Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


And, just like that, you see the message: (5, Funny)

ultraexactzz (546422) | more than 3 years ago | (#32279988)

"You and 54,972 others like this."

I think BSD acronym needs a change (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280148)

Due to the ever dwindling usage of the BSDs and the ever increasing rabid foaming of the mouth of its users in response to this, I suggest we remake the BSD acronym from the Berkeley Software Distribution to the Butthurt Suckers Distribution. Anyone else in agreement?

Re:And, just like that, you see the message: (-1, Offtopic)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280374)



Next stop - THE POKEY!

Re:And, just like that, you see the message: (4, Funny)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280762)

"big bad bubba poked you. -- poke back"

I don't suggest poking bubba back. He's more of a Top.

Quick! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32279994)

Turn it into a personal-information Security fraud too!

Hating facebook (4, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280252)

How we humans love to tear down success. It's in our social nature. So it's perhaps ironic that Facebook, the top predator in the land of social acceleration, is having a bad week and we are all enjoying the schadenfreude.

That observed, one can realize there are good reasons to hate face book, and overblown ones. Facebook is changing social norms, including privacy norms, faster than the older generations are comfortable with. This could be good in some cases, but there's also can be excellent reasons why traditions became traditions. For example I try to keep a tight hold on my personal information but I can't exactly tell you why I care so much. I just innately think it could come back and bite me. Also it seems a little unseemly to burden others with oversharing. Also people are mean.

My hope is that as the bad reasons get debunked we don't lose sight of the good reasons for hating facebook.

Re:Hating facebook (4, Insightful)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280462)

Well, to be honest Facebook really wasn't the first "community" website, or the first site to have the features that it has, it just happened to manage to become the biggest.

Personally I don't mind congratulating and rewarding whoever first came up with an idea (although almost everything "new" is built on what came before it in one way or another, I doubt there was some caveman who woke up one morning, had some leftovers from yesterday's hunt and then figured out the theory of relativity) but why should we all smile and pretend we admire Zuckerberg just because his site happened to become the biggest? By the same logic no one should be criticizing Microsoft because they, after all, managed to become the biggest. Or IBM for that matter, or any other industrial, political or military giants. Hell, we should all have been congratulating the soviets on a job well done when their nuclear arsenal surpassed the US one (and if some brownnosing people had their way we'd also be rewriting the history books to ignore any US achievements in building nuclear weapons that came prior to the soviet equivalents).

A lot of what is considered "business savvy" these days is really just a matter of some decent knowledge of a subject (but not "OMG NEW EINSTEIN!!1" knowledge, just solid knowledge) combined with luck and timing (and you can get lucky when it comes to the timing, your idea might have been tried by some other guy a year ago when the market wasn't ready for it but now the market is ready for it and since you were unaware of the other guy's failure you take another stab at it, or maybe you simply took longer to complete your product/service and the other guy was actually better than you but ignored by customers/users because the market wasn't ready yet, just because you're "first to market" isn't a guaranteed path to profit).

Re:Hating facebook (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280608)

Facebook pandered to privacy-ignorant college students by offering very unique features. Remember how it used to tell you and all your friends your very physical location when you signed on, and by default no less! People ate that stuff up, and when they realized how bad of an idea that was it was too late; everyone was on facebook, it was the defacto social network for college students.

Re:Hating facebook (5, Insightful)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280840)

To be fair though, back in the days when it required an .edu address to join, Facebook was much more private than it is now. Now, they constantly change their terms of service and make public what was once private. I think that's what has a lot of people upset.

Re:Hating facebook (4, Insightful)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280654)

Isn't there a huge difference between the companies you list (IBM and MS) and Facebook? IBM and Microsoft got big through hard work and smart business behavior and it took them a quite a long time and a lot of persistence. In the case of MS the products may have been crap but they were crap people wanted. for example, to carnoivres steaks are great but they take skill to prepare so there is actually a lot more revenue in hot dogs which we all know are crap but what we love. MS made crappy software but it did in a way that let oem equipment makers mass market the PC at cheap prices. You got what you paid for, but it was designed carefully to be what you were willing to buy.

