Slashdot Mirror


AOL-Time Warner's Money Pit

ElitusPrime writes: "There's an interesting analysis of the recently released balance sheet net worth of AOL Time Warner. The net worth of the largest media conglomerate on earth has now been slashed by more than one-third. The conclusion, not surprisingly, is that the merger never should have happened. But there's some interesting financial analysis to show exactly how bad the merger has been for Time Warner."

304 comments

  1. The reason is simple by flacco · · Score: 5, Funny

    AOL just didn't do enough advertising. Especially on its TW media outlets.

    --
    pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    1. Re:The reason is simple by PepsiProgrammer · · Score: 1

      If AOL didnt advertise enough, id sure hate to see who did.

      --
      "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
    2. Re:The reason is simple by GraZZ · · Score: 1

      But "IT'S SO EASY."

      They even over-advertise in Canada. No one here can stand AOL Canadian.

    3. Re:The reason is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      yeah, maybe they should have sent more AOL CD's, not only do they make for great advertising, they make for great brand recognition when you see AOL every time you pick up a drink

    4. Re:The reason is simple by Bitmanhome · · Score: 1

      Another reason is the switch from floppies to CDs. We could re-use floppies, so the advertising stuck around. But the CDs (despite all the jokes) all go in the trash.

      The answer? AOL should switch to CD-RWs, or even multi-session CD-Rs.

      --
      Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
    5. Re:The reason is simple by PlaysWithMatches · · Score: 2

      AOL just didn't do enough advertising.

      Yeah, they really should make their presence known! I mean, they could do stuff like send out CDs and come up with a catchy slogan to advertise on TV. Maybe something like "so easy to use it's #1." And who knows, maybe they could get a computer store (perhaps CompUSA) to bundle AOL discs with everything... These people just need to think a bit.

      --

      Mozilla's a nice operating system, but it needs a better browser.
    6. Re:The reason is simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or even partner with an outside company like say, Kinkos, and whore their software there while bundling said partners proprietary file conversion utility on the AOL cds.
      at least they come in nice DVD boxes. I now have something to put my cdr's in.

    7. Re:The reason is simple by grammar+fascist · · Score: 2

      The answer? AOL should switch to CD-RWs, or even multi-session CD-Rs.

      I'm sure the marketing departments at AOL/TW would LOVE that. "The Bestest and Fastest ever AOL 12.0! And even if you think the service is trash, the reusable media isn't!"

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    8. Re:The reason is simple by domc · · Score: 1

      You're supposed to place them face down. ;-)

      domc

    9. Re:The reason is simple by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

      But is it better than ever? I'm not sure! Help!

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    10. Re:The reason is simple by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 3, Funny

      but then you would risk damaging valuable bytes !!!

      you beast, how dare you treat a trophy of programming prowess with such utter disrespect.

      you young man, should be ashamed of yourself.

      *huff* *pufff* *fffff*

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    11. Re:The reason is simple by ncc74656 · · Score: 2
      Another reason is the switch from floppies to CDs. We could re-use floppies, so the advertising stuck around.

      First thing I did with AOHell floppies was peel the label off...there goes that theory. Thanks for playing, though...:-)

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    12. Re:The reason is simple by edbarrett · · Score: 1
      The answer? AOL should switch to CD-RWs, or even multi-session CD-Rs.

      I GOT ONE OF THESE!

      It came in one of their DVD cases and had a banner across the top that led me to believe it was a CD-RW, but alas, it was merely a CD-R with about 200MB free.

    13. Re:The reason is simple by 56ker · · Score: 2

      Companies always shrink just after a merger though - because the same department/ jobs that before were needed in two seperate companies aren't. It's called economies of scale.

    14. Re:The reason is simple by zaffir · · Score: 1

      At least they're sending the CDs in useful cases - i've gotten a few in DVD cases as well as one in a sturdy plastic case inside of a slightly larger tin case. I love free stuff.

      --
      "Upon attaching the waterblock to my penis, I began to notice that I know nothing about computers." -- JRockway
    15. Re:The reason is simple by Cris+E · · Score: 1
      >Companies always shrink just after a merger

      There's shrinkage and then there's this. They look a $54 *Billion* dollar writeoff for the first quarter.

      "After the effect of this accounting change, the Company incurred a net loss of $54.2 billion for the quarter, or a loss of $12.25 per basic common share."
  2. come on by Husaria · · Score: 3, Insightful

    yet they hold three very popular programs amongst the slashdot crowd, AIM, ICQ, Winamp and support Mozilla. Should slashdotters really feel bad that AOL-TW is going down?

