CleanSlateBot2.ocx

[MyndFyre]

Also they were right in saying that I "SHOULD" be able to program both ways, but I program THIS way because this is the way I know how. Like I said before, if someone was kind enough to release SampleBNLS in the past, what is so wrong with doing it again? From what I see, thats a chance to get branging rights.

The reason why is this.

Only one person wrote SampleBNLS.  I don't know who it is, and I don't know if the person who would post it or send it to you is.  Nobody wants to support it or work through it with you.  It's much easier on the rest of the community if you ask "why doesn't this work (provide example here)?" than "how does this work?" and asking for general information that is already available.  For instance, the BNLS protocol specification can be found here (I have the URL memorized because I've linked to it so often) and it has the most complete reference to the way BNLS works.  As an electrical engineer, you essentially create I/O protocols to interface between the processor and your component(s).  This should be much more straightforward to you than it is to an application programmer - it took me many months to fully grasp what was going on (so that it didn't "just" work like "magic" when I finally got it to).  Incidentally, once I did understand it, working with I/O requests in my assembly language course (not to mention IRPs in Windows driver development) became MUCH clearer.

So now you know.  And the thing is, it's not that we're lazy, but it's because if we give you what you want the way you want it, it'll encourage others to do the same.  Then we'll have people who know how to bring code together from a lot of sources but don't really know why it works.

Also - when you're talking about a group of people and utilizing a helping verb to describe an action or condition in the present - it's "they're," not "there."  "There" is a place, "their" is a posessive plural gender-neutral pronoun, and "they're" is a contraction of "they are."

[Hdx]

First of all I want to ask, if someone was so nice to realease SampleBNLS before, how come someone won't do that again with the nessesary corrections to get it going again?

Because the person who released SampleBNLS isn't here anymore (IIRC, But I cant remember who wrote it)
Also, Nobody I know liked that person releasing SampleBNLS, We as a community DO NOT like people who leech.
If you are smart enough to do the things you say you are smart enough to know how to update SampleBNLS yourself!!!!!

To get back to Kp, EE's there not programmers. Well they are and there not at the same time. They do program but not to the same extent as a true application programmer would. For example, say you get a brand new video card for PCI Express 16x in your computer. It would be the responsibility of the EE or the Comp. E' to develop a series of working functions that would let an application programmer trigger and use that hardware. You don't often see an EE's writing some graphical code for an user to use. Now, i'm not totally up to date with my programming, like I have never worked with .NET before but I do know VB6 quite well (and earlier versions of basic) and C/C++. I have many books in programming such as stuff for Power Basic, C/C++, VB6, VHDL/AHDL and when they have a function in it that is similar to what I am doing (and I won't lie to you because I haven't yet and I am not about to start), then I will copy out that function into my code and use it and credit for it,

This is not what you should do -.-
Yes modularization (sp?) is good, but only when it is written in that way. Not when you just hack things together.

after all, why re-invent the wheel when it still works just fine?

You're not re-inventing it, you are re-treading it.

As for the binary bot I had before, that started out a fue years ago, and all this time, all I needed to do to keep it working was to tweek 1 little byte in my code (the version hash),

Do you mean the Version BYTE?

I have never done anything with a bot other then have 1 bot sit in a channel and do a fue commands that I wipped up to do what I require it to do. Most of the time it would just keep my illigal accounts active.

Then why the hell do you want to make  your 'own' bot?

Now that bnet hashing is different, I require the use of BNLS. Now, I don't know why, but for some reason, getting BNLS to work to so that I can use the same bot to do what I require it to do isn't as easy as it was to just get a regulare binary bot to connect.

Thats because you jsut stole the code from someone else without understanding it.

I figured, that "IF" someone were to do what I said in previous messages,

KP provided exactly what you wanted. There is the code you want, now use it.

I could get BNLS to work on a bot in windows, which I can transfer the same idea/principals to a microcontroller since they require a completely different programming structure.

WE HAVE GIVEN YOU THE IDEAS/PRINCIPALS!!!!

Also Like I said before, if someone was kind enough to release SampleBNLS in the past, what is so wrong with doing it again?

This would allow shitfaces like you to be able to just once again leech code. This WAS/IS a BAD thing. It was bad when SampleBNLS was released, it is still bad now.

From what I see, thats a chance to get branging rights.

Whats the point of bragging that you allowed a flood of noobs to think they can program?
You have been givin more then enough information to get everything you need done. Now stop ebing a lazy fuck and USE THE INFO!
~-~(HDX)~-~

[topaz]

I sure hope all electrical engineer-to bes don't think like you do.