Facebook seems to have gotten big mainly by chance. like being the only bacteria in the pietry dish. The only savvy they had was realizing the peitre dish was available and rushing to get there first. But because it happened so fast-- basically just at the moment it was technically possible it happened-- we suspect that maybe even they did not realize it. It's like Yahoo, ebay or craigslist. Someone was going to do it. One lucky bacteria got there first.

Re:Hating facebook (3, Interesting)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280978)

Except they quickly beat out Myspace and Friendster; two services that were also free, somewhat popular and relatively equal in basic features. Facebook had an angle (college kids) and they exploited that extremely well, and followed it up by tacking on more mass market features (open apps that led to mafia wars and all the rest).

Lucky? Yes, but then do you think Henry Ford got along on his luck alone?

Re:Hating facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280850)

You don't need to over explain everything. We get what you're saying, and your thoughts are valid. You are compressing your thoughts and it is causing redundancy errors. Just saying...

Re:Hating facebook (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280594)

Humans do not hate success. Humans love a winner. We love deserved success, success that comes from hard work, determination, and smarts. We hate undeserved success, that comes from taking advantage of others. We are social animals, born with an innate sense of fairness. We don't hate success, we hate injustice and unfairness.

Re:Hating facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280864)

ANY innate sense of fairness that we were born with was stomped out long ago with capitalism.

It's nice to think that we still retain such nobility's, but let's not kid ourselves.

Re:Hating facebook (2, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#32281008)

Modern games theory experiments have shown that people will accept harm to themselves in order to punish unfairness and reward reciprocity. We are not selfish actors, we are social beings. Only when everyone around them is acting unfairly, and they have no opportunity to punish unfairness, will most people act selfishly.

Re:Hating facebook (1)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280868)

No, humans pretty much hate seeing other humans succeed in general, deserved or not. It's an emotion allied with envy. The Germans actually have a word for the good feeling you get from seeing successful people screw up: "Schadenfreude."

You're trying to rationalize your emotional reaction to this news rather than interrogate its validity.

Re:Hating facebook (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#32281044)

I don't have an emotional reaction to this news, sorry. And you'll have to do a better job of convincing me that humans hate success. Why do we idolize the rich? Why do we love celebrities, sports stars, great artists, and musicians? I just don't see it, and I think perhaps YOU hate success, and are justifying it with the 'everybody does it' line.

Re:Hating facebook (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280632)

"Facebook is changing social norms, including privacy norms, faster than the older generations are comfortable with."

Older generations? I do not consider myself to be part of the "older generation," having gone to elementary school in the 90s, and I am not comfortable with the effect Facebook has had on privacy.

Re:Hating facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280656)

die beste freude ist schadenfreude.

Some reasons (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280694)

I just innately think it could come back and bite me.

Yes. Identity theft for one. A Facebook profile along with some intense Googling could glean enough information to steal your identity.

Or just sharing your profile. I have a family member that lists her religion as "Pastafarian" or whatever it is for the Flying Spaghetti Monster "religion" - basically Atheist. As we all know, being Atheist is the worst thing you can be in America to most people. If she applies for a job and the potential employer sees that she's an atheist and doesn't like it, she doesn't get a job (illegal?So what. She'll have to PROVE it and they'll just reject her for "lack of needed skills"). Or worse, they preach to her.

I have a hang up about born again Christians, myself. If I hear that someone is one, I run because I'm used to being preached to and harassed by those people to "save" me - and the lack of respect by some of those people for my own believes really pisses me off. Honestly, if I saw that a potential employee was one, I would be a bit hesitant to hire them. Yeah, I'm prejudiced against them, but I have been won over by some as being decent people and they didn't preach to me and they were respectful of my beliefs - at least to my face. But still, you get one kook and it's a bitch to get rid of them.

Re:Hating facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280748)

Social acceleration? Responsible for changing social norms?

You give it way too much credit. Facebook is nothing more than the usual crap, and less than the sum of its parts; IM, scummy games, photo gallery, forum, geocities homepage, but inside a walled garden with scummy ads.

The major reason I hated facebook, was because it was just another channel through which the fucking idiot attention whores who forward emails could bug me.
I was rather dismayed when facebook started to drift towards the defacto way the masses communicate.

And also, facebook ISN'T social. It is ANTI-social. It's pure narcissism. There are far better communication tools out there.

