Latest Entries »

PART ONE Free Your Money

PART ONE

free your money

Over the centuries, a conscienceless cabal of bankers and European royalty have enslaved the world’s nations and citizens in a never ending cycle of wars and debt. Their goal is one world government. Their strategy is to make you and your nation dependent on them for your survival.

This Grace Powers Action Series shows you what you can do to free yourself from the stranglehold of the illuminati families who rule from the shadows. The solution is to become independent of them.  Find out how.

1. Invest Wisely
2. Control Your Own Money
3. What Is Smart Money?
4. Take Back Retirement Money
5. Avoid Taxes
6. Barter and Trade

free your money

PART TWO

Resist the new world order

Refuse to recognize the illegitimate privatization claims of the illuminati crime families. Their claims to public property were acquired without public knowledge or consent.  Refuse to obey unjust laws that have been passed by government insiders to disempower you and your nation.

The success of the illuminati crime families and their New World Order agenda depends on your obedience of the unfair laws that your nation’s puppet politicians have been quietly passing without public consent.

1. Disobey Unjust Laws
2. Stop Donating
3. Refuse The Chip
4. Refuse Vaccines
5. Stop Voting
6. Stop Supporting The Troops

resist the nwo

PART THREE

Free your mind

If you live to be ninety, you will have spent thirty years of your life in another dimension called ‘sleep’. During sleep, your dreams seem very real to you but when you awaken, you realize they were just dreams. The same is true for your ‘awake’ world.  It is possible to awaken from that, too.

1. Discover Your Power
2. Choose Your Thoughts
3. Overcome Your Fears
4. Deprogram Yourself I
5. Deprogram Yourself II
6. Choose A New Identity

free your mind

PART FOUR

Defeat the new world order


Instead of waiting and praying for someone to stop the madness – do it yourself. If 300 morally insane illuminati families can figure out how to steal the world and enslave the masses, then 300 sane families can figure out how to stop them.

1. Outsmart The Banksters
2. Educate Others
3. Learn Survival Skills
4. Be A Hero
5. Expose The Ruling Families
6. Arrest The Ruling Families

Facebook founder called trusting users dumb f*cks

Peace Prize for Mr Zuckerberg?

By Andrew OrlowskiGet more from this author

Posted in Music and Media, 14th May 2010 11:33 GMT

Free whitepaper – Out-of-box comparison between Dell, HP, and IBM blade servers

Loveable Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg called his first few thousand users "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their data, published IM transcripts show. Facebook hasn’t disputed the authenticity of the transcript.

Zuckerberg was chatting with an unnamed friend, apparently in early 2004. Business Insider, which has a series of quite juicy anecdotes about Facebook’s early days, takes the credit for this one.

The exchange apparently ran like this:

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard

Zuck: Just ask.

Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS

[Redacted Friend’s Name]: What? How’d you manage that one?

Zuck: People just submitted it.

Zuck: I don’t know why.

Zuck: They "trust me"

Zuck: Dumb fucks

The founder was then 19, and he may have been joking. But humour tells you a lot. Some might say that this exchange shows Zuckerberg was not particularly aware of the trust issue in all its depth and complexity.

Facebook is currently in the spotlight for its relentlessly increasing exposure of data its users assumed was private. This is nicely illustrated in the interactive graphic you can find here or by clicking the piccie to the right.

In turn, its fall from grace has made backers of the ‘social media’ bubble quite nervous. Many new white collar nonjobs created since the mid-Noughties depend on the commercial value of your output, and persona;l information. (Both are invariably donated for free).

But there’s a problem.

Much of the data created by Web2.0rrhea is turning out to be quite useless for advertisers – or anyone else. Marketeers are having a harder time justifying the expenditure in sifting through the Web 2.0 septic tank for the odd useful nugget of information.

Facebook’s data stash is regarded as something quite special. It’s authenticated against a real person, and the users tend to be over 35 and middle class – the ideal demographic for selling high value goods and services. In addition, users have so far been ‘sticky’ to Facebook, something quite exceptional since social networks fall out of fashion (Friends Reunited, Friendster) as quickly as they attract users.

Facebook also has something else going for it – ordinary users regard it as the natural upgrade to Hotmail. In fact, once the crap has been peeled away, there may not be much more to Facebook than the Yahoo! or Hotmail Address Book with knobs on: the contact book is nicely integrated, uploading photos to share easier, while everything else is gravy. Unlike tech-savvy users, many people remain loyal to these for years. ®

 

About

Facebook is a great service. I have a profile, and so does nearly everyone I know under the age of 60.

However, Facebook hasn’t always managed its users’ data well. In the beginning, it restricted the visibility of a user’s personal information to just their friends and their "network" (college or school). Over the past couple of years, the default privacy settings for a Facebook user’s personal information have become more and more permissive. They’ve also changed how your personal information is classified several times, sometimes in a manner that has been confusing for their users. This has largely been part of Facebook’s effort to correlate, publish, and monetize their social graph: a massive database of entities and links that covers everything from where you live to the movies you like and the people you trust.

This blog post by Kurt Opsahl at the the EFF gives a brief timeline of Facebook’s Terms of Service changes through April of 2010. It’s a great overview, but I was a little disappointed it wasn’t an actualtimeline: hence my initial inspiration for this infographic.

Let me be clear about something: I like Facebook. It’s helped me reconnect with dozens of people with whom I’d lost touch, and I admire the work their team does. I hope your takeaway from this infographic isn’t "I’m deleting my account"; rather, I hope it’s "I’m checking my privacy settings right now, and changing them to a level with which I’m comfortable".


