How To Write Like Mark Zuckerberg 139
newguy77 found a story talking about the results of a linguistics expert being brought in on the Facebook ownership case. They claim the emails are faked since Zuckerberg uses apostrophes correctly and opens sentences more casually than the damning emails.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot the government.
Re: (Score:2)
He did specify that he was talking about groups that made money off their invasion of privacy. Lot's of people may make money off of the government's efforts at privacy-erosion, but they aren't the government itself.
Re: (Score:3)
The two don't have to be directly linked. They do both, and they're doing their damndest to make invading your privacy even more legal. I'm sure they do plenty of invading illegally too, when they can get away with it. The government also get money from those they help out, and the privacy erosion helps to ensure that any who want to dispose of the current crooked system get wiped out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When did anyone sign said compact? In the case of immigrants, it's easy, because they make pledges and the like to enter. What about those of us born here? Is our signature made when we don't leave? Birth? I'm curious as to what others think.
Re: (Score:2)
When you are born, you enter society and the manner in which it was run. Nature is what provided two individuals the decision as to whether or not to do so. If as a potential parent, one would not wish to bring their child into their society, they should find a new one. Once that child enters adulthood, he or she is free to also make that choice.
This goes for every society, formalized or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously?
Firstly, you're born into your society. Tough shit. As soon as you bawl as you're exiting your mother's vagina, you're within the society.
Secondly, your society allowed you to be born. Without their policies, and their culture, you would not be here.
Thirdly, you've got it good compared to most people on this planet, because of your society. If you didn't, you wouldn't be posting here.
All that being said, there's no reason not to try to change your society for the better. However, curling up i
Re: (Score:2)
I don't. I call it a reasonable approach toward getting everyone who uses the common infrastructure to actually pay something approaching their fair share of society's costs. Maybe it's not the best approach, but it sure beats any proposa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Making" money, as the government does it, is not done through taxes. Taxes are a source of revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, "making money" is a double entendre in the case of government.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the scare-quotes.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the government.
You must not know about this then [theonion.com]?
Re:Who needs privacy when you've got PHP? (Score:5, Insightful)
The basic difference between the two is how they manage harvested data.
So, you come to Google, "I have this gizmo for sale, help me sell it." and Google goes "Fine, we found 2000 customers who purchased your gizmo, ship the gizmos here and here (or let us handle it), and here's your money, after we took our cut."
So, you come to Facebook, "I have this gizmo for sale, help me sell it." and Facebook goes "Fine, pay us our cut and here's your 20000000 records of our users data, emails, phones, home addresses, we guess at least 2000 of them are bound to be willing to buy your gizmo if you market it to them."
It's definite oversimplification but it seems your data is much safer with Google than with Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
What you wrote was a simplification - if it had been an oversimplification, that little prefix, 'over', would mean you had gone too far in simplifying and there was no truth left in your statement. There's still plenty of truth in your two examples - the real contracts Google and Facebook use have proportionate and analogous differences in both just what they offer to do for a customer and how they treat the third party data they hold. You are making a good point - don't bury your own light under a bushel b
Re: (Score:2)
If an advertiser approaches Google or Facebook what is sold is not user profiles, but clicks on the advertiser's ad(If you're branding you might buy impressions, but we're talking about selling a widget). All the data Google and Facebook collect is not what they give out to advertisers, but they use it to determine what ads to show to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, AFAIR, Google takes your ad content and you don't see much about people who see it, until someone clicks through. And if you manage your sales through Google Checkout and other their helpful services, you may not even see that much, just very general statistics. OTOH, Facebook opens up a whole lot of their user data through the API.
grammar nazis find work (Score:5, Interesting)
So all those years of being a grammar nazi can result in actual gainful employment? Who knew?
Also:
They claim the emails are faked since he uses Apostrophes correctly
But did he use Capitalization correctly?