Re:Hating facebook (2, Insightful)

loudmax (243935) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280794)

Personally, what I find worthy of hate isn't the lack of privacy, it's their locked-in system. Users create a web of friends in Facebook, and that web only exists inside FB's servers. Within Facebook you can't link to friends on LinkedIn or Myspace or Buzz or whatever. Protocols [openidconnect.com] need to be used that allow users to link identity across social networks.

As far as privacy goes, it's really a question of how you use their service. For now, you really need to assume that anything you post on FB will be shared with the entire internet. Just as Microsoft eventually figured out how to make Windows reasonably secure, Facebook will probably figure out how to make their privacy settings reasonably simple. Assuming they get it right, what's left to hate? Same as MS: monopoly lock-in.

Remember, folks (3, Informative)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 3 years ago | (#32279996)

While Facebook certainly has been in the press an awful lot lately given growing concerns over privacy issues, this is an accusation, not a conviction. From the article:

The latest unwelcome gift: accusations of securities fraud from former Harvard schoolmates who say he and other Facebook executives tricked them into a supposed $65 million settlement that was actually worth far less.

He may or may not be guilty of anything, so let's try to keep a cool head in the meantime.

Re:Remember, folks (5, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280030)

He may or may not be guilty of anything

I've never actually done any research into the guy, but from all the stories up here I can pretty much tell he's a douche.

Re:Remember, folks (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280174)

I gotta say, I'm not all that surprised...think about it, you're just an average college student, and not a few years later you're a billionaire. That's gonna fuck with your ego, no matter who you are.

Re:Remember, folks (2, Interesting)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280480)

He's a billionaire *on paper*. That *worth* could be wiped away in seconds.

Re:Remember, folks (3, Insightful)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280532)

yeah, the worst-case scenario could happen, and he could be reduced to just a couple hundred mill. Wouldn't that be a shame :/ I can't imagine trying to live off that much as a 26yo; ramen every day, yuck!

Do you *really* think that he hasn't diversified at least a little by now?

Re:Remember, folks (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280610)

"Do you *really* think that he hasn't diversified at least a little by now?"

He has. Into securities fraud.

Re:Remember, folks (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280638)

26 year old with a company's worth based on expectations alone? No, I doubt he's diversified a huge amount. And if he doesn't get lucky and sell like Myspace, he'll end up with something worthless when the next social whathaveyou comes around.

Re:Remember, folks (2, Insightful)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280856)

It's not like his investment is liquid.

But perhaps if he gets smacked around, the investors get cold feet, maybe Microsoft or Oracle or who knows buys it and makes him kind of rich. As in way-rich. The financing that he has means his share is still pretty good..... that is, until whatever comes after Facebook arrives. Facebook arrived after MySpace, which came after various GeoCities, and so on.

Facebook has immense number of users that might be happy to find a subsequent provider that does something more, like hosts as many photos as they can upload (people are obsessive about pics) or does something else, like rents them movies or something. Facebook has no monopoly, just massive success. It could evaporate in a single quarter. Apple knows this very well.

Re:Remember, folks (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280854)

no. 26yr old = not enough experience in the world.

It's why he's know as a raging ass to many that deal with him. he's outright cocky and it will bite him in the butt.

Honestly, after reading the accidental billionaires book http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/books/20maslin.html [nytimes.com]
  I am certain that I would not want to have ever had to deal with the man. Every account of him makes him feel "slimey" and sets off all my red flags.

Re:Remember, folks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280484)

he's always been a douche though. this lawsuit is stemming from the fact that he stole the code he used to create facebook from harvard classmates who hired him to work on a social network they were trying to launch. this was all before he was a billionaire.

Re:Remember, folks (4, Insightful)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280522)

Especially when you make that money by screwing other people over in the first place (allegedly).

BTW - I'm not a huge fan of the fact that the summary refers to the allegations as "legend." That strongly implies that it never happened... And there's decent indication that it may have.

Re:Remember, folks (2, Interesting)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280680)

The key word there is the "allegedly." And no, there is absolutely no truth to the allegation. The Winklevosses are upset about how the settlement turned out for them and they're rattling the cage to see if any more money will fall out. They're being dunned by their lawyers for non-payment of legal fees.

Re:Remember, folks (5, Informative)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280668)

He was not yet a billionaire when he called the Facebook users "dumb fucks" [businessinsider.com]. That's right, he was 19, long before those billions would have hit his ego too hard, and already calling the users of his service dumb fucks.

