Slashdot Mirror
Lawrence Lessig Reviews The Social Network
Hugh Pickens writes "Lawrence Lessig — author, Harvard law professor, co-founder of Creative Commons — reviews The Social Network in The New Republic. Although Lessig says the movie is an 'intelligent, beautiful, and compelling film,' he adds that as a story about Facebook, it is deeply, deeply flawed because the movie fails to even mention the real magic behind the Facebook story, and while everyone walking out out of the movie will think they understand the genius of the internet, almost none of them will have seen the real ethic of internet creativity that makes success stories like Facebook possible. 'Because the platform of the Internet is open and free, or in the language of the day, because it is a "neutral network," a billion Mark Zuckerbergs have the opportunity to invent for the platform,' writes Lessig. 'And that is tragedy because just at the moment when we celebrate the product of these two wonders — Zuckerberg and the Internet — working together, policymakers are conspiring ferociously with old world powers to remove the conditions for this success. As "network neutrality" gets bargained away — to add insult to injury, by an administration that was elected with the promise to defend it — the opportunities for the Zuckerbergs of tomorrow will shrink.' Lessig laments that the creators of the movie didn't understand the ethic of Internet creativity and thought that the real story was the invention of Facebook not the platform that made such democratic innovation possible. 'Zuckerberg is a rightful hero of our time,' concludes Lessig. 'As I looked around at the packed theater of teens and twenty-somethings, there was no doubt who was in the right, however geeky and clumsy and sad. That generation will judge this new world. If, that is, we allow that new world to continue to flourish.'"
'Nuff said.
...is that anyone can write apps that will suck the remaining privacy we have out of us and sell it to the highest bidder.
that he stole this idea from people that hired him to develop it?
that there exist people that want to see the movie in the first place....
never under estimate how many went to that movie and "saw" bits of themselves in the various characters, trying to justify their behavior to themselves. From the beyond college student dialog to their dress and the speed it appears they act. Oh yeah, I can see where they found people to go see the film
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The internet will still be neutral. Everyone will have an equal right to pay the big ISP's to prioritize their content and downgrade their competitor's content. If you can't afford that, you need to concentrate more on making profits and less on complaining like some poor-ass pussy.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Of course! Every movie having anything to do with the internet should be an op-ed piece supporting net neutrality. That'll work.
As a non-hard techie with only a cursory understanding of the issue, here's my concern about network neutrality (or lack thereof).
My real concern is that the proponents of network neutrality just want to be able to have unabated access to download music and movies and porn without paying for them - that there's no real "freedom" issues at hand; it's just people wanting free stuff.
Maybe someone can address this without modding me as a troll, but I honestly WANT some of those people to have more restricted access.
I guess the affect for someone like me is that most of my internet viewing is something like youtube, netflix, hulu, etc, and whether or not the cost of streaming media should be passed on to me as the end user.
Or I could just be wrong across the board.
"As I looked around at the packed theater of teens and twenty-somethings, there was no doubt who was in the right, however geeky and clumsy and sad."
Oh please. Get a life.
A trickster hero at best: One who stole fire from the gods, threw golden apples to distract Atalanta, hid under the bellies of sheep, and displayed Medusa's head a a present. There are some cultures who praise quick wit over morality. In the U.S., morality is praised over quick wit. He is not our hero. Let him go to Greece.
I didn't RTFA, but the summary is a mess.
There are so many better sites, and better ways of accomplishing social networking. It's just that there are so many lamers who just use the easiest, most popular crap without ever knowing, or caring, that there is far better.
Facebook may be the next Windows -- a dominant, proprietary platform on which everyone else's apps run. Add the absence of end-user control of the applications and data (including privacy), and it's antithetical to the free, open, and end-user controlled Internet on which it's built. How will the next Zuckerberg build his application? Not so easily, since he'll be dependent on the closed, proprietary systems and data of Facebook, doing only the things that they permit and only when, where, and how they want it.
Mozilla helped save us from a closed, proprietary web browser (one reason Facebook could blossom). With that battle won and a proliferation of browsers and Microsoft adopting open standards, they are struggling a bit to find a mission. I wish they would turn to their attention to the next issue of the open Internet, a free and open social network.