Data

The data for this chart was derived from my interpretation of the Facebook Terms of Service over the years, along with my personal memories of the default privacy settings for different classes of personal data. The population sizes are statistics from Google, the Facebook Data Team, and wild guesses based on what seemed reasonable to me.

I welcome data corrections, so please leave a comment below if you have better numbers to share.


Types of Personal Data

Facebook’s classification system for personal data has changed significantly over the years. I tried to capture what I thought were broad topics that have remained relatively consistent. But they might need some explanation.

  • Likes: a person, band, movie, web page, or any other entity represented in Facebook’s social graph that has a "like" button. "Likes" started with status updates, but have now grown to encompass pretty much everything. In Facebook Newspeak, they’re a "Connection".
  • Name, Picture, Gender, Birthday, Contact Info: self-explanatory
  • Extended Profile Data: Your family members, city, place of birth, religious views, favorite authors, schools attended — anything that is an entity you can list a relationship to in your profile.
  • Friends: The people you’ve friended
  • Networks: The personal networks you’ve set up on Facebook (e.g. colleges & universities or companies).
  • Wall posts & Photos: Self-explanatory.

Audiences

Audience sizes are based on averages, interpolations of those averages across time, and guesses from my personal experience where that data was unavailable.

One thing you may notice is that by 2009, the term "Network" for the inner circle is replaced by "FoF", or "Friends of Friends". Facebook introduced this in 2008 to cater to users whose networks were too large to be manageable. My guess is that this effectively shrank the potential number of people who could see this particular kind of data. I ballparked an estimate for the average size of this extended friend network by taking the average number of friends a user had in 2009 (130) and assuming there was on average a 2/3rds overlap with each of their friends, yielding an average of 8450 people.


Implementation

The audience scale is logarithmic, so that we can compare audience sizes of 100 and 1 billion. I also did a big no-no and mapped the audience size to the length of the slice, not its area. I don’t feel too terrible about this, because the area comparison is already distorted by the log scale. Plus, frankly, the linear scale just looks better.

I built this sketch using Processing.js. You’re welcome to download the source. Sorry, no Internet Explorer.


About me

My name’s Matt McKeon. I’m a developer with the Visual Communication Lab at IBM Research’sCenter for Social Software. The views expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of IBM. You can find me on Twitter and (hah) Facebook.

At Last — The Full Story Of How Facebook Was Founded

Nicholas Carlson | Mar. 5, 2010, 4:10 AM |

Mark Zuckerberg

Image: deneyterrio

The origins of Facebook have been in dispute since the very week a 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg launched the site as a Harvard sophomore on February 4, 2004.

Then called "thefacebook.com," the site was an instant hit.  Now, six years later, the site has become one of the biggest web sites in the world, visited by 400 million people a month.

The controversy surrounding Facebook began quickly.  A week after he launched the site in 2004, Mark was accused by three Harvard seniors of having stolen the idea from them.

This allegation soon bloomed into a full-fledged lawsuit, as a competing company founded by the Harvard seniors sued Mark and Facebook for theft and fraud, starting a legal odyssey that continues to this day.

New information uncovered by Silicon Alley Insider suggests that some of the complaints against Mark Zuckerberg are valid.  It also suggests that, on at least one occasion in 2004, Mark used private login data taken from Facebook’s servers to break into Facebook members’ private email accounts and read their emails–at best, a gross misuse of private information. Lastly, it suggests that Mark hacked into the competing company’s systems and changed some user information with the aim of making the site less useful.

The primary dispute around Facebook’s origins centered around whether Mark had entered into an "agreement" with the Harvard seniors, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss and a classmate named Divya Narendra, to develop a similar web site for them — and then, instead, stalled their project while taking their idea and building his own.

The litigation never went particularly well for the Winklevosses.

In 2007, Massachusetts Judge Douglas P. Woodlock called their allegations "tissue thin." Referring to the  agreement that Mark had allegedly breached, Woodlock also wrote, "Dorm room chit-chat does not make a contract." A year later, the end finally seemed in sight: a judge ruled against Facebook’s move to dismiss the case. Shortly thereafter, the parties agreed to settle.

But then, a twist.

After Facebook announced the settlement, but before the settlement was finalized, lawyers for the Winklevosses suggested that the hard drive from Mark Zuckerberg’s computer at Harvard might contain evidence of Mark’s fraud. Specifically, they suggested that the hard drive included some damning instant messages and emails.

The judge in the case refused to look at the hard drive and instead deferred to another judge who went on to approve the settlement. But, naturally, the possibility that the hard drive contained additional evidence set inquiring minds wondering what those emails and IMs revealed.  Specifically, it set inquiring minds wondering again whether Mark had, in fact, stolen the Winklevoss’s idea, screwed them over, and then ridden off into the sunset with Facebook.

Unfortunately, since the contents of Mark’s hard drive had not been made public, no one had the answers.

But now we have some.

Over the past two years, we have interviewed more than a dozen sources familiar with aspects of this story — including people involved in the founding year of the company. We have also reviewed what we believe to be some relevant IMs and emails from the period.  Much of this information has never before been made public.  None of it has been confirmed or authenticated by Mark or the company.

Based on the information we obtained, we have what we believe is a more complete picture of how Facebook was founded.  This account follows.

And what does this more complete story reveal?

We’ll offer our own conclusions at the end.  But first, here’s the story:

"We can talk about that after I get all the basic functionality up tomorrow night."

"We can talk about that after I get all the basic functionality up tomorrow night."

In the fall of 2003, Harvard seniors Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra were on the lookout for a web developer who could bring to life an idea the three say Divya first had in 2002: a social network for Harvard students and alumni. The site was to be called HarvardConnections.com.

