Dude. Read the article. Zuckerberg is a very proficient programmer but he's also very ruthless in business. Everyone in the article (aside from his competitors) recognize this. He did not luck out; he worked his ass off and he plays for keeps.
I agree with you: ruthless capitalism doesn't determine if you're right or not. Mark Zuckerberg may not be a smart dude and his rise to power may not be fair.
However, the critics cited in the Rolling Stone article are saying that Mark Zuckerberg was not a ruthless capitalist, which is plainly ridiculous. I mean, Greenspan said the following about Zuckerberg: "The way he talked, the way he dressed, everything about him screamed immature. He seemed unprofessional. I had run a company since I was 15. It just didn't seem like he got it. That whole persona just didn't impress me." This guy, who ran a company since he was 15, did not approve of Mark Zuckerberg. Yet Zuckerberg is the 24-year old BILLIONAIRE and Greenspan isn't. For Greenspan and the others to trash Zuckerberg's business acumen is the height of stupidity.
I read the Rolling Stone article and it was a hoot. All the challengers to Mark Zuckerberg come off as self-important and jealous douchebags.
For example, Aaron Greenspan claims to have invented the concept of an online facebook and is trying to cancel Facebook's trademark. Greenspan dismissed Zuckberg by writing, "Gates was shrewd, calculating and insanely competitive, bordering on autistic. Mark was inarticulate and naive." Yeah, Mark was so naive he stole your idea and made himself into a billionaire.
There were lots of social networking sites before Facebook. The idea wasn't new. Mark Zuckberg pushes a product that is faster, more reliable, and for a while was less annoying to use than its competitors. His competitors just come off as incredible losers here.
I admire judges who are able to put aside their partisanship and do what they think is best for their country. Not only Judge Kollar-Kotelly, and Judge John E. Jones, a Bush appointee who struck down intelligent design in schools while making clear that his was not an activist court. Lifetime tenure and no paycuts for the federal judiciary were perhaps the greatest ideas the Founding Fathers came up with. And now Justice Kennedy, who was a Reagan appointee who stayed with the liberals on the recent rulings on immigration law.
Aside from the fact that they filed a patent for One Click, and sent the Patent Office 40 lbs of paper after the Patent Office rejected some of their claims, nothing. Nothing at all.
This is patently untrue. A patentee has a duty of candor under Rule 56 to disclose documents material to the patentability of the claims, and which are not redundant. This latest blizzard of references was prompted by the Patent Office has rejecting all but 5 of Amazon's claims. Amazon did not dump this paper to fulfill it's duty of candor; it did so to harass the Patent Office into granting the claims.
The Bush Administration's definition of "enemy combatant" was based on Ex Parte Quirin, which dealt with the German sabeteurs who landed on Long Island, New York during World War II. The Quirin case underscores why we need courts even for enemy combatants.
You see, George John Dasch was one of the enemy sabeteurs, but he actually hated the Nazis. He took this to be a chance to defect to the US. Ernst Peter Burger, another one of the sabeteuers, was like-minded. The two of them tried very hard to turn themselves in, but were stopped by an unbelieving FBI. Dasch was only able to turn himself in when he threw $84,000 in mission funds onto the desk of a FBI agent. Under interrogation, he revealed the whole Nazi plan.
But the FBI claimed it was their great work that lead to the capture of the Germans. All the Germans were placed on trial before a military tribunal. The original verdict was a recommendation of death, even for the man who turned the group in. Burger's sentence was commutted to life, and Dasch was sentenced to 30 years in prison. It was only after W.W.II ended that the truth came out, and they were released and deported to Germany.
Without trial, the truth will never go out. As a democratic society, we have to dedicate ourselves to protect civil rights for all.
The article was pretty light on the facts; on all the facts, LG Electronics came out better than the article would suggest. the contract of sale limited the products to be used only with Intel chipsets. Moreover, LG marked all of the products as for use only with Intel products. LG intended the products only to be used with Intel chipsets; otherwise, they would have charged a higher price. It isn't an open and shut issue. If LG meant for the products to be resold,they would have asked for a higher price from Intel.