Granted I havent paid much attention to this movie but what's the big deal about yet another rags to richers internet story? Bill Gates? The napster guy? Mark Cuban? Google founders? Many people have become billionaires from internet ideas.. what's so special about this one?
did you forget to take your meds?
He used the open internet and tools to make a walled garden. Not exactly a triumph of openness.
Since when do entertainment and profitabilty make for a deeply flawed movie? Focusing on net neutrality and packet priority would have bored the audience and interfered with the arch of the story. Just because something is ethically (and socio-economically) compelling, does not make it good theater.
Zuckenberg was portrayed as a "hero" ?
When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp. He stole everybody else's ideas, idolized a child molesting drug abuser, and betrayed his best (only?) friend. His only redeeming value is that he was a talented programmer.
Not my idea of a hero, but then, I don't idolize Bill Gates either.
Good one, claim you are not a troll when trolling.
Guns are only wanted by criminals.
Cars are only wanted by speeders.
The article links net neutrality to Facebook. You link it to copyright infringement, completly ignoring the case of Lessig.
Net neutrality means ANYONE, no matter their status has the same access to the web. That means that if I start a website tomorrow, it will be transported around the web with the same speed as Facebook, the ISP's own home page, Apples iTunes, CNN or someone's homepage.
This means I get the same breaks. This is REVOLUTIONARY about the web. BEFORE the web, the only way to be published big was to publish big. ONLY the largest newspapers could afford to distribute cross country, nevermind distribute globally. With the internet, MY website can be accessed ANYWHERE!
This allows me to compete. Imagine if Myspace had simply been able to buy special access. If ISP's could demand of every website a fee to be distributed like with Cable TV. Can't pay the fee? Then you don't get on their network. How was Facebook to startup then? How can you start a new tv network without millions in backing and the lockin that brings?
How CAN I start a new news network that broadcasts to every home independent of the powers that be if I need the powers that be to pay for the access?
If you don't get this, if you think it is about copyright infringement then you are the person who wanted presses banned because it allowed books to be owned by poor people. Either you are too stupid to get freedom, or you hate freedom.
There is no middle ground in this. You can't put restrictions on who can access a media and expect everyone to be able to use it. Unless of course you think only those with enough money should have a voice.
What the press did for political freedom, the internet is doing a thousand times over. But then, if you take your freedom for granted, or worse are willing to sell it, then I suppose none of this means anything.
Perhaps you are not a troll after all. There are worse things then trolls. People who do not value freedom. A willing slave.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's a movie...based off a an actual event but injected with LOTS of fiction and creative juicy bits to make the story interesting and dramatic. The movie isn't flawed because it fails to mention the "magic behind the facebook story," as most people watching the movie don't give a shit about that stuff! It would be nonsense that distracts from the movie.
The openness and magical qualities of the internet was not the plot of the story. The [fictional] movie was about friendship, betrayal, and the abrasive personality of Mark Zuckerberg. Rating the film down because it was lacking an explaination of the internet is stupid, and it seems more like an opportunity to talk about something Lessig cares about.
It was an interesting movie btw. After watching it I went home and Google'd Sean Parker info because I didn't know he had a hand in facebook. I also wanted to find out whether he was as big a douchebag as they played him out to be on the movie.
I just had a Jon Katz flashback! Does he have a new identity now? All the summary needed was a post columbine reference.
Zuckenberg was portrayed as a "hero"? ... He stole everybody else's ideas, idolized a child molesting drug abuser ... Not my idea of a hero, but then, I don't idolize Bill Gates either.
Wait, Bill Gates is a child molesting drug user? Whoa!
Gates has gained a few redeeming qualities in his later years. Zuckerberg is still little more than a skillful, lucky douche bag.
No. Zuckenberg is a dick. Did you think he actually wanted to donate 100M dollars to schools? I say he's just trying to take attention away from the movie.
His only redeeming value is that he was a talented programmer.
Sorry if I missed it but what in developing Facebook was, say, "hard" on the level of systems supporting engineering, embedded systems, mathematical computing or search?
Those domains contain the talent.
Hell, even his "idea" was preceded by Friendster, MySpace, etc.
All he really did was cobble together a collection of ideas in a manner that beat the market and did it in a way which showed Wall Street style Ethos (see character attributes in parent post).