The three had been paying Victor Gao, another Harvard student, to do coding for the site, but at the beginning of the fall term Victor begged off the project. Victor suggested his own replacement: Mark Zuckerberg, a Harvard sophomore from Dobbs Ferry, New York.

Back then, Mark was known at Harvard as the sophomore who had built Facemash, a "Hot Or Not" clone for Harvard. Facemash had already made Mark a bit of a celebrity on campus, for two reasons.

The first is that Mark got in trouble for creating it. The way the site worked was that it pulled photos of Harvard students off of Harvard’s Web sites. It rearranged these photos so that when people visited Facemash.com they would see pictures of two Harvard students and be asked to vote on which was more attractive. The site also maintained a list of Harvard students, ranked by attractiveness.

On Harvard’s politically correct campus, this upset people, and Mark was soon hauled in front of Harvard’s disciplinary board for students.  According to a November 19, 2003 Harvard Crimson article, he was charged with breaching security, violating copyrights, and violating individual privacy. Happily for Mark, the article reports that he wasn’t expelled.

The second reason everyone at Harvard knew about Facemash and Mark Zuckerberg was that Facemash had been an instant hit. The same Harvard Crimson story reports that after two weeks, "the site had been visited by 450 people, who voted at least 22,000 times." That means the average visitor voted 48 times.

winklevoss twinsIt was for this ability to build a wildly popular site that Victor Gao first recommended Mark to Cameron, Tyler, and Divya. Sold on Mark, the Harvard Connection trio reached out to him. Mark agreed to meet.

They first met in the early evening on November 30 in the dining hall of Harvard College’s Kirkland House.  Cameron, Tyler, and Divya brought up their idea for Harvard Connection, and described their plans to A) build the site for Harvard students only, by requiring new users to register with Harvard.edu email addresses, and B) expand Harvard Connection beyond Harvard to schools around the country.  Mark reportedly showed enthusiastic interest in the project.

Later that night, Mark wrote an email to the Winklevoss brothers and Divya: "I read over all the stuff you sent and it seems like it shouldn’t take too long to implement, so we can talk about that after I get all the basic functionality up tomorrow night."

The next day, on December 1, Mark sent another email to the HarvardConnections team.  Part of it read, "I put together one of the two registration pages so I have everything working on my system now. I’ll keep you posted as I patch stuff up and it starts to become completely functional."

These two emails sounded like the words of someone who was eager to be a part of the team and working away on the project.  A few days later, however, Mark’s emails to the HarvardConnection team started to change in tone.  Specifically, they went from someone who seemed to be hard at work building the product to someone who was so busy with schoolwork that he had no time to do any coding at all.
December 4: "Sorry I was unreachable tonight. I just got about three of your missed calls. I was working on a problem set."
December 10: "The week has been pretty busy thus far, so I haven’t gotten a chance to do much work on the site or even think about it really, so I think it’s probably best to postpone meeting until we have more to discuss. I’m also really busy tomorrow so I don’t think I’d be able to meet then anyway."
A week later: "Sorry I have not been reachable for the past few days. I’ve basically been in the lab the whole time working on a cs problem set which I"m still not finished with."

Finally, on January 8:

Sorry it’s taken a while for me to get back to you. I’m completely swamped with work this week. I have three programming projects and a final paper due by Monday, as well as a couple of problem sets due Friday. I’ll be available to discuss the site again starting Tuesday.
I"m still a little skeptical that we have enough functionality in the site to really draw the attention and gain the critical mass necessary to get a site like this to run…Anyhow, we’ll talk about it once I get everything else done.

So what happened to change Mark’s tune about HarvardConnection? Was he so swamped with work that he was unable to finish the project?  Or, as the HarvardConnection founders have alleged, was he stalling the development of HarvardConnection so that he could build a competing site and launch it first?
Our investigation suggests the latter.
As a part of the lawsuit against Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg, the above emails from Mark have been public for years. What has never been revealed publicly is what Mark was telling his friends, parents, and closest confidants at the same time.
Let’s start with a December 7th (IM) exchange Mark Zuckerberg had with his Harvard classmate and Facebook cofounder, Eduardo Saverin. 

 

"They made a mistake haha. They asked me to make it for them."

"They made a mistake haha. They asked me to make it for them."

Former PayPal CEO Peter Thiel gets a lot of credit for being the first investor in Facebook, because he led the first formal Facebook round in September of 2004 with a $500,000 investment at a $5 million valuation.  But the real "first investor" claim to fame should actually belong to a Harvard classmate of Mark Zuckerberg’s named Eduardo Saverin.
To picture Eduardo, what you need to know is that he was the kid at Harvard who would wear a suit to class. He liked to give people the impression that he was rich — and maybe somehow connected to the Brazilian mafia.  At one point, in an IM exchange, Mark told a friend that Eduardo — "head of the investment society" — was rich because "apparently insider trading isn’t illegal in Brazil."

Eduardo Saverin wasn’t directly involved with Facebook for long: During the summer of 2004, when Mark moved to Palo Alto to work on Facebook full time, Eduardo took a high-paying internship at Lehman Brothers in New York.  While Mark was still at Harvard, however, Eduardo appears to have bankrolled Facebook’s earliest capital expenses, thus becoming its initial investor.
In January, however, Mark told a friend that "Eduardo is paying for my servers." Eventually, Eduardo would agree to invest $15,000 in a company that would, in April 2004, be formed as Facebook LLC.  For his money, Eduardo would get 30% of the company.

Eduardo was also involved in Facebook’s earliest days, as a confidant of Mark Zuckerberg.