Once that sinks in, I think we can conclude that he has been a douche all along.

Re:Remember, folks (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280898)

The funny part is that he has pissed off all his users enough that as soon as there is something that is even just as good as facebook, they will flock to it like crazy leaving him with nothing.

The only reason most people I know are on facebook are because of friends. and when friends start flocking elsewhere to a interface that has less suckage as facebook.... suddenly his empire becomes a moist turd in the bottom of a subway toilet.

Re:Remember, folks (1)

jgs (245596) | more than 3 years ago | (#32281030)

leaving him with nothing.

... except a lousy few billion in the bank, assuming he's had enough sense to diversify.

Yeah, the laugh will definitely be on him.

Re:Remember, folks (1)

CapnStank (1283176) | more than 3 years ago | (#32281052)

By the time people are 19 or 20 their personalities for the remainder of their lives are pretty much set. It takes some catastrophic event to change it (and rarely occurs). So yes, you're right. He was a douche all along: he just needed a reason to be extroverted about it. That reason happened to be fame and money.

Once a douche always a douche.

Re:Remember, folks (1)

AthleteMusicianNerd (1633805) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280784)

I don't think he was an average college student. I'm sure he was a privileged college student.

You'd think people would learn from the dot bomb that the technology for this company can be recreated relatively easily and also see that myspace was the place to be just a year or two ago and like a flip of a switch it evaporated.

Re:Remember, folks (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280196)

Let's drop the muthfucka's ass. Mossad front and an evil bitch, too. He can join Sergei and David in hell.

Re:Remember, folks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280340)

Plotting assassinations on social networking sites. Hasn't this been discussed before and decided as a poor idea?

Re:Remember, folks (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280528)

Shall I include my


tags next time? :-)

To contextualize, the parent post asked to remain skeptical, and not reach rash conclusions. In an attempt to create humor through contrasts, I illustrated a response in the opposite extremity.

Zuckerberg is a man who's worse punishment is that he is himself. The cruel, Hitchcockian irony is that he sees this as a reward! "There are none so blind, as those who will not see."

Re:Remember, folks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280240)

so let's try to keep a cool head in the meantime

You must be new around here.

Re:Remember, folks (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280380)

In other words, either an effing HUGE group of people is out to slander that guy into oblivion or at the very least some of the accusations have to be true.

Occam's Razor tells me which one is more likely.

Re:Remember, folks (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280420)

Or there are some people who really want to get their hands on more money, which also qualifies as a pretty simple explanation. We don't really know either way, and that's why we have a court system.

Re:Remember, folks (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280460)

"Accused" is in the title.

Now I realize this is slashdot and people don't read the articles, or even the summaries sometimes. But I think we can assume they read the fucking title.

Re:Remember, folks (1)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280690)

Man, I don't assume anything about Slashdot, having seen people manage to screw up just about every aspect of a story.

Re:Remember, folks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280706)

keep a cool head in the meantime

Why? This is slashdot.

Re:Remember, folks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280740)

Nice subject line. "Remember, folks". I guess something actually summarizing like "Accusation, not conviction" was just too hard, eh?

Re:Remember, folks (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280994)

The evidence is pretty clear that he stole code from UConnect. They even caught him openly bragging about it (which also provides further evidence that he wasn't bright enough to code in the first place). If you're going to steal, at least put some distance between yourself and the people you stole from--and keep your mouth shut about it.

And you know what they say (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280012)

Those who desire to steal securities in order to gain freedom will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.

Re:And you know what they say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280080)

+5 Funny but gong-worthy!

All i can say is (5, Funny)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280038)

I bet he will regret the 'Poke' feature if he does time

Re:All i can say is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280958)

Yeah, sexual abuse is so funny. Haha. Wny not joke about murdering people while you're at it? It's all funny, right?

Facebook turned rotten years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280052)

Facebook turned rotten years ago. I didnt know that M$ paid for $15 billion worth of FB stock in 07. That just confirms it.

Where's the Securities Fraud? (3, Informative)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280068)

I didn't see anything in the article that suggests he was accused of securities fraud, which generally means an accusation from the SEC for something like insider trading. Ripping off counterparties in a settlement deal may not be great behavior (even though the plaintiffs' lawyers should have realized this a lot sooner than they did) but it is not the same as saying there was securities fraud. Again, it sounds like the article is flamebait or the author just has no idea what he's talking about.