And anyone want to see a movie about this?
Without network neutrality, big companies like Microsoft, Google and Apple can pay ISPs to put their sites on the premium tier so that you get fast access to them, while poor startups and normal people with brilliant ideas will be relegated to the slower tier.
So in other words Network Neutrality is about making the network suck for all traffic instead of allowing some producers of content to pay for higher speed pipes for some content, allowing the user in turn to have some higher quality services.
Thanks for dooming us to be a technological backwater.
It's not even limited to websites. ISPs could grant you HTTP access with the basic package and then you'd have to add FTP, NNTP, VOIP and other "value add" services"
I do that already, I get Comcast Gold Tier so I get better uplink speeds. I LIKE being able to pay more for better access, just as I'm sure a customer who doesn't work with a lot of photographs LIKES not having to pay an arm and a leg for internet access that has speeds way beyond what they need.
In your world of network neutrality, forget the cheapest possible plans that might even include some subsidization by content providers. No, instead everyone has to pay at least a higher base level because you wouldn't let the market create a cheaper plan that more people could use.
So poor people out there? If you can't afford an internet connection, take it up with Enderwiggin13 here. He really is your unlucky number...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Since about 1995, it's not a big deal to score 1600 on the SAT--a good fraction of 1% of test-takers manages this. In prior years, with different scoring adjustments in place, only a handful in a million would score so high.
None of the programming Zuckerberg was portrayed as having done in the movie required great ability, except perhaps to do it while drunk. The programming required to produce facemash was minimal, however.
The movie omits other Zuckerberg evil antics.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerbergs-and-privacy-crimes-2010-3
"...(they) thought that the real story was the invention of Facebook..."
Perhaps the makers of the movie knew what their "real story" was, while some internet talking head (hey! I'm "internet famous!") is simply flogging his personal dead horse?
-Styopa
I expected better from Lessig. I thought he cared about ethics and privacy. Instead we get hero worship and excuses.
...and really, $100M for schools is not an incredibly nice thing for a billionaire to do. It's enough to make him look good, but it's pocket change to him.
No. Facebook is the next AOL. As much as I dislike Microsoft, I think to compare them to Microsoft is undeserved flattery.
That's the great thing about this movie as a work of art. The characters were complex and no one was a perfect hero or perfect villain. They were real people, real people with real personality issues and real quirks and real greed. I think that's the key thing here.
Mark Zuckerberg - dick, computer geek, had some vision to make something cool
Eric Parker - dick, computer geek, thinks he's awesome but when confronted he scampers like a scared mouse and then uses paranoid delusions to explain what went wrong without owning up to his own mistakes.
Winklevoss twins and that other guy - all dicks, guys with money who think they deserve a hoard of cash because they are good looking, come from money and have high GPAs. And yet their vision was limited basically to a Facebook limited to Harvard and had no real vision for the features to add to it.
Eduardo - not really much of a dick, nice guy, wanted to help, wanted to help run the business, and in the end got screwed despite being the original funder, but compared to everyone else had no real vision, he was just trying to do as he was taught. Nice guy but if he had had his way, Facebook would probably not be nearly as big as it is.
I loved the characters as characters, but the only character I actually liked as a person was Mark's ex-gf. Everyone else was foolish or a dick. And that's what happened here, a bunch of dicks met at one point, soap opera ensues, and because this was such an explosively good idea everyone thinks they deserve a chunk of money. If you think that any of these characters other than the ex-gf is portrayed as a 100% hero or villain, you have a seriously warped and false sense of black and white and you don't belong in the discourse of this movie.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Without network neutrality, big companies like Microsoft, Google and Apple can pay ISPs to put their sites on the premium tier so that you get fast access to them, while poor startups and normal people with brilliant ideas will be relegated to the slower tier.
So in other words Network Neutrality is about making the network suck for all traffic instead of allowing some producers of content to pay for higher speed pipes for some content, allowing the user in turn to have some higher quality services.
How did you get that meaning from those words? Enderwiggen13's post said the exact opposite of what you interpreted it to be.
Thanks for dooming us to be a technological backwater.
Seriously, are you brain damaged or just mentally ill? I had no idea that the current situation could be considered a technological backwater. Net neutrality is about not letting content providers tamper with the flow of information across the Internet - just like they can't do right now.