In December, 2003, a week after Mark’s first meeting with the HarvardConnection team, when he was telling the Winklevosses that he was too busy with schoolwork to work on or even think about HarvardConnection.com, Mark was telling Eduardo a different story.  On December 7, 2003, we believe Mark sent Eduardo the following IM:

Check this site out: http://www.harvardconnection.com and then go to harvardconnection.com/datehome.php. Someone is already trying to make a dating site. But they made a mistake haha. They asked me to make it for them. So I’m like delaying it so it won’t be ready until after the facebook thing comes out.

This IM suggests that, within a week of meeting with the Winklevosses for the first time, Mark had already decided to start his own, similar project–"the facebook thing."  It also suggests that he had developed a strategy for dealing with his would-be competition: Delay developing it.

"I feel like the right thing to do is finish the facebook and wait until the last day before I’m supposed to have their thing ready and then be like look yours isn’t as good"

"I feel like the right thing to do is finish the facebook and wait until the last day before I'm supposed to have their thing ready and then be like look yours isn't as good"

A few weeks after the initial meeting with the HarvardConnection team, after Mark sent the IM to Eduardo Saverin talking about developing "the facebook thing" and delaying his development of HarvardConnection, Mark met with the HarvardConnection folks, Cameron, Tyler, and Divya, for a second time. 

This time, instead of meeting in the dining hall of Mark’s residential hall, Kirkland House, the four met in Mark’s dorm room. Divya is said to have arrived late.
In Kirkland House, the dorm rooms aren’t laid out in cinder-block-cube style: Mark’s room had a narrow hallway connecting it to his neighbor’s. As Cameron and Tyler sat down on a couch in Mark’s room, Cameron spotted something in the hallway. On top of a bookshelf there was a white board. It was the kind Web developers and product managers everywhere use to map out their ideas.

On it, Cameron read two words, "Harvard Connection." He got up to go look at it. Immediately, Mark asked Cameron to stay out of the hallway.

Eventually Divya arrived and the four of them talked about plans for Harvard Connection. One feature Mark brought up was designed to keep more popular and sought-after Harvard Connection users from being stalked and harassed by crowds of people.

In this second meeting, Mark still appeared to be actively engaged in developing Harvard Connection.  But he never showed the HarvardConnection folks any site prototypes or code.  And they didn’t insist on seeing them.
During the weeks in which Mark was juggling the two projects in tandem, he also had a series of IM exchanges with a friend named Adam D’Angelo (above).
Adam and Mark went to boarding school together at Phillips Exeter Academy. There, the pair became friends and coding partners. Together they built a program called Synapse, a music player that supposedly learned the listener’s taste and then adapted to it. Then, in 2002 Mark went to Harvard and Adam went to Cal Tech.  But the pair stayed in close touch, especially through AOL instant messenger. Eventually, Adam became Facebook’s CTO.

Harvard Yard at WinterThrough the Harvard Connection-Facebook saga and its aftermath, Mark kept Adam apprised of his plans and thoughts.
One purported IM exchange seems particularly relevant on the question of how Mark distinguished between the two projects–the "facebook thing" and "the dating site"–as well as how he was considering handling the latter:

Zuck: So you know how I’m making that dating site

Zuck: I wonder how similar that is to the Facebook thing

Zuck: Because they’re probably going to be released around the same time

Zuck: Unless I fuck the dating site people over and quit on them right before I told them I’d have it done.

D’Angelo: haha

Zuck: Like I don’t think people would sign up for the facebook thing if they knew it was for dating

Zuck: and I think people are skeptical about joining dating things too.

Zuck: But the guy doing the dating thing is going to promote it pretty well.

Zuck: I wonder what the ideal solution is.

Zuck: I think the Facebook thing by itself would draw many people, unless it were released at the same time as the dating thing.

Zuck: In which case both things would cancel each other out and nothing would win. Any ideas? Like is there a good way to consolidate the two.

D’Angelo: We could make it into a whole network like a friendster. haha. Stanford has something like that internally
Zuck: Well I was thinking of doing that for the facebook. The only thing that’s different about theirs is that you like request dates with people or connections with the facebook you don’t do that via the system.

D’Angelo: Yeah

Zuck: I also hate the fact that I’m doing it for other people haha. Like I hate working under other people. I feel like the right thing to do is finish the facebook and wait until the last day before I’m supposed to have their thing ready and then be like "look yours isn’t as good as this so if you want to join mine you can…otherwise I can help you with yours later." Or do you think that’s too dick?

D’Angelo: I think you should just ditch them

Zuck: The thing is they have a programmer who could finish their thing and they have money to pour into advertising and stuff. Oh wait I have money too. My friend who wants to sponsor this is head of the investment society. Apparently insider trading isn’t illegal in Brazil so he’s rich lol.

D’Angelo: lol

 

"I’m going to fuck them."

"I'm going to fuck them."

Eduardo Saverin and Adam D’Angelo were not the only people Mark discussed his Harvard Connection – Facebook situation with.  We believe he also had many IM exchanges about it with relatives and a close female Harvard friend. 

In January 2004, Mark met with the Winklevoss brothers and Divya Narendra for what would be the last time. The meeting was on January 14, 2004, and it was held at the same place Mark met with the HarvardConnection team for the first time — in the dining hall of Mark’s residence, Kirkland House.

By this point, Mark’s site, thefacebook.com, wasn’t complete, but he was working hard on it. He’d arranged for Eduardo Saverin to pay for his servers. He had already told Adam that "the right thing to do" was to not complete Harvard Connection and build TheFacebook.com instead.  He had registered the domain name.

He therefore had a choice to make: Tell Cameron, Tyler and Divya that he wanted out of their project, or string them along until he was ready to launch thefacebook.com.

Mark sought advice on this decision from his confidants. One friend told him, in so many words, you know me. I don’t ever think anyone should do anything bad to anybody.