Basically, Intel got a lower price and was able to get all the rights. Whatever the other effects of this holding may be, licensees will only be able to buy all the bundle of intellectual property rights (which slashdotters hate) or none at all. They can't only buy the portion of the bundle that they can afford.
Can someone please mod this guy down? How is this a critical bug, and what does he use--Internet Explorer? Firefox 3 is the best browser out there in terms of functionality, features, reliability, security, and availability. (Safari is nice, but only for Macs. Opera doesn't work with many banking and financial web sites that work fine with Firefox. Internet Explorer is Internet Explorer.)
The Mozilla developers have made Firefox 3 faster, more responsive, and more reliable than Firefox 2. The features were added without bloating up the program at all. Software has bugs, and nitpicking without pointing out BETTER alternatives is kind of stupid.
The operation pulled up only a small fraction of the submarine, but it was 38 feet's worth of submarine. You can fit six corposes and two nuclear missiles in that much space. It's also unclear what the CIA would be lying about at this time; were there space aliens in the submarine?
The U.S. government has used false pretenses to cover up secret submarine recovery operations before. In Project Jennifer, the CIA got Howard Hughes to build the Glomar Explorer, ostensibly to mine undersea minerals but actually to try and recover a sunken Russian submarine. The project failed to recover much of the submarine, which broke apart as it was being pulled to the surface. However, two Russian nuclear missiles were recoverd.
Bloomberg terminals are more than just dumb systems; they can also be used to send messages. They run on a secure proprietary network that has low-latency and high-reliability. The Bloombergs have also undergone many regulatory tests and comply with all sorts of government regs (Sarbanne-Oxley, etc.) Google, with its infinite betas, are not ready to compete in this space.
There are many reasons why having an index fund makes more sense than buying the underlying stocks themselves--and in fact, buying index funds will save most investors money. First, index funds provide much better diversification of risk--for instance, they can buy all the stocks making up the SP500, which you cannot. Second, they rebalance their portfolios to track the index. If you did this yourself, you would get hit by transaction fees and realize capital gain. Lastly, buying an index fund reduces the temptation of chasing individual stocks, which is immense if you are buying naked stocks.
The recipient of a fax is normally expects it. Most scams don't rely on deceiving the recipient. The real risk is in sending a document to a fake fax number just like phishing sites.
Businesses have been using faxes for decades. The risk of forgery and other liabilities have pretty much been well-established by law and common knowledge. If a contract requires modifications to be in signed writing, it is a matter of established law that a faxed document counts. Does an e-mail count if the contract doesn't expressly say so? That's just an unnecessary risk at this point. In the future, things may be different but there's no reason to be the first person to settle that uncertainty.
Furthermore, faxes are relatively secure because it is a one-on-one communication. In contrast, e-mails can be intercepted or become widely disseminated. The risks of using e-mail in a business setting (for signatures and the like) have not been tested too thoroughly, either.
I am amazed. This has to be a joke, right? China is currently a largely agricultural society where a majority of citizens still live in the mountains. The money spent on bugging the population could be better spent on feeding the poor. I am surprised at how short-sighted the Communists are, and I already hold them in pretty low esteem.
Maybe if the terrorists daisy-chained multiple devices together. Otherwise, the open air would allow the explosive forces to dissipate and lower the casualty rate.
The information in question (Track 2 data) is useless to anyone but thieves. This is not information regarding purchases--it is more akin to the CVV on the back of your card. It is information necessary to complete a transaction, which industry standards dictate should not be kept after a transaction is completed. The goal was to prevent exactly what happened: thieves coming in and stealing all the numbers and running a muck.
The war dialers logged into TJX HQ servers and were able to install applications that sniffed network traffic and logged passwords. TJX not only kept CC numbers long after they had any use for the information, they also kept transactional CC data that was not supposed to be kept after a transaction was done.
Bullshit. No one wears helmets in cars because they're safe enough that it's unnecessary in PROPERLY DESIGNED cars. The Volvo was defective and killed the girl.
These changes are great if you're a doctor; not so much if you're a patient they mangled.
That confrontation fizzled, however, and before long Texas succeeded at enacting two simple but effective reforms. One capped medical malpractice awards for noneconomic damages at $250,000, changed the burden of proof for claiming injury for emergency room care from simple negligence to "willful and wanton neglect," and required that an independent medical expert file a report in support of the claimant.
