THIS MY CLUB

MAKE MONEY FROM THE INTERNET

People are making money off the internetRead on and you'll be amazed. Keyword is High Yield Investment Programs (HYIPs). I'll start you off by talking about my main program for starters, for some of my other programs look at links to your left.Whats this program? 12 Daily ProIts one of the good High yield investment programs, there are a couple of other good ones, but its the top of the pack right now.Hmm another scam? Well if you call me making almost $30000+ profit to date(Jan 4, 2006) a scam? With over 230,000+ members, 12Daily Pro is far from a scam.$30000+ profit? you're kidding right?Nope, not at all, as you are reading this, I'm racking in profits, $30,000 and its only been 3.5 months!! Mind you I started Sep 15, 2005, people have been in it since it started in May 2005, and are past the $150,000+ profit mark!Ok ok, so pls tell me more about this 12daily thing?Check out how many people are doing it, and getting paid here! You want to make money online right, see others doing it right now! http://www.12dpsupport.com/smf/index.php?board=5.0http://www.12dpsupport.com/smf/index.php?board=5.0Still skeptical? Check this out, the minimum you can put in is $6 to buy an upgrade unitSo I've to put in my own money? Basically autosurfs have been in existence for at least 3yrs now. Its like you giving your friend money for investing and they pay you back with interest. They get the capital, and invest it to make money for you and them, no different from what any investment company does. Also, people also pay them to advertise their websites for you to surf. All you have to do is click once and the timer navigates itself through the website. Voila you're all done! Infact just to show you my confidence in this one program, if you cant afford to put the $6, I'll send you the $6 to put in, so you have nothing to lose.Ok so whats the real deal with 12daily? Well you surf 12 sites a day for 12% interest for 12days. After the 12 days, the upgrade amount expires, and you get paid within 5-7days. So if u invest the minimum of $6, you'll get a payout of $8.64, which is 12% of the $6 you invested each day *12. I started with $300, and I made $432. My 2nd upgrade was $1500, and I made $2160, thats $660 profit! My most recent upgrade was $6000, and I made $11,000 which is all profit, since my initial investment I put in there I've removed.You can have 2 upgrades running at the same time, as long as its less than $6000.Wow thats a LOT of money, are you for real? Hecks yeah, infact look at a screenshot of my payments till Nov.So can anyone do it? Yes anyone, the company is based in North Carolina, USA, but members are all over the globe from Asia to Europe. Infact they are holding a big convention end of February 2006, which should draw thousands from around the world.So how can I start? 1)First go here to 12Daily and register for an account. You can only have 1 account, they delete fraudulent accounts!2)Now you must select a payment processor to add money to your 12Daily account and also so they can pay you! Initially, there were 2 options to choose from. Stormpay and EgoldI started with stormpay(SP), because it seemed easier, could get money directly from my bank account and then when i get paid get it put right back if i wanted and some people use it on here for the online convenience. Initially their fees were about 7% of whats paid to your SP account, and I realized that with my big investments, i'd be paying about 7% in fees compared to e-gold, which quickly adds up. Now Stormpay just reduced their fees Dec 05 to 2.69%, if you become certified and pay $19.95/yr!! To certify your account (email address) go to NetIba. You can fund using your debit/credit card/checking account using Stormpay. UPDATE!!! As of Jan 7, 2006 12-daily is no longer accepting E-gold. There's a new payment processor in addition to Stormpay, its called EMO(Electronic Money Order)I love EMO, I have used it since Nov 2005, it enables me to print out money orders from the convenience of my home :) I ordered their secure money order paper. The best thing is if you use it, you wont pay any fee to receive money from 12daily!!!I'm still using E-gold for other programs(send an email for other great paying progs), and for that, you first go to www.e-gold.com and set up an account, andI then found a trusty exchanger company known as The Bullionexchange www.thebullionexchange.com based out of Salt Lake City, Utah (people living in other countries can find out on the 12daily forum for exchangers in their country)where i could fill out the form on their website, go deposit the money in their bank accounts (they have bank1 and wells fargo ), you dont have to be members of these banks and they would credit my e-gold account within a day. Now when I get paid to my e-gold account, all i'll have to pay is 74 cents to receive!! SP is great for 12daily though as they are paying faster with SP. When I also want to cash out of my E-gold account, I use bullionexchange as well for their fast and prompt service and they mail me a check within 2-3days of requesting it. I also signed up for a wells fargo account online, because thebullionexchange can do same day deposits if you have one there! I also use EMO www.emocorp.com which is 1% to transfer, its safe, and hacker proof because you have your own individual access keycard in addition to a password. From my EMO account, I can print out electronic money orders from the convenience of my home in seconds, and transfer money to my checking account as well as have checks mailed out!Remember if you cant afford to, or dont want to use your on $6, I've a couple of free offers to put in the $6 for you!!Wow this is so much info right? Not to worry, here's my email address Drmoney4u@gmail.comSend me an email, and I'll guide you through it all, I'll teach you just how I was able to get my $1800 that I started with in mid Sep 2005 to turn into $33000+ profit,which is what it will be by end of January 2006! I've made around $8000 profit in the past month alone!! Mind you I'm a medical student, if it can work for me, it can definitely work for you. I will also let you know of other progs that I'm also making money from. I use my profit money from 12daily to turn into these progs, adding another couple of thousands to my account every month.Get in while you can, I'm now averaging $7000-$8000/month in just 3 months!!