It's not even limited to websites. ISPs could grant you HTTP access with the basic package and then you'd have to add FTP, NNTP, VOIP and other "value add" services"
I do that already, I get Comcast Gold Tier so I get better uplink speeds. I LIKE being able to pay more for better access, just as I'm sure a customer who doesn't work with a lot of photographs LIKES not having to pay an arm and a leg for internet access that has speeds way beyond what they need.
Um, no, you're paying for higher speed for all the sites you access, not just for some tier of them. The Comcast service you are paying for is advertised as a net-neutral service.
In your world of network neutrality, forget the cheapest possible plans that might even include some subsidization by content providers. No, instead everyone has to pay at least a higher base level because you wouldn't let the market create a cheaper plan that more people could use.
So poor people out there? If you can't afford an internet connection, take it up with Enderwiggin13 here. He really is your unlucky number...
This is the biggest pile of crap I've read in a Slashdot comment yet.
Internet access is already cheap. It could be cheaper, nobody would argue with that. The problem would be that if there were no rules preventing content providers from paying off ISPs to effectively reduce the performance of their competitors' websites and Internet services, you can be pretty sure that's what would happen across the board.
Unregulated industry is always bad for consumers. Overregulation is bad, but under-regulation has always led to consumer ripoffs and paying too much for shoddy services.
I mean, come on. It was everything I could do to keep the Star-Spangled Banner from playing spontaneously through my speakers when I read that summary. I appreciate that he is an advocate for Freedom with a capital "F" and all that good stuff, but Christ Almighty, Lessig, learn to pick your spots. It's a movie review!
you can't put a price on cool. Damn I miss the .com days. So sick of business getting cheap.
-Xen
We're talking about two different things here. You're talking about the end user's connection. Net Neutrality is about the content providers' connection.
I have no problem with tiered bandwidth plans. I play online games and stream movies and TV shows over Hulu and Netflix so I gladly pay for the top tier service to have the most available bandwidth. My parents check email and read the news online so they have the basic tier. There's no need for everyone to have a 30/10 Internet connection.
To quote SaveTheInternet.com
"Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination....The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression."
Since you cite Comcast as the example, they just bought NBC. Without Network Neutrality, what's to stop Comcast from throttling the ABC and CBS websites unless they pay for top tier service? The lack of neutrality undermines competition and traps us in a system where a few powerful corporations control the content we see and hear. When was the last time you heard independent music on a radio station that wasn't in a college town? ClearChannel decides what music you want to hear and then puts it on repeat.
The success of the Internet itself and the countless success stories that have arisen from the Internet are because of the unfettered access it gives you to the rest of the world. Anyone can create something and share it with everyone without a corporation deciding to charge them or even prevent them from sharing because it doesn't agree with the corporation's viewpoint.
This sig is in another castle.
Okay, so Zuckerberg can start a business and control it how he wants to and that's all wonderful and freedom-like, but the guys who started the businesses that made Zuckerberg's business possible in the first place (the ISPs, etc.) can't?
Lawrence Lessig doesn't make sense.
People don't want to see a hollywood take on the creation on how a student became mega rich and created a piece of software they use every day. They want to watch a 2 hour lecture on a subject they probably wouldn't care about even if they knew what it was about.
I know I was angry when the Lord of the Ring movies didn't at all explain how Tolkien's orcs and elves were inspired by other stories and folk lore! Where was the explanation of how he created Elvish? These films were completely impossible to enjoy without all this background information that gives context on how it was possible for the books to have been written!
Seriously, every time there's a Facebook story on /. so many hours of potential productivity are lost to bitching. Why not use that time actively helping an alternative to what so many of you apparently despise? And if you don't care about or use social networks at all, rest assured that the millions who do by and large don't care about your sanctimonious complaints.
When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp. He stole everybody else's ideas, idolized a child molesting drug abuser, and betrayed his best (only?) friend.
I agree, they went pretty easy on him.
Since about 1995, it's not a big deal to score 1600 on the SAT--a good fraction of 1% of test-takers manages this. In prior years, with different scoring adjustments in place, only a handful in a million would score so high.
None of the programming Zuckerberg was portrayed as having done in the movie required great ability, except perhaps to do it while drunk. The programming required to produce facemash was minimal, however.