Re: (Score:2)
Well you now know that CmdrTaco will never be able to pass himself off as Zuckerberg since he was the one who added that sentence.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they are referring to Frank Zappa's album called "Apostrophes (')"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I caught it after I posted :p I type too quickly for my own good sometimes. I really should use the Preview more often.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't Apostrophes the great philosopher of the ancient island Gramatica?
Re: (Score:2)
"Apostrophes" was the Greek scholar of Grammar.
In addition, a Thesaurus was a small dinosaur that used flowery language to extricate itself from dangerous situations. (Dennis Miller)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you've never been to Apostrophes. It's in Greece. You should go. You can get great rates because of the debt crisis, and the weather is perfect this time of year. The best way to use Apostophes is as a getaway from Turkey, which is still chilly this time of year and makes you sleepy after you eat. BTW, Apostrophes used to be the Capital until they lost a war with neighboring city-state Athens in ancient times. Apparently ancient history and geography aren't being taught either.
Styles change. (Score:2)
It's easy to learn to use apostrophes correctly, and find out that charm works better than being stiff.
I will admit, in general, it shouldn't change with all those points in just a few years, but it's hardly 'proof'... Just a likelihood. Certainly not enough to throw the case all on its own.
Re: (Score:1)
...and find out that charm works better than being stiff.
Ron Jeremy begs to differ.
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I see five possibilities:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm conflicted (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The blame probably goes much further back to something like IRC. Although that probably attracted a more intelligent crowd - perhaps blame AOL. Usually a safe move.
Re: (Score:2)
AOL wishes to plead innocence through reason of insanity.
Re: (Score:2)
AOL should plead innocence through reason of diminished mental capacity.
Back at least to radio telegraphy. (Score:2)
The blame probably goes much further back to something like IRC.
Back farther: To pre-internet "chat" and conferencing programs on timesharing computers. And further to Morse code radio telegraphy. (Wired telegraph didn't promote shortening words because it was billed by the word - but didn't send punctuation marks, either.)
My take:
On one hand some stuff (like limited size text messaging on twitter and SMS with latter's typically rotten keypad interface) promotes extreme abbreviation, rebus-style phonetic
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, sure. (Score:1)
The writing style of people never changes between 20 and 35. Its totally constant and als always the same regardless with whom they communicate.
Re: (Score:2)
Try reading the article, the comparison documents were taken from the same period as the questionable document.
Slashdot commenters aren't even trying these days...
Re: (Score:2)
And while we're at it, there are ways a person's writing style might change and ways it simply never will.
I just deliberately shifted to a more casual mode, by using the opening phrase "And while we're at it", as though I was standing physically next to 'Richard_at_work' and just adding my two cents without much reflection, immediately after he had finished. As part of giving my post that slightly more casual flavor, I used the contraction "we're". I might have been more formal
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Still, I'd want to see evidence establishing that this technique is reliable before giving much credence to such expert testimony. For all we know people who are committing fraud commit more punctuation mistakes, or write more formally. If you can't show that this methodology has support in the peer reviewed literature, it's just amateur forensic speculation.
Re: (Score:2)
Linguistical analysis has a long history in courts the world over - and like any other expert witness, it boils down to who has the more credible witness.
But the technique has been well established as reliable enough to produce acceptable testimony in court.
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm needing chest-waders for all this BS and bad "science".
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing that the linguist was comparing against emails from the same period of time, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Were they comparing emails addressed to the same persons too?
Yes.
KNOWN writings used for comparison were various email writings of Mr. Zuckerberg exchanged with the Plaintiff and related parties during the time period as specified in the Amended Complaint, which totaled 35 emails.
Re: (Score:1)
The writing style of people never changes between 20 and 35. Its totally constant and als always the same regardless with whom they communicate.
A fact which should haunt you.