Mark and this friend also had the following IM exchange about how Mark planned to resolve the competing projects:

Friend: So have you decided what you’re going to do about the websites?

Zuck: Yeah, I’m going to fuck them

Zuck: Probably in the year

Zuck: *ear

And so, it appears, he did.  (In a manner of speaking).

On January 14, 2004, Mark Zuckerberg met with Cameron, Tyler, and Divya for the last time. During the meeting at Kirkland House, Mark expressed doubts about the viability of HarvardConnection.com. He said he was very busy with personal projects and school work and that he wouldn’t be able to work on the site for a while. He blamed others for the site’s delays.

He did not say that he was working on his own project and that he was not planning to complete the HarvardConnection site.

After the meeting, Mark had another IM exchange with the friend above. He told her, in effect, that he had wimped out. He hadn’t been able to break the news to Cameron and Tyler, in part, he said, because he was "intimidated" by them. He called them "poor bastards."

So then what happened?

Three days earlier, on January 11, 2004, Mark had registered the domain THEFACEBOOK.COM.

On February 4, he opened the site to Harvard students.

On February 10, Cameron Winklevoss sent Mark a letter accusing him of breaching their agreement and stealing their idea.

In late May, after going through two more developers, Cameron, Tyler and Divya launched HarvardConnection as ConnectU, a social network for 15 schools.

On June 10, 2004, a commencement speaker mentioned the amazing popularity of Mark’s site, thefacebook.com.

In the summer of 2004, Mark moved to Palo Alto to work on Facebook full time and soon received a $500,000 investment from Peter Thiel.

In September 2004, HarvardConnection, now called ConnectU, sued Mark Zuckerberg and the now-incorporated "Facebook" for allegedly breaching their agreement and stealing their idea.

In February 2008, Facebook and ConnectU agreed to settle the lawsuit.

In June 2008, ConnectU appealed the settlement in California’s ninth district, accusing Facebook of trading its stock without disclosing material information. This appeal is on-going.

The $65 million question

The $65 million question

When we described the specifics of this story to Facebook, the company had the following comment:

"We’re not going to debate the disgruntled litigants and anonymous sources who seek to rewrite Facebook’s early history or embarrass Mark Zuckerberg with dated allegations. The unquestioned fact is that since leaving Harvard for Silicon Valley nearly six years ago, Mark has led Facebook’s growth from a college website to a global service playing an important role in the lives of over 400 million people."

On the latter point, we agree.  What Mark Zuckerberg has accomplished with Facebook over the past six years has been nothing short of amazing.

So, having revisited the founding of Facebook with additional information, what do we conclude?

First, we have seen no evidence of any formal contract between Mark Zuckerberg and the Winklevosses in which Mark agreed to develop Harvard Connection.

Second, any agreement the parties may have had–as well as most of the purported IMs and emails we have reviewed from the period–appear to have been at the level of, as Judge Ware described them, "dorm-room chit-chat." (Albeit interesting and entertaining chit-chat.)

Third, only a week after beginning development of Harvard Connection, which he referred to as "the dating site," Mark had begun work on a separate project — "the facebook thing." Mark appears to have considered the products as competing for the attention of the same users, but he also appears to have regarded them as different in some key ways.

Fourth — and because of this foreseen competition — Mark does appear to have intentionally strung along the Harvard Connection folks with the goal of making his project, thefacebook.com, have a more successful launch.

Bottom line, we haven’t seen anything that makes us think that, whatever Mark did to the Harvard Connection folks, it was worth more than the $65 million they received in the lawsuit settlement.  In fact, this seems like a huge sum of money considering that the entire dispute took place over two months in 2004 and that, in the six years since, Mark has built Facebook into a massive global enterprise.

That said, in the course of our investigation, we also uncovered two additional anecdotes about Mark’s behavior in Facebook’s early days that are more troubling. These episodes — an apparent hacking into the email accounts of Harvard Crimson editors using data obtained from Facebook logins, as well as a later hacking into ConnectU — are described in detail here.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-facebook-was-founded-2010-3#ixzz0nvnSUByh

(NaturalNews) A class of insecticide that is applied to seeds and taken up into plant tissue may be responsible for much of the widespread decline in honeybee populations, increasing numbers of researchers and environmentalists are suggesting.
Starting in 2005, beekeepers in the United States first reported large numbers of bees mysteriously disappearing, and since then the problem has spread to different parts of the world. No one cause of the collapse has been identified, although front-running theories include parasites, viruses, stress from long-distance transport of hives for pollination, and pesticides.
"We do feel like pesticides are playing a role in pollinator decline," said researcher Maryann Frazier of Penn State University. "We know that the pesticides are there. We don’t know yet exactly what role they’re playing."
The recent documentary "Nicotine Bees" makes the case that a new class of pesticides, introduced in 2005, may be the primary cause of what has come to be known as Colony Collapse Disorder. The chemicals, known as neonicotinoids, are synthetic form of nicotine that is applied to seeds and taken up by the plant into its tissue as it grows. Insects that eat any part of the plant are then killed. Because neonicotinoids were introduced worldwide at around the same time as the first cases of colony collapse, and because they have been directly linked in some cases to massive bee die offs, they have emerged as a primary suspect in the disorder. The California Department of Pesticide Regulation has launched an investigation into some neonicotinoids, and the Sierra Club has asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban them all until they can be proven safe.
"What we’re asking the EPA is to go with precautions," said the group’s Laurel Hopwood. "Let’s go ahead and suspend them until we get all of the research completed."
Neonicotinoid use has already been restricted in France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia.
"Some of us think we’ve got enough chemicals out there killing bees," said beekeeper John Talbert. "Which begs the question: What is it doing to people?"

