Newest CSB

[iago]

I can't see why you'd want to use Trillian for IRC anyway...it's an instant messaging client. IRC has a bunch of other features that other programs support better.

I don't see why you'd want to use Trillian, unless you like giving random users the ability to run code on your system (perhaps they fixed this finally, but I'm doubtful).

Laziness and convenience.  Same reason that everybody doesn't run linux

[TheMinistered]

People can send certain amounts of money to cuphead's paypal account as a gift, of course.  Additionally, cuphead can send them the csb ocx for free, as a gift.

[K]

People can send certain amounts of money to cuphead's paypal account as a gift, of course.  Additionally, cuphead can send them the csb ocx for free, as a gift.

Or the csb control could send certain amounts of money to cupheads paypal acount.

[iago]

People can send certain amounts of money to cuphead's paypal account as a gift, of course.  Additionally, cuphead can send them the csb ocx for free, as a gift.

We tried that to sell beer to minors.  It doesn't work.

[Yoni]

I can't see why you'd want to use Trillian for IRC anyway...it's an instant messaging client. IRC has a bunch of other features that other programs support better.

A little known fact is that Trillian started out as an IRC client.
A well known fact, however, is that it really, really sucks at it.
Don't use Trillian for IRC. It's full of major holes that aren't likely to be fixed.
The first thing I do when I install Trillian is delete irc.dll (the second is delete yahoo.dll).

Trillian is fairly decent at other protocols, except for NAT incompatibility and other annoyances on MSN.

[MyndFyre]

ps. Dyndrilliac u can squelch users if they annoy you, im sure blizzard doesnt like the idea of noobs spamming and it was only yesterday, Kenny-Z was asking some user to stop writing in caps, but i dont think blizzard are gonna implement ur idea nor take any note of it

Well, it was a mix of kidding and sarcasm, but that's beside the point. On the issue of charging, it would not go against their EULA if the product your selling is stand alone(I.E, not requiring a Blizzard Product installed to run) because the user is simply using a 3rd party client to logon to a  free public server, not a product that is licensed or endorsed by Blizzard Entertainment(Thus making all agreements void, because the EULA only pertains to the game client).

Edit: You can tell my suggestion was a joke because to begin with it's impossible, but oh well.

Just out of curiosity, are you certain the Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos EULA only applies to the game client?  According to the EULA for Battle.net provided with Warcraft III, you may only have one connection open at a time to Battle.net regardless of how many Battle.net games you own; you may only use the game software to connect to Battle.net; and Battle.net is a private server provided only to the licensees of the games that are Battle.net-enabled.

Additionally, on the note regarding the stand-alone product, I had a question - BNLS uses the actual hash files, right?  You didn't actually reverse-engineer the hashing algorithms, but rather just hooked into the entry points of the hash files and provided an interface to that over the BNLS server, correct?  If that is the case, the client is not actually stand-alone, but using a service that uses the game files at some point along the way.

At least, according to them, the EULA does not solely pertain to the game client.  That is where your, if any, legal issue(s) will arise.

--Rob

[Skywing]

ps. Dyndrilliac u can squelch users if they annoy you, im sure blizzard doesnt like the idea of noobs spamming and it was only yesterday, Kenny-Z was asking some user to stop writing in caps, but i dont think blizzard are gonna implement ur idea nor take any note of it

Well, it was a mix of kidding and sarcasm, but that's beside the point. On the issue of charging, it would not go against their EULA if the product your selling is stand alone(I.E, not requiring a Blizzard Product installed to run) because the user is simply using a 3rd party client to logon to a  free public server, not a product that is licensed or endorsed by Blizzard Entertainment(Thus making all agreements void, because the EULA only pertains to the game client).

Edit: You can tell my suggestion was a joke because to begin with it's impossible, but oh well.

Just out of curiosity, are you certain the Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos EULA only applies to the game client?  According to the EULA for Battle.net provided with Warcraft III, you may only have one connection open at a time to Battle.net regardless of how many Battle.net games you own; you may only use the game software to connect to Battle.net; and Battle.net is a private server provided only to the licensees of the games that are Battle.net-enabled.