This Entire Lawsuit Just Makes Me Believe That (Score:2)
Bonus points for the semi-colon! (Score:4, Interesting)
Off-topic and pointless maybe, but I use them a lot in my own writing. I remember a handful of esoteric grammatical tips from way back in high school that I've found really help out with bringing the context of conversation to the written word. I'm no grammar god, but it's disappointing to see how much knowledge of the intricacies of our written language is being lost in the era of LOLs and ZOMGs. I'm a casual reader of the classics, and it's amazing how pervasive beautiful writing was even at the lowest tiers of education; e.g. Civil War-era letters from soldiers to their loved ones (lol).
Re: (Score:3)
I would assume that the lowest tiers were not even able to read, so the soldiers you mention might have been the equivalent of upper middle class nowadays. See Literacy in North America [wikipedia.org]: "In 1870, 20 percent of the entire adult population was illiterate, and 80 percent of the black population was illiterate".
Re: (Score:2)
Great, so you've shown that 80% of the population in 1870 was literate. The upper middle class and rich (commonly defined as having household incomes greater than $100,000) are about 15% of the population today. Since you are assuming some sort of socioeconomic structure equivalence, that means we can assume that roughly 65% of the literate adults in the U.S. in 1870 would not be the equivalent of "upper middle class" or above. Chances are that many of those 65% wrote letters in the Civil War.
Also, many
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I can't even read Shakespeare without having to sit and think on every page for about an hour
Cheer up. The medium is the problem.
The primary reason you cannot read Shakespeare is because Shakespeare himself never intended for you to try and read his work like a novel. And I believe most (all?) of his sonnets were intended for private consumption, with a specific individual in mind for whom those words would easily land.
Shakespeare created plays, which would entail dialogue that would be interpreted by a professional actors under the direction of someone who understood the material, probably Shake
Re: (Score:2)
I can't even read Shakespeare without having to sit and think on every page for about an hour
Cheer up. The medium is the problem.
Umm, no. You do make a good point: I've certainly been to performances of Shakespeare where many obscure words and idioms were made reasonably clear through good acting.
But that isn't the main problem. Try reading the script from a Broadway musical of the past few decades; you may not get all the nuance immediately, but it is a lot easier to comprehend than Shakespeare.
The problem is that most people who aren't scholars of Early Modern English (including the vast majority of actors) think that they ca
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a casual reader of the classics. . .
To what do you refer to as classics, and do you recommend any in particular?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mean exclusively the ancients if that's what you're wondering. Pretty much anything over 50 years back. Google for the 100 greatest novels; an audio collection from about 15 years ago. I'm in the 70s after about 15 years. My favorite by far is Moby-Dick. That might be because I feel like I understand it almost completely. My other favorites so far:
* Les Miserable
* The Grapes of Wrath
* Anna Karenina
* War and Peace
* A Tale of Two Cities
I'm a slow reader though, so 4-5 a year is the best I can ma
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm a casual reader of the classics, and it's amazing how pervasive beautiful writing was even at the lowest tiers of education; e.g. Civil War-era letters from soldiers to their loved ones (lol).
Wouldn't a dash or a parenthesis be more appropriate than a semi-colon in this sentence?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a casual reader of the classics, and it's amazing how pervasive beautiful writing was even at the lowest tiers of education; e.g. Civil War-era letters from soldiers to their loved ones (lol).
Wouldn't a dash or a parenthesis be more appropriate than a semi-colon in this sentence?
Indeed. A comma would be the most common choice. It seems odd to nitpick punctuation in a post highlighting the power of punctuation. Nevertheless, a semicolon is most often used to connect two independent clauses that lack a conjunction. There are few other less-common uses for semicolons these days, but this sentence doesn't really fit any of them. To introduce an example or set of examples (as in the sentence in question), one would generally use a colon or dash. However, since the example is prece
Re: (Score:1)
So when (Score:2)
the missing step (Score:2)
1. steal idea
2. hack up code
3. lawyer up
4. profit!
our work is done
Sig-nature (Score:2)
Pre-Investment Zuckerberg: j00 sux0r! 4ll ur B4ss R b3long 2 Z!