THE NINJA RPG

free but not easy

A friend pointed out to me that the Free Software Foundation's "Practical Guide to GPL Compliance" as some intriguing details. One, in particular, caught his eye.
Most people familiar with open source understand that distribution of modified open-source software compels that the modifying party to make source code available for the derivative work. However, as the Free Software Foundation points out, there is no obligation to make it easy to compile source code:
The GPL contains no provision that requires distribution of the compiler used to build the software. While companies are encouraged to make it as easy as possible for their users to build the sources, inclusion of the compiler itself is not normally considered mandatory. The Corresponding Source definition - both in GPLv2 and GPLv3 - has not been typically read to include the compiler itself, but rather things like makefiles, build scripts, and packaging scripts.
In other words, source code must be available, but the onus isn't necessarily on the code author to pave the way a perfect binary. I personally believe that it's in the developer's interest to make it as easy as possible to compile as the benefits of open source start the moment the receiving party can contribute and participate in the code, but it's not a requirement.
One other thing that caught my eye was the Free Software Foundation's clarification as to whom a code author must distribute her source code:
...[GNU General Public License (GPL)] v2 § 3(b) requires that offers be "to give any third party" a copy of the Corresponding Source. GPLv3 has a similar requirement, stating that an offer must be valid for "anyone who possesses the object code". These requirements indicated in v2 § 3(c) and v3 § 6(c) are so that non-commercial redistributors may pass these offers along with their distributions. Therefore, the offers must be valid not only to your customers, but also to anyone who received a copy of the binaries from them. Many distributors overlook this requirement and assume that they are only required to fulfill a request from their direct customers.
This is the language that allows, for example, CentOS to take Red Hat's code and redistribute it. Lost in this language, however, is an increasingly common business practice to only distribute source code to one's immediate customers, and to impede the right of redistribution through a separate contract. Regardless of the validity of such contracts, it is absolutely the case that very few downstream business users of software have any interest (or even internal policies that allow) in software redistribution.
As such, companies could make their software available as open source without any material concern that their source code will be redistributed and modified, if such is their concern. (Of course, if this is a concern, why bother using an open-source license at all...?)
I encourage you to read the Free Software Foundation's compliance guide. It makes a lot of things about the GPL and its affiliate licenses easier to understand.