Re:Where's the Securities Fraud? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280154)

The law is against 'fraud in connection with the transfer of securities.' It is a very broad law and I think there is a private right of enforcement, so it isn't impossible.

Re:Where's the Securities Fraud? (1)

dward90 (1813520) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280216)

FTFA: " The latest unwelcome gift: accusations of securities fraud from former Harvard schoolmates" He's being accused by people, not by the SEC, but it's pretty clear that article suggests he was accused.

Re:Where's the Securities Fraud? (4, Informative)

Fnkmaster (89084) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280582)

I am not a securities lawyer, but the SEC 1934 Act allows private civil suits regarding securities fraud. This act has been amended and reformed and affected by case law, but you can get the basic gist of modern requirements for civil securities fraud lawsuites here [wikipedia.org].

The securities don't have to be publicly traded. You don't have to sit around and wait for the SEC to investigate. If somebody made material misrepresentations in connection with the sale of securities, that's enough to meet the basic threshold of being subject to this law and open to civil suits. Then there are just a series of bars to get over regarding showing that the person knowingly caused you to lose money and had the intention of screwing you.

These things are expensive to litigate, so the stakes have to be high. Your average $250k angel investment gone wrong isn't going to be something you bring to court. A class action representing thousands of shareholders who each lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in a publicly traded company, however, has enough money at stake to see this sort of lawsuit fairly frequently.

This case is only unusual in that most parties to large private investments on this scale (tens of millions of dollars) are private equity firms or venture capital funds and they generally can do their own due diligence on transactions in the tens of millions of dollars and can afford to write off the expected percentage of complete losses and partial losses. In this case, the suing party took securities that may have been misrepresented as settlement for a lawsuit, and presumably didn't have the resources on hand to conduct their own due diligence.

So I can't say for certain whether a judge will allow this case - are securities offered as part of a settlement being "offered for purchase or sale"? You'd have to ask a lawyer to tell you whether that is technically the case, but if they accepted the securities in lieu of cash, there might be a case for that.

But just because you don't hear about this kind of case terribly frequently doesn't mean it's total bullshit or that the author is flaming or an idiot.

Re:Where's the Securities Fraud? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#32281078)

The plaintiffs are alleging that he knowingly overstated the value of Facebook stock in his earlier settlement. That's definitely a SEC no-no.

Someone's Getting His Comeuppance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280096)

Federal "pound-me-in-the-ass" prison for Mark.

Zucked! (1)

Cigarra (652458) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280102)

How ugly could things turn to Mark Zuckerberg and fb? Will we witness facebook's untergang?

Re:Zucked! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280772)

I can only imagine what Hitler would do if his social network were failing miserably...

He's getting what he's due. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280118)

G-d is punishing him for not observing Shavuos, and allowing a site that encourages hate.

Re:He's getting what he's due. (2, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280222)

People. You don't have to use a dash when writing "god". That is used when writing god's name on paper, because you aren't technically supposed to physically destroy god's name.

It is irrelevant when written on a computer.

Re:He's getting what he's due. (1, Offtopic)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280296)

But what if slashdot's servers die and the post is deleted?

Re:He's getting what he's due. (2, Insightful)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280588)

What if? The result of offending a god is always the same: nothing happens.

Re:He's getting what he's due. (0, Flamebait)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280422)

But Jews (whether they know this or not) worship a devil.

Like their satanic master, cannot endure the utterance or enscription of holy, devine names.

Saying or writing a name of God is an invokation of the devine presence. It is a like sweet cool water in the desert, and a restoration to the spirit which yearns for ist origin.

Only the devil is pained by this utterence. And - as supreme deceiver - he claimed "I shall not profane such an ineffable name with my tongue. It is too holy to say."

Those who follow such a creed reject the summoning of God's presence, and they observe satanic practice of shunning God and the holiest spirit.

Besides, Zuckerberg's a cunt.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280560)

Just to mess with people, you could argue that any new and conscious method of obscuring a holy name actually creates entire sets of new holy names - all of which should also be treated with reverence. So, obscuring names with dashes, slashes, umlauts or squiggles makes the situation worse, not better.

