Slashdot Mirror
Profile of an eBay Scammer
prostoalex writes "FastCompany is running an article about Jay Nelson, whose primary income source for about 5 years included selling goods on eBay. Considering that he chose to skip the delivery, the profit margins were at an all time high. Under the names of biggerthanu, harddrives4sale, diamondsoft, yoshiinc and susancutey Nelson would collect five-digit PayPal payments from the buyers on eBay and Yahoo Auctions."
fp, and thats all i have to say about that
no need to scam ebay when you can scam SLASHDOT
fp
nth post!!!!!
!st Post
Instead of exploiting the moderators sheep psycology, why don't you write something that DESERVES 5, insightful. I declare you moderate anything todo with, law encforcement, india, stockmarket, sco and the economy -1, redundant, including this post.
oh damn! I was ripped off by this guy...
i won this auction from this loser and never received the goods!
.. he could become the next goatse.cx guy when he's out of prison in 2007.
This shit is not funny. Please metamod unfunny. My jiahd against bad moderators continues. See my journal
LOL that was actually funny, unlike the other +5, tripe on slashdot.
That shit IS NOT FUNNY! If I get this post in the meta moderator I WILL MOD IT UNFUNNY! Please stamp out 5, funny for good. It may not give you karma, but it does lead to a skew of the moderation system.
He's probably one of the suckers who bid on something.
HE GOT SCAMMED BECAUSE HE SIGNED UP FOR SLASHDOTS EAEARLY POST-READING SYSTEM!
YUO R SO SMRAT!!!
Rawr. No using caps. It is like yelling! Still too many caps. What's your problem lameness filter? I was yelling! Not much logic.
first post
We maintain this free software definition to show clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be considered free software.
``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
The freedom to use a program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job, and without being required to communicate subsequently with the developer or any other specific entity.
The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is ok if there is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program (since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to make them.
In order for the freedoms to make changes, and to publish improved versions, to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software.
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give cause, the software is not free.
However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it protects them.
Thus, you may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable, if they don't effectively block your freedom to release modified versions. Rules that ``if you make the program available in this way, you must make it ava
Now it's "$CO sux". EBay scams? "$CO sux".
Give it a rest. It's not working.
Someone needs to apply a red-hot iron poker to this site's operator's cornhole!
I think the Linux kernel is immune to that. Maybe if we cracked his website and installed a warezed Microsoft Windows 95 compressed to 4MB and also install a warezed Microsoft IIS 5.0 server to serve the webpage, then he'll screem when ANYONE ever so LOOKS at his cornhole.
SCO would love to hire this guy!
This sig intentionally left blank.