The movie omits other Zuckerberg evil antics.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerbergs-and-privacy-crimes-2010-3
didn't zukerberg want to call it facesmash b/c of his girlfriend, cause somebody is selling it at facesmash.com
"Lessig mentions The Social Network to direct attention to his own pet project." Seriously, I agree with the guy's opinions, but that was pretty shameless.
What Lawrence Lessig seems to be championing is the idea that creativity is dead. Actually, by its very nature creativity is now impossible.
You see, just like the folks looking at the US Patent office in the 1890s, everything that could possibly be created has already been created.
Sure, you can have "mashups", remixes and somewhat unique ways of revisiting the creative works of yesteryear and these are going to count as new things for younger people. But the basic idea that someone goes out and creates something "new" is foreign to these people and thought to be impossible. Everything is just the rehashing of what has alread been.
Well if you believe that, you need to understand that it is fully within your power to create and nurture that world. Insure that creative works cannot be treated as something worthy of compensation, because obviously they are just rehashing old stuff. Whether it is software, movies, music or books paying for the author's time and thoughts is silly and wasteful according to this philosophy.
Oh, and make sure whatever sort of a job you have doesn't involve the slightest bit of creativity.
documentaries exist, to fill in the missing information(or all the correct info). This isn't the first case of this;
Takedown - Freedom Downtime
Lords of Dogtown - Dogtown and Z-Boys
Devil Wears Prada - The September Issue (don't even worry about this)
Who is really surprised this is what the studios turned out?
Plus we have the entire freaking internet to do research, but most of the people who saw the Social Network have probably forgotten that the rest of the internet exists, and that doing quality research is relatively simple.
I was thinking the same thing, but considering the high praise it's receiving from movie critics, there is apparently good reason to see this movie.
$1000M / $100M = 10% =/= pocket change
Not my idea of a hero, but then, I don't idolize Bill Gates either.
Be fair, though. However he earned his money, Bill Gates as an individual has done at least eight metric shit-tons more good in the world than Mark Zuckerberg ever has.
Breakfast served all day!
Zuckenberg was portrayed as a "hero" ?
When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp. He stole everybody else's ideas, idolized a child molesting drug abuser, and betrayed his best (only?) friend. His only redeeming value is that he was a talented programmer.
Not my idea of a hero, but then, I don't idolize Bill Gates either.
I think it's important to recognize that this is a dramatization and not a real-life account. He was portrayed that way because it makes a move interesting, but doesn't seem to be the real story.
Is there some drama about the creation of facebook? Sure. But we have to remember that this was a creation of a computer nerd with computer nerd friends. Think about your most dramatic experience coding with friends...
The lawsuits didn't come until he was successful. Who isn't going to be sued by people when they become filthy rich?
Since you cite Comcast as the example, they just bought NBC. Without Network Neutrality, what's to stop Comcast from throttling the ABC and CBS websites unless they pay for top tier service?
Because customers would complain and get DSL if those sites were unusable.
And of course there would be the lawsuits from ABC and CBS, and them dropping channel delivery to Comcast...
That's why despite concerns, there has never actually been a problem that network neutrality would have solved. The closest we got was the Comcast torrent deal, but even that was not Comcast throttling specific traffic but instead FORGING traffic that had the side effect of screwing with your torrent speeds.
Lets wait until there's a real problem before putting controls over the network that can only do more harm than good. What you think is network neutrality is not in fact what they are planning to put in place; what you are saying network neutrality is is what people want it to be, not what it will be.
The success of the Internet itself and the countless success stories that have arisen from the Internet are because of the unfettered access it gives you to the rest of the world.
Agreed, and since nothing is in fact threatening that why are we trying to fix something that ain't broke? Regulation is a foothold into which lobbyists WILL place controls over what you can do with your network.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He was portrayed that way because it makes a move interesting, but doesn't seem to be the real story.
Then what's the point? Why do a movie about a real person or event, and then make half of it up? Why not just do something original and let a documentary filmmaker take over. Maybe Michael Moore could- oops, no wait... bad example.
I never watch these docudrama films because I know there's loads of crap that never happened. I knew this one would be blown way our of proportion when I saw the "Punk. Prophet. Billionaire." tag line on the billboards. Prophet? WTF? Is he the Messiah, too?
