable program). That is what I think happened, too... he just > moved from saying what he could tell about Carroll's flood bot code to > speaking about general methods even ones that were not relevant. It was relevant in that it was an example of being able to discover things about code (the bot code or any other code) without having the original source. >> I would probably have used a different example to do with examining >> the output. However, what he wrote was all in context and there was no >> topic change or implication of having the flood-bot source. > > But if he was not sticking to the topic of the bot as I was, as I was, > then he changed the topic to not be just about the bot and its code. It was relevant to the topic which was not changed. >> See Diesel's post: >> >> http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=158278349300 > > He split things up a bit there. Here it is with more complete context: You've posted that several times already. The complete context is in the link I gave which is his reply to you and includes this text (yours) and more. > > ----- > I will grant that it seems like an obvious "next step" to > have the bot break apart sentences and respond to > keywords, but that is more my thing that Carroll's (I do > it with my chat bot). So if I were to make such a bot, > yes, I would want it to do that... but does Carroll even > want it to? I think the main purpose is Google seeding... > and it does that well. > > Without knowing more of the purpose we cannot say if the > output shows the code to be good or not. One has to see > the code to know that. > ----- > > I am CLEARLY speaking about Carroll's Usenet flood bot and that code > alone. No other. I am being specific. Yes, and you are saying the code rather than the output has to be seen in order to say if the code is up to scratch. > Diesel responded with (in part) -- the post you pointed to: Before that, and in response to you saying the code has to be seen, he wrote: "One doesn't have to see original source code to be able to determine what the program most likely is, if the programs output can be sampled". Then he provided the example of not seeing the source... > > ----- > Do you think when you disassemble something that you're > provided the original source code that was > compiled/assembled by the author? You aren't, what you're > given looks nothing like the original source code, but it > still tells you *everything* about the program. > ----- ....which is an example of determining what the program does without having the source code. > Assuming Diesel did not have the executable to disassemble, he is NOT > speaking of of the topic I was: Carroll's Usenet flood bot. He has > changed the topic. The topic is the same and what he says is a response to you saying the code has to be seen.