Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
Dale Thorn wrote:
Igor Chudov @ home wrote:
stop spamming the list thorn ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What the hell is this?
That's an illustration that it is easy to post things that look autogenerated, but are not. On the other hand, it is possible to autogenerate things that look non-trivial to a novice.
I'll agree readily with the latter sentence, but not with the former, if a fairly large number of variations are involved. After all, who would bother with that much precision typing?
I am not so sure that it really was precision typing. (and would like to look at evidence)
One gentleman from a third-rate educational institution is known for sending tons of lisp-generated articles to one of the moderated newsgroups, just to annoy moderators. They do look like they are created by someone with a rudiment of inteligence.
Yeah, that's the goal of the spambots. They're actually useful tools for combatting the elitist parasites, er, tenured professors who troll these net forums so much. Problem is, the sheeple get confused about who's doing what to whom...
The paragraph above reminds me of The Right Reverend Colin James III. He was also trying to combat elitist professors. That is a long and happy story. I think that a perfect spambot is possible and is a great exercise in programming. It is also a cool and very creative idea, and as someone suggested earlier, it can be created on the basis of cbcb. The net result of the spambot would probably be a huge scandal and lots of people leaving usenet. Some of them would be tenured professors. I see few people who would benefit from it though. Along the lines of poetry festivals and spambots, I may suggest this. When I was 16, I wrote a prose writing program in Pascal. It read a long text and created a table: as the key, it had pairs of words, and as the data, it had list of all words that follow the pair in the index. The table was generated by a single pass through the source text, where there was a moving 3-word window and first two words were used as the key to the third word. The window moves one word at a time. The program then attempted to generate intelligent-sounding garbage, in the following way. It started with a random pair of words from the source text. It then looked up the table and selected(**) the word that was most frequently used after these two. Then a moving window moved one word right to the next and took the last word (which was just selected) and the word before last as the key into the table, and did that ad infinitum. The loop repeats indefinitely. The text that results looks like it was written by a schizophrenic -- it is more or less correct grammatically, uses more or less compatible words and seems to make sense, but the meaning seems to evade the reader. It is an extremely strange and annoying feeling. (**) The problem with this algorithm is that after a while, it starts looping. To fix that, the process of selection needs to be randomized somewhat. The possibe randomizations are obvious. To apply this to poetry and following-up spambots, it can do the following [besides forging headers, etc]: for each message, read it, create the table, and follow up with "I agree" and a schizophrenized version of the quoted article. It can also use USENET as a bigger source of the triples. I strongly suggest to build one table per newsgroup and not mix diff. newsgroups together. This way, spambot posting to comp.lang.eiffel would talk about Eiffel and contravariance, and a spambot posting to soc.culture.russian would talk about lying homosexual purebred sovok forgers. If we think about it for long enough time, this algorithm guarantees that spambot-generated messages will always be on topic in the newsgroups that are being spammed. That is going to perplex people very much. - Igor. ``In my final assault to save time for all men to have Eternal Life, I had to face eons of time limits (negative micro-split second, split second, etc., time limits) since I was born at Hanceville and could only make ten mistakes in one locality or else it would have been over for all men in Eternity as they would have been exterminated in the spirit and dead forever in a lethal deadly proton.'' ``u.s. atty d.blair watson returned my call today,thank you, he received a letter from ok. atty general office referring my info to him about gardner ks 8-10-95. i talked to watson today 3-5-97 watson told me that its not against the law for a federal operative to intimadate a person from entering the u.s.federal courts building, i find that hard to belive but thats what he said, i guess what one person considers intimadation a other person might not,i told him about the part of the setup were it appeared a person was going for a gun,when joe t*** pulled towards the FLAGED car and about hit it,its like well did you see a gun? no....was i supposed to? would it matter if i had? what if they shot at me and missed? i think watson missing the point, if watson knows why congress voted to stop wiretap authourity from expanding,he would check out joe T***''