Even a negligent doctor will get away with malpractice in an emergency room. He has to willfully and wantonly neglect your care before you can do anything about it. So if your grandma dies because the doctor forgot to give him treatment, you're out of luck.
No one else claiming "asbestosis" has yet filed a pulmonology report showing diminished lung capacity. This means that only one-third of 1% of all those people who have filed suit claiming they were sick with asbestosis have actually had a qualified and impartial doctor agree that they have an asbestos-caused illness.
Or only one-third of 1% of people can afford to have a qualified and impartial doctor agree that they have an abestos-caused illness. Or they have been exposed to asbestos and will almost certainly get sick in the future, but may not be able to sue because the statute of limitations will expire by the time they get sick--and then they'll expire, too.
In the silica MDL, there are somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 plaintiff cases. In the four years since the cases were consolidated under the MDL, 47 plaintiffs have filed a motion to proceed to trial based on a medical report indicating diminished pulmonary capacity. Of those 47, the court has certified 29 people as having diminished lung capacity. This, too, is less than 1% of all the "silicosis" claims made in Texas. No one has proven the real cause of his illness to be silica, as no case yet has been certified for trial.
That's fascinating: not one person in Texas got silicosis. Or so says the court system. Do you really think we've swung the pendulum way too far in favor of big business and big oil to the detriment of the little guys who slaved away on the boiler rooms of ships docked in Galveston?
Definitely. Imagine being trapped under rubble and being stuck with Clippy to keep you company. "I see you are trapped under a pile of rubble. Do not worry; help is one the way."
Slashdot Mirror
Dude. Read the article. Zuckerberg is a very proficient programmer but he's also very ruthless in business. Everyone in the article (aside from his competitors) recognize this. He did not luck out; he worked his ass off and he plays for keeps.
I agree with you: ruthless capitalism doesn't determine if you're right or not. Mark Zuckerberg may not be a smart dude and his rise to power may not be fair.
However, the critics cited in the Rolling Stone article are saying that Mark Zuckerberg was not a ruthless capitalist, which is plainly ridiculous. I mean, Greenspan said the following about Zuckerberg: "The way he talked, the way he dressed, everything about him screamed immature. He seemed unprofessional. I had run a company since I was 15. It just didn't seem like he got it. That whole persona just didn't impress me." This guy, who ran a company since he was 15, did not approve of Mark Zuckerberg. Yet Zuckerberg is the 24-year old BILLIONAIRE and Greenspan isn't. For Greenspan and the others to trash Zuckerberg's business acumen is the height of stupidity.
I read the Rolling Stone article and it was a hoot. All the challengers to Mark Zuckerberg come off as self-important and jealous douchebags.
For example, Aaron Greenspan claims to have invented the concept of an online facebook and is trying to cancel Facebook's trademark. Greenspan dismissed Zuckberg by writing, "Gates was shrewd, calculating and insanely competitive, bordering on autistic. Mark was inarticulate and naive."
Yeah, Mark was so naive he stole your idea and made himself into a billionaire.
There were lots of social networking sites before Facebook. The idea wasn't new. Mark Zuckberg pushes a product that is faster, more reliable, and for a while was less annoying to use than its competitors. His competitors just come off as incredible losers here.
I admire judges who are able to put aside their partisanship and do what they think is best for their country. Not only Judge Kollar-Kotelly, and Judge John E. Jones, a Bush appointee who struck down intelligent design in schools while making clear that his was not an activist court. Lifetime tenure and no paycuts for the federal judiciary were perhaps the greatest ideas the Founding Fathers came up with. And now Justice Kennedy, who was a Reagan appointee who stayed with the liberals on the recent rulings on immigration law.
Aside from the fact that they filed a patent for One Click, and sent the Patent Office 40 lbs of paper after the Patent Office rejected some of their claims, nothing. Nothing at all.
This is patently untrue. A patentee has a duty of candor under Rule 56 to disclose documents material to the patentability of the claims, and which are not redundant. This latest blizzard of references was prompted by the Patent Office has rejecting all but 5 of Amazon's claims. Amazon did not dump this paper to fulfill it's duty of candor; it did so to harass the Patent Office into granting the claims.
