Unless someone has a better explanation for why he'd want a second original copy of a contract that he signed and which he claims to have an original copy of.
There are only two possibilities, which raise two questions.
Assuming Ceglia's contract is real, why would Zuckerberg want it?
Assuming it's fake, why would Zuckerberg want it?
Only one of those questions has an obvious answer.
If Facebook had a copy of the contract now they could run around and find tons of people to discredit it
So Zuckerberg has no earthly idea what terms are laid out in a contract that he SUPPOSEDLY SIGNED.
Is he completely stupid, or just really forgetful?
Keeping the contract hidden from the person who supposedly signed it only benefits Ceglia if it's fake. If it's real, Zuckerberg should already have a copy of it.
The hard drive might be confidential, but the original contract is not. And I'm sure that high-priced lawyers could figure out a way to ensure that no confidential information is revealed. Otherwise anybody could ensure that the contents of their hard drive could never see the inside of a courtroom just by storing all of their correspondence with their lawyer on it.
Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that Ceglia DOES have the original contract. (And hasn't modified it.) Zuckerberg just contested that assumption. You're not allowed to assume it any more. Proof is required from one side or the other.
And really - you're so confident that Ceglia can convince all these people to commit perjury for these billions that he has, and you completely ignore the fact that Zuckerberg also has billions?
What on earth do you think he'll do if Ceglia produces a fake contract, complete with signature in blood and fifteen witnesses who claim to have been present in spirit when Zuckerberg signed it under a full moon? Obviously he'll deny signing, if he didn't. And he'll have his own copy of the contract, with his own fifteen witnesses who claim that IT was the one that he signed.
Now what, smarty pants?
Answer: get his damn hard drives and see if his copy is a fake.
the “authentic contract” is shielded from use in the suit because it is designated as “confidential” under the rules of an agreement between the two parties
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
Isn't the whole point of a contract that it's legally binding?
To be legally binding, mustn't it be cited in court?
A contract that can't be used in court is NO CONTRACT.
Who the fuck are these lawyers? And why can't they be dis-barred?
Another-nother way to look at it: If he shouldn't have ever been put in the position to answer it, he should have just said that. Blah blah moral purity, Republicans, etc.
The issue was that he lied under oath.
Given the opportunity to deny it, he did. And he shouldn't have.
If he'd instead said:
"Yes, I did it. Why does everyone care so much? It's not like I campaigned on moral purity."
Well, who knows how things would have played out. But one thing I do know: he wouldn't have been impeached for lying under oath.
Facebook "knows" that the copy they've found is genuine. Therefore, to them, it proves that Ceglia's is a forgery.
However, we *don't* know that Facebook's copy is genuine. Therefore, to prove to *us* that Ceglia's is a forgery (and theirs isn't), Facebook needs his hard drive. Probably they want to check the date modified on the file...
It's pretty obvious (to me, at least) that what Facebook has done is found the *original* contract, which proves that his is a fake, as long as they can prove that their copy is the original.
So they want his hard drive, probably to show that the date modified on the file is too recent to be original.
You are thinking about as if legailsation equals endorsement. It does not.... just because something is permitted does not necessarily mean that anybody thinks it is good idea. It is just that it is not a bad enough thing to make it forbidden.
I agree. I don't think this should be illegal. But I still think it's wrong.
Let's just say it's at the soap-box level of "wrong". Not quite to the ballot-box or jury-box, and certainly nowhere near the ammo-box. I'm on my soap-box. I think I've made my point, so I'll get off now.
So maybe I'm just a little bit weird, but I don't feel completely okay with it. Sort of like I don't feel completely okay with the fact that Manhattan island was bought in exchange for some pretty shells. Not that I think there's anything we can or should do about that. Just that yeah, I'd say it was probably unethical and I don't think it was right. Just because we can doesn't mean we should, and just because they'll pay it doesn't mean we should take it.
almost every nation has some form of age of consent legislation
So in some cases you agree that somebody needs to get in people's business and tell them what they should and shouldn't do? Yeah, I figured you did. It just took a ridiculous analogy to make you admit it.
"People should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to do. Get out of their business and stop telling people what they should and shouldn't want".
Then follow it up with,
"but THAT'S illegal, you shouldn't do THAT".
Either you're in favor of telling people what they should and shouldn't do, within reasonable limitations, or you're not. Make up your mind.
Of course nobody really believes that everybody should be free to just do absolutely anything they want. But plenty of people talk like they believe it until you bring up something that THEY think is horrible. Then it's "oh no, you shouldn't do THAT because ____".
I don't see anybody advocating for arrangements which are involuntary either on their face
If somebody in a third-world country would sell their kidney for an electronic device that they could never afford otherwise, yeah, that seems pretty much like it's "involuntary on its face".
or by way of age of consent laws
I get that we Americans feel it necessary to tell our kids how old they must be before they can have sex, smoke, or drink booze, but where do we get the right to tell the rest of the world that?
This is just like the people who argue against legal prostitution.... People should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to do. Get out of their business and stop telling people what they should and shouldn't want
So it's okay for people to sell their children as prostitutes? That happens in some countries. But I suppose I'm just an arrogant American if I think there's anything wrong with that.