    1. Re:come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a larger context, the real question is, now that corporate america is starting to view internet investments as wasted money, do you think we'll be better off without them? Without the corporate hand guiding us, will the net be a better place?

    2. Re:come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AIM is full of security holes. Another one was discovered this weekend. Here's some screenshots and another article.

    3. Re:come on by Cramer · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's four things. And none of them are "very popular" to slashdot people. AIM is a worthless PoS that has wormed it's way into people's computers only because Netscape installs it without an option to prevent it.

      ICQ, well, ICQ is just completely worthless -- I pay more attention to my email than I do ICQ. Hello! Email. Telephone. Cell phone. Pager. (That would make ICQ and AIM both lame excuses for a telephone.)

      Winamp was dead as soon as AOL took over. I've not downloaded or used winamp for a long time now (well over a year.) Real jukebox 2 has the best organization of content (now ruined by the Mac clone UI of Real One)

      Mozilla? You're joking right? I've never met anyone who liked the pile of shit that is Netscape 6. I'll buy 100 copies of Windows 3.1 before I bother with that load of crap. Bloatware at it's finest. (Go buy a copy of Opera.)

    4. Re:come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't use AIM, nor have any interest in it.

      ICQ is useful for communicating with associates unable to use IRC. Thus I use it.

      Winamp is better than XMMS, though the linux port is turd. On my Windows machines, I use it.

      Mozilla is probably the best client for linux. Toss in Crossover plugin, and your day is set.

      Opera is just crap.

    5. Re:come on by tmcmsail · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing is that AOL, that brought the masses to the internet (both a blessing and a curse for us techies), bought all these products, and has destroyed them. The only other company that comes close to the reverse midas touch is CA, best explained as the place good software goes to die.
      Aim I use sometimes, all the others may as well be dead in my mind...

      --

      What OS do you want to abuse today?

    6. Re:come on by joedames · · Score: 1

      The only reason they "hold" most of those is because they purchased Nullsoft. One big gulp. Don't offer AOL too much credit for those apps, the guys at Nullsoft, however, kick ass.

    7. Re:come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brilliant! I say AOL should just die anyway, it is and has always been the worst online service carrier in the world. Its software spies on everything you do, its easy to get email viruses with it, it spreads itself all over your computer so that even if you try to uninstall it, the massive amount of dll files it uses are STILL there. Steve Case, you are going down and we'll all be happy when you and your service leave Fortune 500, we can do without your shite image.

    8. Re:come on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll Give you mozilla... but... winamp? Sorry I find XMMS far more useful. AIM and ICQ? No, I use Trillian, it works under Wine, and is going native at some point too. Trillian is a cleaner more stable and robust program, and is free from those annyoing ads that the 'official' clients sport.

  3. Tough at the top! by saphena · · Score: 1
    The charge-off in question - which removes $54 billion in balance sheet goodwill from the company's books

    Aw shucks!

    1. Re:Tough at the top! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason that this is news is because of a change in the accounting rules that govern how public traded companies report earnings. Previously this type of write off would be spread over a 40 year period. Now it has to be written off all at once.

  4. Now, AOL, the Inflatable Parade Float? by littlerubberfeet · · Score: 1

    So big and empty
    Nothing inside but hot air

    When it connected with the float
    of some solid metal

    It POPPED
    And smothered

    The Float
    That had substance.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  5. AOL Worth 1/3 less by k_d3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hm... AOL/TW is just an experiment. Things can and do go wrong in experiments. Keeping personal opinions aside, (I hate AOL/TW's guts!), I think it's fortunate for all of the other smaller companies to have a chance. AOL/TW's not making as much money as it could be, in fact, it's losing money. Capitalism at its best (or worst, in AOL/TW's case).

    --
    Live or die trying.
    1. Re:AOL Worth 1/3 less by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      Definitely its best . When you do something incredibly stupid, you deserve to suffer from your mistake. If this was done under a command economy, the taxpayer-citizens would be throwing money down that rat-hole for years to come. I have no sympathy for the managers, employees, or investors.

    2. Re:AOL Worth 1/3 less by Galvatron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I sympathize with the employees, who are probably struggling along as best they can in spite of manager stupidity. Why are CEOs so obsessed with empire building? Say what you will about Hewlett being a spoiled brat not wanting to lose "daddy's company," he still seems to me to be the only one one H-P's board with a clue. I predict that H-P-C will be bankrupt within 3 years.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    3. Re:AOL Worth 1/3 less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worse. It will be acquired by Caldera.

      tick.. tick.. tick.. bing! 20 seconds.