"On October 24, 2007, Microsoft announced that it had purchased a 1.6% share of Facebook for $240 million, giving Facebook a total implied value of around $15 billion." - Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]
Post-Investment Zuckerberg: I, Mr. Zuckerberg, am sorry to inform you that you are inadequate for consideration. Hence force, I will purchase all of your base. To wit I declare, "For great justice."
The crux of the biscuit.... (Score:2)
is the apostrophe [dweezilzappaworld.com]
aka (Score:2)
Harvard Student (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who woulda thunk a Harvard dropout would have no problems keeping track of where apostrophes go. I can't imagine proper use of the English language was something that he only recently developed...
There, fixed that for you.
A fun version (Score:2)
Simple (Score:1)
hi (Score:1)
Re:Not a Reliable Method (Score:5, Insightful)
Zuckerburg's writing style of 2003 needs to be compared with emails of that era, not today. Furthermore, he could have been off on some random day in 2003 because he had a cold and wasn't thinking. This just isn't that reliable of method of determining authorship.
It is a reliable method of creating doubt though. Once he has doubt on his side, the case becomes a lot more difficult for his opponent.
Re: (Score:1)
"reasonable doubt" is used in crimal court the term used to win in civil court is "preponderance of evidence"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First, many people (including my mother) have little to no idea what Facebook is.
Second, it isn't a criteria of jury selection that they never heard of the company.
Re: (Score:2)
First, many people (including my mother) have little to no idea what Facebook is.
Possibly though these people--at least by my observation--are becoming quite rare, and generally geriatric and very rural.
Second, it isn't a criteria of jury selection that they never heard of the company.
True, but from my experience people usually have a polarized opinion about the site.
Re: (Score:2)
First, many people (including my mother) have little to no idea what Facebook is.
Possibly though these people--at least by my observation--are becoming quite rare, and generally geriatric and very rural.
Sure, Facebook is very popular, but I don't think one has to be computer illiterate in order to know "little or nothing" about it. Well, lets see what I know about Facebook:
I would call this "little or nothing". Nor do I think this weird. I know about Facebo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but from my experience people usually have a polarized opinion about the site.
I feel strongly that the site is a big waste of time, but I have absolutely no opinion on the ownership of the site.
Re: (Score:1)
Things like spacing out ellipses as well as not using apostrophes correctly is a great sign of a computer illiterate, dumbass scam artist at work.
Re: (Score:2)
are* damnit. Always get myself with the re-writing of parts of sentences.
On a side note, I found it interesting that the Zuck capitalises "Internet". I suppose it's valid, though I've never thought to do so myself.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's a proper name of the network - like Fidonet, or Freenet. (as opposed to generic names like darknet or intranet. Ethernet, on the other hand, is a brand name.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if it's a proper noun (as in referring to *the* Internet, then it should be capitalised). Back in the day the word internet may have been used as a common noun to describe *an* internet. That practice has probably declined.
Re: (Score:2)
The language Zuckerberg uses is actually dumber than what the dumb guy wrote to try and sound smart. RTFA :P
Re:Not a Reliable Method (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Zuckerburg's writing style of 2003 needs to be compared with emails of that era, not today.
If you had read the article, you would have had the opportunity to read the report yourself, within which was the following:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they used some from that time.
It's well beyond a "maybe".
KNOWN writings used for comparison were various email writings of Mr. Zuckerberg exchanged with the Plaintiff and related parties during the time period as specified in the Amended Complaint, which totaled 35 emails.
Jeez...
Re: (Score:1)
That is a more reliable method.
Re: (Score:1)
Right. On the other hand, is he going to write like a doofus to the owner of half his company? I'm not saying it doesn't have merit, it just isn't that reliable compared to other methods of determining authorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds more like a band name.
Re: (Score:1)
Give a computer + Internet for 60 year old person and teach how to use email + chat and in few months grammar have changed a lot.
Give same for a 10-15 year old and you just get l33t or SMStalk
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously not Mark Zuckerberg.
I'm guessing William Shatner.