How many would let someone spy on them if they were given a piece of technology that they realistically could NEVER afford in their life, EVER. I'd suggest that all of us would.
And that's exactly what's wrong with it. If someone wouldn't sell their privacy in exchange for a "cheap netbook", they shouldn't be required to sell their privacy in exchange for "a piece of technology that they realistically could never afford". Their privacy shouldn't be negotiable.
exploit the poor to create "visual narratives".... Consent is easy to get when there are no alternatives in the 3rd world hell holes they ship these too
This is exactly right; granted, the rest of your post was inflammatory and mostly unnecessary. It doesn't matter whether it's Massachusetts or anywhere else; it's not like this sort of thing is limited to one state.
In effect - "Sell your privacy for a netbook."
How many Slashdot readers would let someone spy on them in exchange for getting a cheap laptop? Not many, because we can afford not to... this is exploiting the poor, no different than letting rental companies install spying software on their rental laptops (which happened in Pennsylvania).
It wasn't plain text. But Slashdot had a post size limit that the post preview didn't have, so it didn't work anyway. Mirror posted below; hopefully people can access that.
No, my "I know for a fact" meant that I don't feel like exiting Firefox and disconnecting from the net to try it out, but I'm sure I've done it in the past. And frankly you just came across as a jerk. What the hell?
First - fine, it doesn't do it every time? In that case, I'm not exiting Firefox and disconnecting from the net to try it out repeatedly. But I'm still sure I've never noticed it.
Second - the way you typically check for a connection to the net is by attempting to ping the mothership. Six one way, half a dozen the other.
Third - which extensions throw warnings if you're not connected to the net? I'll remember not to install them.
My method of killing brain cells is, and has always been, booze. Thanks for your concern. ~
That's ridiculous. I know for a fact that I've opened Firefox on computers with no active internet connection, so whether or not it attempts to "ping the mothership" it certainly doesn't make you wait around while it does it. Or if it does, it happens so fast that nobody would notice the delay, which would invalidate your point anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not my premise; it's my conclusion.
Unless someone has a better explanation for why he'd want a second original copy of a contract that he signed and which he claims to have an original copy of.
There are only two possibilities, which raise two questions.
Assuming Ceglia's contract is real, why would Zuckerberg want it?
Assuming it's fake, why would Zuckerberg want it?
Only one of those questions has an obvious answer.
If Facebook had a copy of the contract now they could run around and find tons of people to discredit it
So Zuckerberg has no earthly idea what terms are laid out in a contract that he SUPPOSEDLY SIGNED.
Is he completely stupid, or just really forgetful?
Keeping the contract hidden from the person who supposedly signed it only benefits Ceglia if it's fake. If it's real, Zuckerberg should already have a copy of it.
The hard drive might be confidential, but the original contract is not. And I'm sure that high-priced lawyers could figure out a way to ensure that no confidential information is revealed. Otherwise anybody could ensure that the contents of their hard drive could never see the inside of a courtroom just by storing all of their correspondence with their lawyer on it.
Your entire argument hinges on the assumption that Ceglia DOES have the original contract. (And hasn't modified it.) Zuckerberg just contested that assumption. You're not allowed to assume it any more. Proof is required from one side or the other.
And really - you're so confident that Ceglia can convince all these people to commit perjury for these billions that he has, and you completely ignore the fact that Zuckerberg also has billions?
What on earth do you think he'll do if Ceglia produces a fake contract, complete with signature in blood and fifteen witnesses who claim to have been present in spirit when Zuckerberg signed it under a full moon? Obviously he'll deny signing, if he didn't. And he'll have his own copy of the contract, with his own fifteen witnesses who claim that IT was the one that he signed.
Now what, smarty pants?
Answer: get his damn hard drives and see if his copy is a fake.
the “authentic contract” is shielded from use in the suit because it is designated as “confidential” under the rules of an agreement between the two parties
WHAT. THE. FUCK.
Isn't the whole point of a contract that it's legally binding?
To be legally binding, mustn't it be cited in court?
A contract that can't be used in court is NO CONTRACT.
Who the fuck are these lawyers? And why can't they be dis-barred?
Another-nother way to look at it: If he shouldn't have ever been put in the position to answer it, he should have just said that. Blah blah moral purity, Republicans, etc.
The issue was that he lied under oath.
Given the opportunity to deny it, he did. And he shouldn't have.
If he'd instead said:
"Yes, I did it. Why does everyone care so much? It's not like I campaigned on moral purity."
Well, who knows how things would have played out. But one thing I do know: he wouldn't have been impeached for lying under oath.
Good thing I didn't RTFA.
Also, I use AdBlock Plus.
Who cares... it's an interesting topic. I clicked to read the comments. I left a few. Kindly piss off with your observations.
Yes, of course it's illegal. Hope they don't catch you.
Don't use domain names. The abstraction may be convenient, it may be useful, but it isn't strictly necessary. The IP address works just fine.
...unless, of course, the server serves as host to more than one domain, and uses the domain name to decide which website to give you.
Could still be true.