Loss of American Citizenship and Assassinations
By David McKalip, M.D.

"I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor."

King George III .

"That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved." Benjamin Franklin, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785

"As many of you know, it has been reported that President Obama has signed an order authorizing the assassination of [American Citizen] al-Awlaki… ..no one argues that a President doesn’t have the right to issue such an order." Senator Joe Lieberman, 5/6/10.

Imagine you are sitting home on a quiet Sunday afternoon in conversation with your beloved spouse. Suddenly your husband slumps over, blood draining from his head as a sniper’s bullet shatters your living room window. Your husband has just been assassinated by a government agent and it is later discovered — after ten years of painful inquiries carried out under the threat of your own assassination — that your husband was targeted as an enemy combatant and a terrorist. Just as easily, you and your entire family could have been killed in a home invasion in an attempt to cart off your husband for weeks of torture and lifetime detention or execution in an unknown Federal facility. Your investigation might also reveal that your loved one was targeted mistakenly by a bureaucrat or was a political enemy of officials in the government or their corporate allies.

Thus could be the very near future for American citizens if President Obama, Senator Joe Lieberman and people like Mayor Rudy Giuliani get their way. Lieberman (with Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) and Congressmen Jason Altmire (D-PA) and Charlie Dent (R-PA)) introduced the "Terrorist Expatriation Act" last week. The act would strip "terrorists" of their American citizenship and is in response to the recent attempted bombing of Times Square by an American Citizen — a former Pakistani granted this privilege in 2009 (Faisal Shahzad). It would make it very convenient to torture and kill any person that is viewed unfavorably by the powerful and arrogant elite sitting in Washington D.C. today. In fact, the New York Times reports that the President has authorized the assassination of American Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki who was born in New Mexico and now is reportedly plotting against America from Yemen.

On ABC’s "This Week" (5/9/10), Mayor Rudy Giuliani permanently lost my support when he advocated removing Miranda Rights from American Citizens who are "terrorists". " I would have instead declared him an enemy combatant" says Giuliani of the naturalized American Citizen arrested and accused by the State; an American Citizen who has not even had a 5th amendment right to a trial to ensure he is not actually wrongly accused. Who else would Giuliani, Obama or George Bush declare an "Enemy Combatant"? Would they quietly kill them in the field after a period of torture? Given the categorization of anyone with a Ron Paul or "Don’t Tread on Me" bumper sticker as a potential danger to the state and the Department of Homeland Security report on "Right Wing Extremism", just who does the government think a "terrorist" is?

The US constitution and American case law is rich language in defense of individual liberty against the tyranny of rulers. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury……..nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (Amendment 5 – 12/15/1791.) In Coffin vs.United States, 1895, the US Supreme court ruled: "The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law." The "Presumption of innocence" has a long tradition in English common law which is the basis for American law. Thus, Sir William Blackstone wrote the words latter echoed by Benjamin Franklin: "For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer." (Commentaries on the Laws of England, 9th ed., book 4, chapter 27, p. 358). The practical demonstration of a presumption of innocence is present in the burden of proof in criminal cases required for conviction: a person must be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt", the highest possible standard.

America is headed down a dangerous road of collectivist culture and rights of the state over the rights of man. The government is always looking for an excuse to take more power from individual citizens and the failed car bombing of Times Square is the latest crisis that will be used to justify usurpation of rights from citizens. The danger in removing due process rights is not in allowing the guilty to go free, it is in the wrongful persecution and summary executions of innocent Americans. In this way, innocent Americans can be targeted by a non-thinking and mistake-prone government bureaucracy or the tyrannical actions of a dictator who will not tolerate any challenge to their authority.

It is the supremacy of the Rule of Law over the abomination of the Rule of Man that was a main inspiration for the overthrow of the tyrannical monarchy of George the III by America’s founders. We should not gladly embrace more tyranny by Lieberman, Obama, Giuliani and Scott Brown by trading our freedom for "security". As Benjamin Franklin reminded us on that account, we will lose both and deserve neither.

When the precious privilege of being an American Citizen is held in contempt by our elected officials, it is time to peacefully remove those officials and replace them with those who would restore government to its sole function: protecting the individual liberty of American Citizens.

I have committed myself to the following oath, and hope that you will take it with me.
"I pledge to fight every day for individual freedom. I embrace peace and reject violence to achieve freedom. I demand limited government, free markets and individual liberty in America. I will keep my children free by ending programs that put them in debt. I refuse to take from others what I can produce for myself — and I will provide charity when I choose. I will work to elect people that will cut spending and taxes and restore government to the limits of the US Constitution. I will hold the government accountable to the constitution through action in the courts. I will pass the spirit of freedom to future generations."
Copyright © 2010 Campaign for Liberty

Trilateral Commission Wants War With Iran

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, May 14, 2010

Trilateral Commission Wants War With Iran 140510top

Trilateral Commission member Mikhail Slobodovsici, a chief adviser to the Russian leadership, unwittingly provided a revealing insight into the plans of the global elite during the group’s recent meeting in Dublin Ireland, when he mistakenly told a We Are Change Ireland activist he thought was a fellow TC member that the globalists are planning a war with Iran.

According to Jim Tucker’s fascinating report on the story, Slobodovsici also let slip to We Are Change Ireland’s Alan Keenan that the Trilateralists and their BIlderberg counterparts are intent on exploiting the economic crisis to finalize plans for a world government, but that this agenda is being severely hampered by so-called “nationalists” who are becoming increasingly aware of the impact that global government will have on their freedom and standards of living.

“We are deciding the future of the world,” Slobodovsici told Keenan. “We need a world government,” he said, but, referring to Iran, said “we need to get rid of them.”