free but not easy

A friend pointed out to me that the Free Software Foundation's "Practical Guide to GPL Compliance" as
A friend pointed out to me that the Free Software Foundation's "Practical Guide to GPL Compliance" as some intriguing details. One, in particular, caught his eye.
Most people familiar with open source understand that distribution of modified open-source software compels that the modifying party to make source code available for the derivative work. However, as the Free Software Foundation points out, there is no obligation to make it easy to compile source code:
The GPL contains no provision that requires distribution of the compiler used to build the software. While companies are encouraged to make it as easy as possible for their users to build the sources, inclusion of the compiler itself is not normally considered mandatory. The Corresponding Source definition - both in GPLv2 and GPLv3 - has not been typically read to include the compiler itself, but rather things like makefiles, build scripts, and packaging scripts.
In other words, source code must be available, but the onus isn't necessarily on the code author to pave the way a perfect binary. I personally believe that it's in the developer's interest to make it as easy as possible to compile as the benefits of open source start the moment the receiving party can contribute and participate in the code, but it's not a requirement.
One other thing that caught my eye was the Free Software Foundation's clarification as to whom a code author must distribute her source code:
...[GNU General Public License (GPL)] v2 § 3(b) requires that offers be "to give any third party" a copy of the Corresponding Source. GPLv3 has a similar requirement, stating that an offer must be valid for "anyone who possesses the object code". These requirements indicated in v2 § 3(c) and v3 § 6(c) are so that non-commercial redistributors may pass these offers along with their distributions. Therefore, the offers must be valid not only to your customers, but also to anyone who received a copy of the binaries from them. Many distributors overlook this requirement and assume that they are only required to fulfill a request from their direct customers.
This is the language that allows, for example, CentOS to take Red Hat's code and redistribute it. Lost in this language, however, is an increasingly common business practice to only distribute source code to one's immediate customers, and to impede the right of redistribution through a separate contract. Regardless of the validity of such contracts, it is absolutely the case that very few downstream business users of software have any interest (or even internal policies that allow) in software redistribution.
As such, companies could make their software available as open source without any material concern that their source code will be redistributed and modified, if such is their concern. (Of course, if this is a concern, why bother using an open-source license at all...?)
I encourage you to read the Free Software Foundation's compliance guide. It makes a lot of things about the GPL and its affiliate licenses easier to understand.some intriguing details. One, in particular, caught his eye.

Most people familiar with open source understand that distribution of modified open-source software compels that the modifying party to make source code available for the derivative work. However, as the Free Software Foundation points out, there is no obligation to make it easy to compile source code:

The GPL contains no provision that requires distribution of the compiler used to build the software. While companies are encouraged to make it as easy as possible for their users to build the sources, inclusion of the compiler itself is not normally considered mandatory. The Corresponding Source definition - both in GPLv2 and GPLv3 - has not been typically read to include the compiler itself, but rather things like makefiles, build scripts, and packaging scripts.
In other words, source code must be available, but the onus isn't necessarily on the code author to pave the way a perfect binary. I personally believe that it's in the developer's interest to make it as easy as possible to compile as the benefits of open source start the moment the receiving party can contribute and participate in the code, but it's not a requirement.

One other thing that caught my eye was the Free Software Foundation's clarification as to whom a code author must distribute her source code:

...[GNU General Public License (GPL)] v2 § 3(b) requires that offers be "to give any third party" a copy of the Corresponding Source. GPLv3 has a similar requirement, stating that an offer must be valid for "anyone who possesses the object code". These requirements indicated in v2 § 3(c) and v3 § 6(c) are so that non-commercial redistributors may pass these offers along with their distributions. Therefore, the offers must be valid not only to your customers, but also to anyone who received a copy of the binaries from them. Many distributors overlook this requirement and assume that they are only required to fulfill a request from their direct customers.
This is the language that allows, for example, CentOS to take Red Hat's code and redistribute it. Lost in this language, however, is an increasingly common business practice to only distribute source code to one's immediate customers, and to impede the right of redistribution through a separate contract. Regardless of the validity of such contracts, it is absolutely the case that very few downstream business users of software have any interest (or even internal policies that allow) in software redistribution.

As such, companies could make their software available as open source without any material concern that their source code will be redistributed and modified, if such is their concern. (Of course, if this is a concern, why bother using an open-source license at all...?)

I encourage you to read the Free Software Foundation's compliance guide. It makes a lot of things about the GPL and its affiliate licenses easier to understand.