Re:He's getting what he's due. (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280564)

So you think that ink on paper is more physical than the magnetic polarity on a HDD? Or the electrical polarity in SDRAM?

The whole idea is of course superstitious bullshit, but electric and magnetic forces are just as physical as solid matter.

Re:He's getting what he's due. (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280550)

Jewish day of rest. Means I don't work, I don't drive a car, I don't fucking ride in a car, I don't handle money, I don't turn on the oven, and I sure as shit don't fucking poke my friends!

Bill Gates stole code for from the dumpster... (2, Funny)

number6x (626555) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280138)

Bill Gates stole code for from the dumpster for his BASIC compiler that he based his fortune on, why should Zuckerberg be investigated when Gates isn't?

When will billionaires ever get a fair shake in this world?

Re:Bill Gates stole code for from the dumpster... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280200)

When will billionaires ever get a fair shake in this world?

When they're no longer billionaires?

Nitpick. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280568)

BASIC was an interpreter, not a compiler.

Pro-tip: Don't GLOAT. (0)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280160)

"People just submitted it. I don't know why. They 'trust me.' Dumb fucks."

Their side of the story gained credence after instant messages sent by Zuckerberg bragging about his success in duping them emerged in the press.

Read the fucking Evil Overlord list.

Oh noes (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280224)

How could anyone settle for only $65mil? God I don't think I'd be able to live with that small sum of cash.

Re:Oh noes (1)

BenFenner (981342) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280418)

The plaintiff(s) accuse him of not delivering on the promised (hello get it in writing?!) $65m but delivering less.

Re:Oh noes (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280604)

They're Harvard graduates coming from a family that's very chummy with the Fortune 100 [winklevoss.com] and can apparently afford lawyers that can take on a billion dollar company. $65 million is probably chump change for them. The overprivileged fighting among themselves for a bigger piece of the pie; couldn't care less.

Fetch the popcorn! (3, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280530)

A bunch of arrogant entitled Haaaarvard douches get butt-humped by the biggest douche amongst them, then spend the rest of their natural lives giving all of their money to lawyers until none of them have anything except crack habits and an autobiography in the bargain bin.

I mean, you can't buy entertainment like this. It's win-win, especially if they all lose.

The whole story (3, Insightful)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280566)

The title of this article is totally misleading. The Winklevosses agreed to a settlement involving a payment of cash and a quantity of Facebook stock assuming a certain valuation. That valuation was based on the Microsoft purchase of a small chunk of the company that, if you bought all the stock at the same price, would make it work $15 billion.

Obviously that valuation was unrealistic, but the Winklevosses agreed to it *because their lawyers told them to.* Their law firm didn't complete their due diligence or else they may have wanted to renegotiate the deal. But that's not even remotely Facebook's fault.

The reason for this accusation is that the Winklevosses have to pay their lawyers a contingency fee based on the higher valuation of the stock. This will result in a net loss to them. They're pissed off at this turn of events, so they're casting aspersions on Facebook's CEO and demanding a securities investigation. But don't forget that they're a pair of moneyed aristocrats from a family of moneyed aristocrats (read: spoiled brats). So don't think of them as wronged parties because they're not.

Facebook was no more the Winklevosses' idea than Windows Aero or Mac OS Aqua or Enlightenment or KDE were the ideas of Xerox PARC.

Re:The whole story (2, Informative)

nacturation (646836) | more than 3 years ago | (#32280782)

Obviously that valuation was unrealistic, but the Winklevosses agreed to it *because their lawyers told them to.* Their law firm didn't complete their due diligence or else they may have wanted to renegotiate the deal. But that's not even remotely Facebook's fault.

If I'm reading the article correctly, it's not about the valuation but about what class of stock they receive:

"The settlement, however, was to be paid in common shares, not preferred shares, which Facebook itself valued at roughly 75 percent less for the purposes of calculating taxes on stock-based compensation — cutting the settlement’s offer roughly in half."

Zuckerberg = a greedy Jew (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32280730)

For those who understand that greed is inherent in the DNA of certain people
( RIAA, certain brokerage houses, certain countries which tend to
bulldoze over unarmed peace protesters ... ) none of this should come
as a surprise.

What surprises ME is that the Jews keep doing the same things to piss
people off, yet they STILL are surprised when people get pissed off.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account