“Suddenly, Slobodovsici noticed that Keenan’s nametag was different from the TC label and said: “I can’t talk—we operate under Chatham House rules,” reports Tucker.

Slobodovsici’s position on Iran is both alarming and surprising in equal measure, given that Russia has been generally supportive of Iran’s right to develop a peaceful nuclear fuel program and has directly helped build reactors.

Tucker also reveals that Trilateralists are crestfallen at how their plans for global government and centralization of power are being so fiercely resisted.

“It gets worse every year, not better,” one said. “Why do we even bother to meet anymore?”

“We can’t simply give up and quit,” another responded. “Bilderberg expects us to have a plan outlined.”

The fact that the elite had planned to have their world government fully operational by 2000 and are ten years overdue has been much cause for concern amongst Trilateralists, reports Tucker.

“TC boys are upset they were unable to exploit the economic crisis they helped generate by creating a world “treasury department” under the UN. They blame “rising nationalism” and ask “how those people knew about this,” according to witnesses inside the TC hotel.”

The continuing collapse of the euro threatens to derail the entire march towards global governance, a problem the elitists want to address by cranking up the printing presses in an effort to pour more money into failing states like Greece, Portugal and Spain.

The fact that a We Are Change Ireland activist was able to fool a Trilateral Commission member into spilling the beans on the globalists’ agenda is astounding. As was underscored recently by members of the Sovereign Independent who confronted David Rockefeller during the same meeting in Dublin, Trlaterals do not enjoy the same intense security that is afforded to the Bilderberg Group during their annual confab.

Bilderberg are set to convene at the Hotel Dolce Sitges near Barcelona Spain from June 4-7 for their annual meeting at which they will cover similar ground to the issues that were up for debate at the Trilateral conference in Dublin.

Read Jim Tucker’s full report below

TUCKER TRUMPS TRILATS

By James P. Tucker, Jr.

DUBLIN, Ireland—Trilateral Commission (TC) members, angry over their failure to establish a world government and the economic crisis they generated, called for war with Iran when they gathered behind closed doors here in Dublin, Ireland May 7-10.
War plans were revealed by Mikhail Slobodovsici, a chief adviser to the Russian leadership, when he strolled off the grounds of the Four Seasons resort, where TC had hunkered down behind armed guards and locked doors. He thought he was talking to a TC colleague when speaking with Alan Keenan, who operates the web site WeAreChange.org.
“We are deciding the future of the world,” Slobodovsici said. “We need a world government,” he said, but, referring to Iran, said “we need to get rid of them.”
Clearly, it was a TC war call. Many of the TC’s billionaires and millionaires are heavily invested in manufacturing, and wars produce huge profits.
Suddenly, Slobodovsici noticed that Keenan’s nametag was different from the TC label and said: “I can’t talk—we operate under Chatham House rules.”
Slobodovsici was ordered by the TC to order more apologies for the slaughter of an estimated 30 to 60 million inhabitants of the old Soviet Union by dictator Josef Stalin. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin had abjectly apologized on the anniversary of the Katyn Forest execution of 20,000 Polish soldiers. Putin admitted that the massacre was conducted by the Soviets, not by Germans, which the Communists had claimed for half a century. Nevertheless, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev apologized again the next day (May 9), denouncing Soviet citizens for tolerating the slaughter, saying they were fully aware of the bloodletting.
Never have the illustrious members of the TC been so depressed.
“It gets worse every year, not better,” one said. “Why do we even bother to meet anymore?”
“We can’t simply give up and quit,” another responded. “Bilderberg expects us to have a plan outlined.”
Much of their distress is due to the failure to establish a world government. In the 1990s, both TC and Bilderberg confidently predicted they would obtain a world government by the year 2000. A decade later, their goal is even further away. This they blame on detested “nationalists,” who oppose surrendering sovereignty to international bodies.