Additionally, on the note regarding the stand-alone product, I had a question - BNLS uses the actual hash files, right?  You didn't actually reverse-engineer the hashing algorithms, but rather just hooked into the entry points of the hash files and provided an interface to that over the BNLS server, correct?  If that is the case, the client is not actually stand-alone, but using a service that uses the game files at some point along the way.

At least, according to them, the EULA does not solely pertain to the game client.  That is where your, if any, legal issue(s) will arise.

--Rob

I think you would find it difficult for anyone to prove one way or another what method BNLS uses to acquire the correct version check values without having direct access to BNLS itself.

[Dyndrilliac]

Well, i base what I said on StarCraft, Warcraft II, and Diablo, as those are the only blizzard games I own, so I can't be certain of others. I assumed they were the same. Because many values on Diabo are client sided, it's EULA for most people right off the bat is worthless - because since when is it illegal to edit the memory of an active process temporarily on your own computer that has no effect on the battle.net server whatsoever ("hacks" (patching of ingame memory), and such)? It's similar in almost all cases to Open Diablo II -- The host of the game acts as the server, and since it belongs to him/her, it is beyond the control of Blizzard Entertainment.

On the subject of SC and WCII, using the hash files has no affect on the EULA - because since you don't neccesarily have to install the product to use them, you dont neccesarily have to agree to the  terms of service to aquire or use them in bots or BNLS, making the TOS/EULA completely Null and Void.

[c0ol]

Well, i base what I said on StarCraft, Warcraft II, and Diablo, as those are the only blizzard games I own, so I can't be certain of others. I assumed they were the same. Because many values on Diabo are client sided, it's EULA for most people right off the bat is worthless - because since when is it illegal to edit the memory of an active process temporarily on your own computer that has no effect on the battle.net server whatsoever ("hacks" (patching of ingame memory), and such)? It's similar in almost all cases to Open Diablo II -- The host of the game acts as the server, and since it belongs to him/her, it is beyond the control of Blizzard Entertainment.

On the subject of SC and WCII, using the hash files has no affect on the EULA - because since you don't neccesarily have to install the product to use them, you dont neccesarily have to agree to the  terms of service to aquire or use them in bots or BNLS, making the TOS/EULA completely Null and Void.

While most people dont think EULAs matter at all, its still note-wrothy that the EULA can restrict you from doing pretty much anything because US copyright law states that if the copyright agreement is broken(the EULA) then the holding party can revoke the ability to use. That is atleast how license like the GPL work, im not sure if EULA fall under the same type of contract.

[Dyndrilliac]

Well thats the thing, because to use hash files you dont have to install the actual program or agree to the EULA to use them and then this automatically makes the pact/contract between company and user void.

[iago]

Well thats the thing, because to use hash files you dont have to install the actual program or agree to the EULA to use them and then this automatically makes the pact/contract between company and user void.

Lies!  You can extract them directly from install.exe using an mpq-extraction program.

[Soul Taker]

Well thats the thing, because to use hash files you dont have to install the actual program or agree to the EULA to use them and then this automatically makes the pact/contract between company and user void.

Lies!  You can extract them directly from install.exe using an mpq-extraction program.

I'm pretty sure that's what he was saying, iago.  But how many people would want to use a bot to chat on Battle.net that have never installed a Blizzard title?

[Freeware]

Another suggestion, since so many people are unable to code working databases into their programs (ie: they use some sequential file), make it have a Database property in which you can use an existing access/other database type.

[Skywing]

Another suggestion, since so many people are unable to code working databases into their programs (ie: they use some sequential file), make it have a Database property in which you can use an existing access/other database type.

That is an excellent idea.  Another option may be to add built-in support for Grok's BotNet OCX as a database provider.

[Dyndrilliac]

I'm pretty sure that's what he was saying, iago.  But how many people would want to use a bot to chat on Battle.net that have never installed a Blizzard title?

Exactly - But I for one use bos, and do not play the game or have any Blizzard Titles installed on my machine at the moment because I for one no longer play the games. When you uninstall a Blizzard Product it invalidates the EULA, so because I have none installed their rules and terms of service do not apply to me.