A day after Mark Zuckerberg took his

 company, Facebook,public, the CEO

 updated his relationship status to

 “married.”

A day after Mark Zuckerberg took his company, Facebook, public, the CEO updated his relationship status to “married.”

Zuckerberg, 28, and his longtime girlfriend Priscilla Chan exchanged vows at a small ceremony in their backyard attended by less than 100 guests in Palo Alto, Calif., on Saturday.
Guests thought they were coming over for a surprise party to celebrate Chan’s graduation from UCSF medical school, where on May 14 she received her degree in pediatrics. However, Zuckerberg and Chanhad been planning the wedding for more than four months, according toa source authorized by the couple.
Zuckerberg designedChan’s wedding ring,a simple ruby sparkler, himself.
Guests dined family-style on food from the couple’s favorite restaurants, Palo Alto Sol and Fuki Sushi. For dessert, they had Burdick Chocolate “mice” – whimsical chocolate treats made in the shape of mice – which the couple had on their first date.
The couple, who metwhile attending Harvard before Zuckerberg – who is now worth more than $19 billion – started Facebook, have been dating fornine years.
Zuckerberg, the subject of the movie The Social Network , had been in the news all week for the highly-anticipated stock offering of his company.

Zuckerberg’s Property Status, Post-Marriage

Zuckerberg’s Property Status, Post-Marriage
The new Mrs. Mark Zuckerberg might not have to worry much about money, but that doesn’t mean she is automatically a billionaire.
The timing of Mark Zuckerberg’s marriage to his college sweetheart, Priscilla Chan, on Saturday, just a day after he took his company public, was certainly curious. Was he looking to clarify his net worth, which, with roughly 503 million shares, now stands at about $17 billion? And if true, many observers are speculating,did that have to do with the terms of a prenuptial agreement? The Zuckerbergs are not saying.
But what is clear, according to matrimonial law experts, is that whatever Mr. Zuckerberg earned before the marriage is still solely his property afterward.
California is one of fewer than a dozen states that follow community property laws, which specifically outline how property is divided between two spouses (or,in some cases, registered domestic partners).
The rest of the states generally follow equitable division rules, where the court tries to divide assets fairly at divorce. Generally, the rule for community property states that anything that was one spouse’s property before marriage is considered separate. In California, this includes things like dividends from previouslyowned stock or rent that is collected from an income-producing property owned before the marriage. After marriage, anything either partner earns or acquires is considered community property.
“This means the day after the marriage, whatever anyone earns is co-ownedby the marital estate,” said Jo Carrillo, a law professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law inSan Francisco.
But the lines between community and separate property can get fuzzy pretty quickly after that, particularly over many years of marriage. Separate property, for instance, remains separate unless that money is commingled with “community,” or joint, money and the couple does not keep records of where the money came from or whopaid what, Professor Carrillo said.
The question in Mr. Zuckerberg’s case is whether Ms. Chan would be entitled to the growth in value of his Facebook stock.
“The bigger gray area is the growth of value during the marriage,” saidChris Donnelly, head of the family law department at Leland, Parachini, Steinberg, Matzger & Melnick in San Francisco. “That is the 800-pound gorilla, or in Mark Zuckerberg’s case, the 800-ton gorilla.”
Under normal circumstances, his previously owned stock would remain his separate property. But the fact that Mr. Zuckerberg’s job is to continue to contribute to the growth of Facebook –and with it, presumably, the value of its stock –”the fruits of the efforts may accrue to the community,” Mr. Donnellysaid, adding that it wouldbe hard to imagine that a court would not allocate some portion of that growth to Ms. Chan. “She would be entitled to something,” Mr. Donnelly said. “It’s a huge gray zone, which is why in California you can create an agreement that spells out property very clearly.”
A prenuptial agreement could, for instance, outline a specific percentage of the growththat would be allocated to the “community” and what might remain separate.
It is unclear whether Mr. Zuckerberg gave any shares to his wife at any point. A Facebook spokesman, Larry Yu, declined to comment on whether Ms. Chan and Mr. Zuckerberg had a prenuptial agreement or whether she received anyshares of Facebook stock in her own name before the couple married.
Naturally, Mr. Zuckerberg has plenty of assets to protect. But some expertssaid Ms. Chan — who graduated last week frommedical school at the University of California, San Francisco — could stand to benefit as well. (The university’s medical center has accepted her into its residency program in pediatrics.) In fact, given that Ms. Chan reportedly asked Mr. Zuckerberg to sign a relationship agreement before she moved to California several years ago to be with him — outlining issues like how much time they should spend together — it mightnot be that surprising if she brought up the subject first.
“If she had legal advisers, I would hope they would have encouraged her to also consider a prenup,” Professor Carrillo said. “It protects the non-owning spouse because in California, we have a set of formalities that requirethe prospective spouses to take some time to negotiate the document, typically with their respective attorneys. The non-owning spouse will get disclosure and know what the other spouse owns and owes, and can choose or not, based on the disclosures, to make decisions.”
Since couples are not required to make prenuptial agreements public, experts said, it is impossible to know if such an agreement even exists. Several matrimonial lawyers said they would be surprised ifthe Zuckerbergs did not have one. Still, no one raised concerns about how either spouse would fare.
“The nice thing, when youhave that much money, isthat they are both going to be fine,

