Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 20:35:05 01/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2002 at 23:25:00, pavel wrote: >On January 09, 2002 at 20:00:19, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On January 09, 2002 at 18:10:33, Sally Weltrop wrote: >> >>>nothing agaist Ed but his site does NOT have secured transaction. kind of wierd >>>considering it's 2002 & the potential for abuse abounds out there >> >>Okay, after the xx times the issue has come up again, I will bite this time... >> >>There is no abuse and I will tell you why I will leave things as they are >>although I fear it will be not satisfying or convincing for all but let me start >>with 2 firm statements: >> >>1) These so-called "secured transactions" are a farce. >> >>2) Believe it or not, my way of accepting orders is much safer than the >>so-called "secured transactions". >> >>Why? >> >>First of all you need to understand how an order on the Rebel page works, that >>is, you type the required info and then submit. From the information an email is >>created and directly send to my server all in a split of a second. My provider >>daily handles over 2 million emails. >> >>Now a hacker NEVER is going to search in million of emails, that is insane and >>total non productive. The volume of emails is a guarantee for that. >> >>No, hackers focus on those sites (protocols) where the REAL money is, the SAME >>companies who have introduced the "secured transactions". Millions of people >>daily order on-line via those companies, a real goldmine if the hacker is able >>to hack the protocol, tens of thousands of CC numbers are on the street. >> >>And how many times have you read such stories in the news? >> >>Too much I would say. >> >>Now since 1995 I am accepting on-line orders, no single case of fraud or hacking >>has taken place. All of this (as described above) has made me decide to stick to >>my way, because it is better. >> >>Futhermore my order page offers you (in case you still have doubts) to order by >>fax, I also provide a link to other companies who do support "secured >>transactions". >> >>Ed > > > >I agree that those so-called secured trasaction are not that secured and are >more prone to hacks. But your way is nothing better either. But considering the >alternative, I would stick to your way of trading, because it's less >conventioanl. > >by the way, good luck on rebel century. >You just gave me a reason to buy rebel century and rebel tiger (too). >Pls, just dont port it under chessbase interface. ;) > >pavs On the contrary, I suggest the ACCP (Averno's Chess Communication Protocol) recently described in the winboard forum by Jose Carlos (author of Averno) to link a winboard engine to the Chessbase GUI. It work flawlessly like a charm. It does what it is supposed to do and you will never have a complain that Rebel is working with decreased strength. That's guaranteed. Rebel will be WB protocol II? Miguel ACCP fan, I think that one day I will implement it in Gaviota, my poor engine. PS: If rebel is going to be a WB engine, it will probably be the first engine I will buy.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.