I even predicted to a friend that there would be a line like "Our time is now" or "This is our time" because every movie like this has a line like that. And I was right. Ooo! Now I'm a prophet, too! :-P
In America, people who have money are greater than people that don't.
Zuckenberg has money, so people will see him as a hero, regardless of the actions that produce the wealth.
If you want to be a good American, idolize people with money, and then do anything you need to do to get more money for your self.
I think it's important to recognize that this is a dramatization and not a real-life account. He was portrayed that way because it makes a move interesting, but doesn't seem to be the real story.
Maybe my point was not clear. I was just surprised to read that Zuckenbert was being protrayed as a "hero." It seemed to me that Zuckenberg was being portrayed as an asshole.
Since when are "heros" known for conniving, betraying, stealing, and generally being obnoxious, condescending, smarmy, little weasels?
Maybe I'm giving away my age, I grew up during "John Wayne" type hero era. I grew up thinking of heros as honorable, self sacrificing, that sort of thing. Not little pukes like Zuckenberg's portrayal.
"When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp."
That's the movie I want to see! Are we talking about the same movie?
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Mod me down. Who fucking cares about this shit movie and whether it resembled the truth whatsoever. *YAWN*
I Googled but couldn't find any info.
Who was this "molesting drug abuser" and who was his friend?
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
Be fair, though. However he earned his money, Bill Gates as an individual has done at least eight metric shit-tons more good in the world than Mark Zuckerberg ever has.
Gates has also done at least eight metric shit-tons more harm in the world than Mark Zuckerberg ever has.
But then, Zuckerberg is a lot younger.
"When I left the movie, I had the impression that Zunkenberg was portrayed as a thieving, condescending, misogynistic, little twerp."
That's the movie I want to see! Are we talking about the same movie?
I'm beginning to wonder. In the movie I saw, Mark stole his ideas, did not come up with any new tech ideas, he vindictively stabbed his best (only?) friend in the back. He, and every guy in the movie, treated woman as objects, or worse. Practically every word out of his mouth had a sneering, condescending, tone to it. I can not think of anything he did, or said, that was kind, or caring. I can not think of anything he did that showed any genuine integrity or honor.
I left the movie thinking I had seen a story about a spoiled, smarmy little prick. Now I'm told it was the story of a hero for our times?
I remember when people like Rosa Parks were considered heroes for our time. Now, we would have more respect for somebody who mugged Rosa for her bus fare. After all, there is more money in mugging. And money is what makes "heroes" right?
I Googled but couldn't find any info.
Who was this "molesting drug abuser" and who was his friend?
Sean Parker. At least that is the way Sean was portrayed in the movie. Remember Sean getting caught with the cocaine, and underage girls? And, it was hinted that was not Sean's first time.
Thanks.
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
I can't wait for this movie to pass from public memory. I'm sick of the world sucking Zuckerberg's dick. He's an asshole.
Intelligent, Beautiful and Compelling but still Deeply, Deeply Flawed.Honestly, reviews like these suck. Why not just say unequivocally that the movie simply sucks!
Of course, at Zuckerberg's age, Gates was likewise yet to reveal those "redeeming qualities", so perhaps a little patience might be in order. In fact, with that recent $100 million charity donation, Zuckerberg is probably ahead of Gates's schedule.
The mbt sport shoes are usually released to sandals or fitness shoes. But in reality, there are also mbt shoes that are shoes-type. The mbt sport shoes are still pay attention on the quality that they offer with their other mbt shoes and products.The womens mbt sport shoes that make your body work hard without you putting more energy into doing what you possibly do every day – walk. Whether you are a regular walker who trains every day or a casual slow walker, you want to be comfortable and feel and see the results.
http://www.mbt-shoes.com
http://bux.to/?r=RRRRR_132 http://www.awsurveys.com/HomeMain.cfm?RefID=RRRRR_13 register and earn money
There's no need for everyone to have a 30/10 Internet connection.
Oh but there is. It's beneficial for ISPs to make everybody need the most expensive plan. Want to view the news, fine. Want to check email? Sorry, that's only on the most expensive plan. You don't use it a lot but you pay top dolla'!