The Bush Administration's definition of "enemy combatant" was based on Ex Parte Quirin, which dealt with the German sabeteurs who landed on Long Island, New York during World War II. The Quirin case underscores why we need courts even for enemy combatants.
You see, George John Dasch was one of the enemy sabeteurs, but he actually hated the Nazis. He took this to be a chance to defect to the US. Ernst Peter Burger, another one of the sabeteuers, was like-minded. The two of them tried very hard to turn themselves in, but were stopped by an unbelieving FBI. Dasch was only able to turn himself in when he threw $84,000 in mission funds onto the desk of a FBI agent. Under interrogation, he revealed the whole Nazi plan.
But the FBI claimed it was their great work that lead to the capture of the Germans. All the Germans were placed on trial before a military tribunal. The original verdict was a recommendation of death, even for the man who turned the group in. Burger's sentence was commutted to life, and Dasch was sentenced to 30 years in prison. It was only after W.W.II ended that the truth came out, and they were released and deported to Germany.
Without trial, the truth will never go out. As a democratic society, we have to dedicate ourselves to protect civil rights for all.
The article was pretty light on the facts; on all the facts, LG Electronics came out better than the article would suggest. the contract of sale limited the products to be used only with Intel chipsets. Moreover, LG marked all of the products as for use only with Intel products. LG intended the products only to be used with Intel chipsets; otherwise, they would have charged a higher price. It isn't an open and shut issue. If LG meant for the products to be resold,they would have asked for a higher price from Intel.
Basically, Intel got a lower price and was able to get all the rights. Whatever the other effects of this holding may be, licensees will only be able to buy all the bundle of intellectual property rights (which slashdotters hate) or none at all. They can't only buy the portion of the bundle that they can afford.
Can someone please mod this guy down? How is this a critical bug, and what does he use--Internet Explorer? Firefox 3 is the best browser out there in terms of functionality, features, reliability, security, and availability. (Safari is nice, but only for Macs. Opera doesn't work with many banking and financial web sites that work fine with Firefox. Internet Explorer is Internet Explorer.)
The Mozilla developers have made Firefox 3 faster, more responsive, and more reliable than Firefox 2. The features were added without bloating up the program at all. Software has bugs, and nitpicking without pointing out BETTER alternatives is kind of stupid.
The operation pulled up only a small fraction of the submarine, but it was 38 feet's worth of submarine. You can fit six corposes and two nuclear missiles in that much space. It's also unclear what the CIA would be lying about at this time; were there space aliens in the submarine?
The U.S. government has used false pretenses to cover up secret submarine recovery operations before. In Project Jennifer, the CIA got Howard Hughes to build the Glomar Explorer, ostensibly to mine undersea minerals but actually to try and recover a sunken Russian submarine. The project failed to recover much of the submarine, which broke apart as it was being pulled to the surface. However, two Russian nuclear missiles were recoverd.
Bloomberg terminals are more than just dumb systems; they can also be used to send messages. They run on a secure proprietary network that has low-latency and high-reliability. The Bloombergs have also undergone many regulatory tests and comply with all sorts of government regs (Sarbanne-Oxley, etc.) Google, with its infinite betas, are not ready to compete in this space.
There are many reasons why having an index fund makes more sense than buying the underlying stocks themselves--and in fact, buying index funds will save most investors money. First, index funds provide much better diversification of risk--for instance, they can buy all the stocks making up the SP500, which you cannot. Second, they rebalance their portfolios to track the index. If you did this yourself, you would get hit by transaction fees and realize capital gain. Lastly, buying an index fund reduces the temptation of chasing individual stocks, which is immense if you are buying naked stocks.
The recipient of a fax is normally expects it. Most scams don't rely on deceiving the recipient. The real risk is in sending a document to a fake fax number just like phishing sites.
Businesses have been using faxes for decades. The risk of forgery and other liabilities have pretty much been well-established by law and common knowledge. If a contract requires modifications to be in signed writing, it is a matter of established law that a faxed document counts. Does an e-mail count if the contract doesn't expressly say so? That's just an unnecessary risk at this point. In the future, things may be different but there's no reason to be the first person to settle that uncertainty.
