1) A method is posted.

2) Tester is made.

3) We reach conclusions.

---

Ideally, we end up having a library of systems/methods to test

It is up to fellow members to discuss upon the methods and test them.

Coders in the community would ideally provide the programs for their analysis to be done (myself included).

We end up enjoying the process from the first posting of an idea to the conclusion after testing them, perhaps making some tweaks on the way, and some would even ed up playing the method if it suits them.

Well, that's how I think the site should work 

I see one problem

The author of the system may have put in countless hours hand testing and thinking--up all night sometimes.

The creator of the tester uses his skill and time to create the tester.

A whole lot of other people may benefit without having done a single thing!

I feel the author of the system should get nothing nor pay nothing.

BUT

Before a programmer sits down and works his a**e off doing this, he should have a payment coming his way.  Those who pay--get.  Those who don't can beg others for it.

This is the real problem with systems, authors and tester-creators--a lot of undeserving people might benefit.  OK, someone might just come up with the tweak that makes the plane fly--I know that.

Both Ralph and Victor are creating programmable--what?--bots, testers, clickers.  I'll never be able to use one as I won't take the time to learn the programming.  But I would pay someone to do it for me.  But then it should be mine and the programmer's.

I just don't like the idea of a boat load of people going to Heaven with only two rowing the boat.

Sam

I get you Sam.

Yes, we are aware every coder out there is free to charge what s/he wishes or even charge nothing at all... As to me, I'm devoting time to create what I believe is the best way, an "all-in-one" (tracker, tester, clicker and bot) which is extensible to any method.

While single trackers and the odd clicker can be given for free, this framework isn't going to be given away. It is intended to be distributed to subscribers, accompanying the $5.99 membership for the site.

Ralph, Normy, Ophis, Stef and any other fellow coder can charge as they please, but that's how I envision my framework: everyone puts up a little (their subscription) and they (subscribers) benefit as a group, so -as you can see- I'm with you on this one; there won't be only two people rowing, but the paying subscriber group as a whole

Cheers.

And how do you keep ol' Joe from giving it to ol' Jack and then it's on Ebay?  Some a*****e is making money off your work and idea.  And there ain't a thing you can do about it.

Have you heard of Copy Minder?  With that, your work is safe.  No copying or even changing computers without the author's permission.  If I could do what you guys do, this is how I would protect my work.

I once had an idea that gave a company a million-dollar government contract.  You know what I got?  Fired!

So you'll excuse me if I find the "Grail" and keep my mouth shut.  I don't even trust my dog, let alone anyone else!

Sam

Quote from: TwoCatSam on November 28, 2012, 05:58:19 AM
Both Ralph and Victor are creating programmable--what?--bots, testers, clickers.  I'll never be able to use one as I won't take the time to learn the programming.  But I would pay someone to do it for me.  But then it should be mine and the programmer's.
I just don't like the idea of a boat load of people going to Heaven with only two rowing the boat.

That's why when I'm making private bots I'm implementing authorization only computer/person which is authorized by bot owner (person who ordered the bot) can use it.

Bot owner also gets small program with which he can authorize or ban specific computer/person.

This idea may be soon expanded to the level where only users registered (subscribed) to this forum can use specific program and/or functions.

When I was making S9 bot (this unlucky which you had so many problems with, because it was compressed by default to enchance security, and this made your antivirus crazy because he didn't knew what he was dealing with) this was discussed with FlukeyLuke as to authorize only people which have donated.

End result was that this bot just like a system become free for all.

Sam,

I don't see the problem.

If somebody orders a bot for a system that he thought of

then the bot automaticly is only owned to 2 persons (customer and maker)

So there is no way that somebody else could use that bot unless that the customer is sending it to someone else.

Or am i seeing something wrong here 

Quote from: Ophis on November 28, 2012, 07:15:32 AM
When i was making S9 bot (this unlucky which u had so many problems with, because it was compressed by default to enchance security, and this made your antywir crazy because he didint knew what he was dealing with) this was discussed with FlukeyLuke as to authorize only people which have donated.
End result was that this bot just like a system become free for all.

I agree with you Ophis and I would not make that mistake again. Besides it doesn't cost much if a few people who are interested chip in.

Quote from: Stepkevh on November 28, 2012, 08:37:38 AM
So there is no way that somebody else could use that bot unless that the customer is sending it to someone else.
Or am i seeing something wrong here 

Well... what if system designer which to share this bot with one other person and later this person will break the agreement...
then the bot could spread...
like "i got a secret, i will tell you but don't tell anyone else" (and later everybody knows but no one speak about it)

...that's why authorization directly controlled by bot owner is a good solution,
because if someone want to run the bot on another computer, bot owner need to approve it... else it just won't start and/or delete itself.

Quote from: VLS on November 28, 2012, 06:11:36 AM
I get you Sam.

Yes, we are aware every coder out there is free to charge what s/he wishes or even charge nothing at all... As to me, I'm devoting time to create what I believe is the best way, an "all-in-one" (tracker, tester, clicker and bot) which is extensible to any method.

While single trackers and the odd clicker can be given for free, this framework isn't going to be given away. It is intended to be distributed to subscribers, accompanying the $5.99 membership for the site.

Ralph, Normy, Ophis, Stef and any other fellow coder can charge as they please, but that's how I envision my framework: everyone puts up a little (their subscription) and they (subscribers) benefit as a group, so -as you can see- I'm with you on this one; there won't be only two people rowing, but the paying subscriber group as a whole

Cheers.

Well put and 100% 

If more  than ONE person know a secret then it is  no longer a secret.


Nathan Detroit

My bot will not run without permission from my server. It is not the same as I will charge for the bot, but I do not want anybody selling it. Users with permissions can use it. In one or the other way we want some control of our property.

Ophis,

that permission thingy sounds interesting.

somebody has some info on how to implement such a feature ?

The way I do it is 2 fold, 1st check is the hard drive number of the users machine, I get this via a setup script then hard code it into the bot, I also create a MySql user account on my server and tell the bot to check they exist, if they don't, it won't run.

I see a new branch of tort law arising here!

I am glad to see there are safeguards in place.

Sam