Top 10 Interesting Facebook Statistics And Facts

Top 10 Interesting Facebook Statistics And Facts

facebook_logos Lets put thespotlight on Facebook for a while.
We have gathered 10 interesting Facebook statistics and facts to help us learn more about this social networking giant (it’s updated) .
Most of these statistics aretaken from Facebook and independent studies that we have written on.
Catch the list below!
a. Statistics
statistics
1. It has 400 million users : Yes! Facebook has that many users. On average, 50% of its active users log on to Facebook everyday. The fastest growing demographic is the 35 years and older age group.

2. Fans: Everyday, more than 10 million users become fans of Pages. Joinus here

3. Average number of friends: An average user has 130 friends on Facebook.

4. Time wasted spent: Alright.. more than 6 billion minutes are spent on Facebook each day (worldwide). That is twice as much as the time spenton Google.

5. Status Updates: There are more than 60 million status updates daily. (I betTwitter has more!)

6. Photos: More than 3 billion photos are uploaded to the site each month

7. Videos: 14 million videos are uploaded each month

8. Content: More than 5 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photos, etc.) are shared each week

9. Events: More than 3.5 million events are created each month

10. Groups: More than 45 million active user groups exist on the site currently

Morden Life

Modern Life is no longer updated

Modern Life is no longer updated

It’s tough being a creative professional.
I’m not talking about the professional aspect – while getting a job can be challenging, they do exist, and for those with the right skillset easy enough to find.
No, it’s more the creative aspect that troubles me sometimes – specifically, something which I’ll describe as creative dishonesty.
I’m not talking about dishonesty in the traditional sense here – notplagiarism, or anything along those lines – but more of a perversion of a creative goal through bending to external forces.
Most of us have created something for the sheer joy of the creative process -whether doodling in a margin, or on some grand magnum opus.
It’s this love of the creativepursuit that draws us to the creative industry – a pursuit of an aesthetic ideal, a purity and perfection we strive towards.
It sounds a bit high-art, airy-fairy, and I suppose it is – but nevertheless it’s certainly a force that drivesmy own work.
So, creative dishonesty is a magnetic attraction to something other than this purity during a creative process – something which alters the nature of the work.
So, what are these influences? Ha, well – the major one should be fairly obvious. Money.
The ‘starving artist’ is an ascetic stereotype associated with devotion to the aesthetic – poverty being the consequence of pursuing an unprofitable avenue.
The real world is a harsh mistress, and demands tribute – bills to be paid, tools to be bought.
However, for most creativeprofessionals sustaining a moderately comfortable lifestyle isn’t too difficult – although this comes at a cost of a loss of creative control.
Working for somebody else, either in a salaried position or as a freelance sort, working for clients – shifts the focus from satisfying a higher aesthetic, to satisfying a superior.
It’s an unfortunate but necessary tradeoff to sustain a living through creative pursuit.
Independent creatives normally have it easier – artists, musicians and writers can retain creative ownership of their work – but the insidious influence of profitability remains.
All too often, that which I’m driven to do is all too different from what I will do to sustain a living.
It’s at such times that terms such as ‘sell-out’ are bandied about – a truly detestable term, and one that implies that artists and content creators should hold themselves to a higher regard then their audience might.
Nobody inhabits an office under someone else’s employ for 8 hours every weekday because their creative soul and essence insists upon it. We do it because we have to, else face poverty and hardship.
So, is it bad to allow creative work to be influenced by money?
Assuredly not – a world with only the purest of art would be devoid of much, as you’d eliminate anything resembling pop culture with one fell swoop.
No television show would ever be commissioned without consideration for its audience, no film ever funded if it didn’t kowtow a little to cinema’s populistside.
There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.
Such influence isn’t discrete, however – there’s a sliding scale between thismythical aesthetic ideal, and a pure-for-profit work.
Most works fall somewherein the middle, with some bearing greater influence than others.
And so, to a conclusion, of sorts – sadly no black-and-white resolution to be found.
Is it OK to permit money toinfluence your creative work? Absolutely – an artist needs to eat.
Is it better to limit money’sinfluence? Absolutely – creative control is a valuable thing, and to produce something under freer constraints is better than with interference from one’s paymasters.
Any true artist will feel the pull of the pure in doing their work – most of us aren’t cold-hearted mercenaries.
Aside from the money, I get much more satisfactionfrom doing something unprofitable than I might when employed as a creative-for-hire.
We all do what we must; and a commissioned creative work that has the funding to see fruition is better than an idea that remains bound by some higher goal.
As with so many things, balance is the key to this compromise. Value the pure work you see, but don’t disparage the profitable – they might yet fund something wonderful.