Facebook "knows" that the copy they've found is genuine. Therefore, to them, it proves that Ceglia's is a forgery.
However, we *don't* know that Facebook's copy is genuine. Therefore, to prove to *us* that Ceglia's is a forgery (and theirs isn't), Facebook needs his hard drive. Probably they want to check the date modified on the file...
It's pretty obvious (to me, at least) that what Facebook has done is found the *original* contract, which proves that his is a fake, as long as they can prove that their copy is the original.
So they want his hard drive, probably to show that the date modified on the file is too recent to be original.
Your english is pretty good, but I think your spell check mislead you. There's a pretty big difference between "shellfish" and "selfish".
You are thinking about as if legailsation equals endorsement. It does not. ... just because something is permitted does not necessarily mean that anybody thinks it is good idea. It is just that it is not a bad enough thing to make it forbidden.
I agree. I don't think this should be illegal. But I still think it's wrong.
Let's just say it's at the soap-box level of "wrong". Not quite to the ballot-box or jury-box, and certainly nowhere near the ammo-box. I'm on my soap-box. I think I've made my point, so I'll get off now.
So maybe I'm just a little bit weird, but I don't feel completely okay with it. Sort of like I don't feel completely okay with the fact that Manhattan island was bought in exchange for some pretty shells. Not that I think there's anything we can or should do about that. Just that yeah, I'd say it was probably unethical and I don't think it was right. Just because we can doesn't mean we should, and just because they'll pay it doesn't mean we should take it.
almost every nation has some form of age of consent legislation
So in some cases you agree that somebody needs to get in people's business and tell them what they should and shouldn't do? Yeah, I figured you did. It just took a ridiculous analogy to make you admit it.
Um, you can't say:
"People should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to do. Get out of their business and stop telling people what they should and shouldn't want".
Then follow it up with,
"but THAT'S illegal, you shouldn't do THAT".
Either you're in favor of telling people what they should and shouldn't do, within reasonable limitations, or you're not. Make up your mind.
Of course nobody really believes that everybody should be free to just do absolutely anything they want. But plenty of people talk like they believe it until you bring up something that THEY think is horrible. Then it's "oh no, you shouldn't do THAT because ____".
I don't see anybody advocating for arrangements which are involuntary either on their face
If somebody in a third-world country would sell their kidney for an electronic device that they could never afford otherwise, yeah, that seems pretty much like it's "involuntary on its face".
or by way of age of consent laws
I get that we Americans feel it necessary to tell our kids how old they must be before they can have sex, smoke, or drink booze, but where do we get the right to tell the rest of the world that?
This is just like the people who argue against legal prostitution. ... People should be allowed to decide for themselves what they want to do. Get out of their business and stop telling people what they should and shouldn't want
So it's okay for people to sell their children as prostitutes? That happens in some countries. But I suppose I'm just an arrogant American if I think there's anything wrong with that.
How many would let someone spy on them if they were given a piece of technology that they realistically could NEVER afford in their life, EVER. I'd suggest that all of us would.
And that's exactly what's wrong with it. If someone wouldn't sell their privacy in exchange for a "cheap netbook", they shouldn't be required to sell their privacy in exchange for "a piece of technology that they realistically could never afford". Their privacy shouldn't be negotiable.
exploit the poor to create "visual narratives". ... Consent is easy to get when there are no alternatives in the 3rd world hell holes they ship these too
This is exactly right; granted, the rest of your post was inflammatory and mostly unnecessary. It doesn't matter whether it's Massachusetts or anywhere else; it's not like this sort of thing is limited to one state.
In effect - "Sell your privacy for a netbook."
How many Slashdot readers would let someone spy on them in exchange for getting a cheap laptop? Not many, because we can afford not to... this is exploiting the poor, no different than letting rental companies install spying software on their rental laptops (which happened in Pennsylvania).
It wasn't plain text. But Slashdot had a post size limit that the post preview didn't have, so it didn't work anyway. Mirror posted below; hopefully people can access that.
http://ompldr.org/vOWw4eg/Papers_from_Philosophical_Transactions_of_the_Royal_Society__fro.6554331.TPB.torrent
Seems I had that backward. Sorry.
That's what I get for trying to remember stuff I learned in high school instead of just using Wikipedia.
Um, NATO is sort of like the UN's toothless grandmother.
No, my "I know for a fact" meant that I don't feel like exiting Firefox and disconnecting from the net to try it out, but I'm sure I've done it in the past. And frankly you just came across as a jerk. What the hell?
First - fine, it doesn't do it every time? In that case, I'm not exiting Firefox and disconnecting from the net to try it out repeatedly. But I'm still sure I've never noticed it.
Second - the way you typically check for a connection to the net is by attempting to ping the mothership. Six one way, half a dozen the other.
Third - which extensions throw warnings if you're not connected to the net? I'll remember not to install them.
My method of killing brain cells is, and has always been, booze. Thanks for your concern. ~
That's ridiculous. I know for a fact that I've opened Firefox on computers with no active internet connection, so whether or not it attempts to "ping the mothership" it certainly doesn't make you wait around while it does it. Or if it does, it happens so fast that nobody would notice the delay, which would invalidate your point anyway.