Furthermore, faxes are relatively secure because it is a one-on-one communication. In contrast, e-mails can be intercepted or become widely disseminated. The risks of using e-mail in a business setting (for signatures and the like) have not been tested too thoroughly, either.
Do they know if any of the concrete or bricks blasted off during takeoff rebounded and struck the Shuttle? Brick or concrete would really hurt things.
I am amazed. This has to be a joke, right? China is currently a largely agricultural society where a majority of citizens still live in the mountains. The money spent on bugging the population could be better spent on feeding the poor. I am surprised at how short-sighted the Communists are, and I already hold them in pretty low esteem.
Maybe if the terrorists daisy-chained multiple devices together. Otherwise, the open air would allow the explosive forces to dissipate and lower the casualty rate.
The information in question (Track 2 data) is useless to anyone but thieves. This is not information regarding purchases--it is more akin to the CVV on the back of your card. It is information necessary to complete a transaction, which industry standards dictate should not be kept after a transaction is completed. The goal was to prevent exactly what happened: thieves coming in and stealing all the numbers and running a muck.
The war dialers logged into TJX HQ servers and were able to install applications that sniffed network traffic and logged passwords. TJX not only kept CC numbers long after they had any use for the information, they also kept transactional CC data that was not supposed to be kept after a transaction was done.
Bullshit. No one wears helmets in cars because they're safe enough that it's unnecessary in PROPERLY DESIGNED cars. The Volvo was defective and killed the girl.
These changes are great if you're a doctor; not so much if you're a patient they mangled.
That confrontation fizzled, however, and before long Texas succeeded at enacting two simple but effective reforms. One capped medical malpractice awards for noneconomic damages at $250,000, changed the burden of proof for claiming injury for emergency room care from simple negligence to "willful and wanton neglect," and required that an independent medical expert file a report in support of the claimant.
Even a negligent doctor will get away with malpractice in an emergency room. He has to willfully and wantonly neglect your care before you can do anything about it. So if your grandma dies because the doctor forgot to give him treatment, you're out of luck.
No one else claiming "asbestosis" has yet filed a pulmonology report showing diminished lung capacity. This means that only one-third of 1% of all those people who have filed suit claiming they were sick with asbestosis have actually had a qualified and impartial doctor agree that they have an asbestos-caused illness.
Or only one-third of 1% of people can afford to have a qualified and impartial doctor agree that they have an abestos-caused illness. Or they have been exposed to asbestos and will almost certainly get sick in the future, but may not be able to sue because the statute of limitations will expire by the time they get sick--and then they'll expire, too.
In the silica MDL, there are somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 plaintiff cases. In the four years since the cases were consolidated under the MDL, 47 plaintiffs have filed a motion to proceed to trial based on a medical report indicating diminished pulmonary capacity. Of those 47, the court has certified 29 people as having diminished lung capacity. This, too, is less than 1% of all the "silicosis" claims made in Texas. No one has proven the real cause of his illness to be silica, as no case yet has been certified for trial.
That's fascinating: not one person in Texas got silicosis. Or so says the court system. Do you really think we've swung the pendulum way too far in favor of big business and big oil to the detriment of the little guys who slaved away on the boiler rooms of ships docked in Galveston?
This is ridiculous. Google has no duty to BREAK the law of the land to "protect" free speech. Google followed the law.
Replace "countries" and "markets" with "rules of law" or "cultures" and you'll get closer to the truth of the matter. In the United States, we hate child porn. Just today, the Supreme Court upheld that it can be a crime to offer to post or ask for the posting of child porn even if there was no such porn ever posted. Last year, Florida prosecuted and convicted two teenagers for disseminating child porn after they took racy photos of themselves and sent it only to each other. If Google supplied IP addresses to allow these convictions, would we be chatting about how evil Google is? Pretend that Indians thought these convictions were stupid. Should Indian Google refuse to supply IP addresses to allow these convictions? What would we be saying if they did?
Definitely. Imagine being trapped under rubble and being stuck with Clippy to keep you company. "I see you are trapped under a pile of rubble. Do not worry; help is one the way."