banner_newsletter

Bilderberg will meet June 4 to June 7 in Sitges, Spain, a resort city about 20 miles from Barcelona to make final decisions on what to impose upon the world.
Bilderberg will seal off the entire grounds of the Dolce Resort with armed guards and private security. Bilderberg is composed of about 120 international financiers, heads of state from Europe and high officials of the  White House, and the secretaries of the State and Commerce departments, among others.
The TC is the junior varsity, with slightly more than 300 participants. Bilderberg, the senior group in the wannabe secret world government, has slightly more than 100. The two groups have an interlocking leadership and common goal of a world government under their control.
Still, the TC attracts heads of state and other high officials in Europe and international financiers, including David Rockefeller and members of the Rothschild family. High officials of the Obama administration from the White House and departments of Treasury, State and Commerce will attend.
TC boys are upset they were unable to exploit the economic crisis they helped generate by creating a world “treasury department” under the UN. They blame “rising nationalism” and ask “how those people knew about this,” according to witnesses inside the TC hotel. Still, the TC is charging ahead. In a commentary based on interviews with (or dictated by) TC leaders, economist Richard Douthwaite wrote May 7 in The Irish Times:
Economic growth cannot increase incomes reliably and quickly enough to deliver the desired result. The only possible remedy is inflation. This could be engineered by having the European Central Bank create money out of nothing to give all the euro zone countries to spend. . . . Another irrational obstacle is the feeling that money cannot be created out of nothing. . . .
In this column, Douthwaite calls for Europe’s central bank to turn on the printing presses in the same way the privately owned and controlled Federal Reserve Bank has been flooding its cronies in the United States with dollars.
According to banking regulations in Europe, the European Central Bank is limited in how many euros it can release into the money supply through a 2-percent cap on inflation. Douthwaite, however, would like to see this hobble taken off the bankers.
In the United States, the Federal Reserve has been handing out free money to its member banks by lowering the discount rate to near zero. In Europe, Douthwaite writes, “this could be engineered by having the European Central Bank create money out of nothing to give to all the euro zone countries to spend.”
The result, he notes, would be inflation, because more money would be in circulation for governments to pay their bills. But he doesn’t see that as a bad thing.
However, as Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) notes, the problem with inflation is that it hurts the working class because it acts like an indirect tax.
“Simply put, printing money to pay for federal spending dilutes the value of the dollar, which causes higher prices for goods and services,” says Paul. “Savers and those living on fixed or low incomes are hardest hit as the cost of living rises. Low- and middle-income families suffer the most as they struggle to make ends meet while wealth is literally transferred from the middle class to the wealthy.”
The phony money idea was embraced by Gary Jenkins of Evolution Securities. He said the EU Central Bank may begin to print more money to dig itself out. “If we approach the brink, it may just be the only viable option left,” Jenkins said. “Only the ECB can print euros to save the system.”
For now, Jean-Claude Trichet, the president of the European Central Bank, denies that he will be turning on the printing presses. Trichet appears to be in the minority here, and pressure on the part of the globalists may eventually force him to increase inflation in an effort to stave off the inevitable collapse of the EU.
Ireland’s prime minister, Brian Cowen, was invited to make a welcoming address at the TC confab, then get out. This is routine with TC and Bilderberg: The head of the host country speaks, then leaves. But Cowen resented being banished, so he deliberately appeared 35 minutes late—and TC boys are unaccustomed to being kept waiting.
Paul Volker, chairman of President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and a past Fed chairman, expressed his anger with hostile questions. Cowen had tried to distance Ireland’s economy from that of Greece and other EU countries that are under attack for the economic crisis.
Volker told Cowen that while he had been “historically . . . very much attracted to the euro,” it was now “challenged.” Volker said: “You face some very difficult decisions here, but the general question of having an independent central bank, the common interest rate, the common currency . . . I’m just curious, in your mind, as to whether that does raise questions on the general governing structures of Europe.
“You’re not in favor of more centralization, as I understand it, although other people are, but what does this crisis mean for how Europe moves ahead?” Volker asked.
Cowen conceded that the euro faced problems with its credibility. He said EU finance ministers would be reviewing “present arrangements” in the months ahead to see how they could be improved “in a way that would add credibility to the currency and in a way that would meet with wide popular agreement.”
In other action, the TC plans to:
Raise gas costs in the United States. Europeans now pay $10 a gallon, Americans about $3. The TCers say Americans must pay $7.
Oil is being produced at only 81 percent of capacity to increase demand and, thus, prices. Many of the members were born to oil wealth.
They celebrate the healthcare legislation, which they believe will dramatically increase costs and reduce services. It is European style, and Obama is their boy. They look forward to the day when Americans pay at least 50 percent of their income in federal taxes, as is prevalent in Europe.

AFP editor James P. Tucker Jr. is a veteran journalist who spent many years as a member of the “elite” media in Washington. Since 1975 he has won widespread recognition, here and abroad, for his pursuit of on-the-scene stories reporting the intrigues of global power blocs such as the Bilderberg Group. Tucker is the author of Jim Tucker’s Bilderberg Diary: One Man’s 25-Year Battle to Shine the Light on the World Shadow Government. Bound in an attractive full-color softcover and containing 272 pages—loaded with photos, many never published before—the book recounts Tucker’s experiences over the last quarter century at Bilderberg meetings. $25 from AFP. No charge for S&H in U.S.

Officer for NYPD secretly records colleagues and superiors for over a year, exposes mass corruption!

Two years ago, a police officer in a Brooklyn precinct became gravely concerned about how the public was being served. To document his concerns, he began carrying around a digital sound recorder, secretly recording his colleagues and superiors.
He recorded precinct roll calls. He recorded his precinct commander and other supervisors. He recorded street encounters. He recorded small talk and stationhouse banter. In all, he surreptitiously collected hundreds of hours of cops talking about their jobs.
They reveal that precinct bosses threaten street cops if they don’t make their quotas of arrests and stop-and-frisks, but also tell them not to take certain robbery reports in order to manipulate crime statistics. The tapes also refer to command officers calling crime victims directly to intimidate them about their complaints.
As a result, the tapes show, the rank-and-file NYPD street cop experiences enormous pressure in a strange catch-22: He or she is expected to maintain high "activity"—including stop-and-frisks—but, paradoxically, to record fewer actual crimes
The tapes also reveal the locker-room environment at the precinct. On a recording made in September, the subject being discussed at roll call is stationhouse graffiti (done by the cops themselves) and something called "cocking the memo book," a practical joke in which officers draw penises in each other’s daily notebooks.

The NYPD Tapes: Inside Bed-Stuy’s 81st Precinct
This confirms what we have believed for a while now. The police are working on quotas, and are ticketing people to meet them. What gets me is this part

The tapes also refer to command officers calling crime victims directly to intimidate them about their complaints.

WTF? This is serious corruption. The only reason someone would want to intimidate a victim is if the police were crooked and on the side of the criminal.
Here are some examples:
Click on this link to hear the audio

OCTOBER 12, 2009
"How Do We Know This Guy Really Got Robbed?"
Police officers are supposed to take crime complaints, but in this roll call, a sergeant tells cops not to take robbery complaints if the victim won’t immediately return to speak with detectives. She questions the victim’s motives, too.

Click on this link to hear the audio

OCTOBER 4, 2009
"It’s Not About Squashing Numbers"
In this roll call, precinct supervisors order officers to be skeptical about robbery victims, and tell the cops that the precinct commander and two aides call victims to question them about their complaints.