  6. Nice office! by TheNecromancer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did you know, for example, that AOL Time Warner, at latest tally, has nearly 13 million square feet of office space on its books?

    And that's just the CEO's office!

    --
    Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control! - Neil Peart
    1. Re:Nice office! by Jay+L · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Did you know, for example, that AOL Time Warner, at latest tally, has nearly 13 million square feet of office space on its books?

      So what? At 90,000 employees, that works out to an average of 162.5 square feet per employee, including conference rooms, hallways, cafeterias, bathrooms, etc. That doesn't sound like a whole lot to me.

    2. Re:Nice office! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some are worse than others. I've seen 3 people crammed into a converted bathroom as an office in the Time/Life building in NY.

    3. Re:Nice office! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a whole lot of datacenter space and television studio space too....

    4. Re:Nice office! by overid3 · · Score: 1

      seems some people have to read a little closer :-/ Unless everyone in the company is a CEO that is a lot of space

      $room = 13 million square feet / 2; /*for storage, conferences, etc */
      $room_for_each_ceo = $room / $ceo_count;

      that gives u how many amazingly large offices for there CEO. Or is this like that movie Rising Sun, where all the CEO's get a hideaway love palace and bar for those *special* occasions.

      `Boss to Secretary` : Nice shoes, wanna $#@^?

      --
      - Zac Epkes
    5. Re:Nice office! by Jay+L · · Score: 2

      seems some people have to read a little closer :-/ Unless everyone in the company is a CEO that is a lot of space

      Say what? You're not making any sense, man. 13 million square feet of *office space*, not of executive offices. Seems some people have to think a little closer.

  7. I wonder what Walter Hewlet thinks of this ... by Titusdot+Groan · · Score: 2
    This isn't surprising, these kinds of mergers almost always go awry at some point. The whole is less than the sum of the parts.

    At least Compaq has some actual assets to offer HP -- so maybe, just maybe, Carly won't have to take up poetry in 2005 :-)

    1. Re:I wonder what Walter Hewlet thinks of this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hopefully, she'll take up poetry in 2003.

    2. Re:I wonder what Walter Hewlet thinks of this ... by uebernewby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is different, though. HP vs. Compaq is about two similar companies merging to reap the (perceived) benefits of increasing scale. AOL vs. TimeWarner, on the other hand, I've always felt to be about an overpriced dotcompany doing the smart thing and taking all that investor money to buy something that was actually worth something. Yahoo should've done the same thing and bought Disney back when they could.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    3. Re:I wonder what Walter Hewlet thinks of this ... by Titusdot+Groan · · Score: 1

      LOL -- that was exactly my reaction at the time -- this was the best thing AOL could do for it's shareholders and the dumbest thing TW could do.

      It's interesting to note that at the time there were literally dozens of analysts talking about how AOL and TW had all of these synergies that were going pay off big time.

    4. Re:I wonder what Walter Hewlet thinks of this ... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2

      TimeWarner was this overly huge conglomorate of smaller media companies that never seemed to make any (or very much) money.

      I'm sure it had some other parts that were profitable, but everyone was going in different directions and the net result was nothing spectacular. Everytime TW sucked up another company, everyone predicted "synergy", but it never seemed to happen.

      On the otherhand, AOL was very profitable and very good at coordinated marketing attacks.

      Wall Street might had thought that new management at TimeWarner would allow it to better cross-market it's products (particularlly it's cable networks) and actually become profitable.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    5. Re:I wonder what Walter Hewlet thinks of this ... by uebernewby · · Score: 2

      Bad management aside, TW has tangible assets. They sell *stuff*, mostly, and 'stuff' is worth money. I agree with you that it's managed very badly, but I was talking about how AOL used the money investors gave them for their *idea* to buy *stuff*, which in my opinion was a smart thing to do.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    6. Re:I wonder what Walter Hewlet thinks of this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had an erotic dream about Carly last night....

    7. Re:I wonder what Walter Hewlet thinks of this ... by Oztun · · Score: 2

      Yeah, the same analyst who had Enron at a buy rating up until the bitter end. This is why as an investor you learn to read balance sheets and laugh at stupid analyst who are all paid off by companies like AOL and Enron.

  8. In the long run... by vkg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think they will make out like banditos!

    Seriously, these kinds of cross-industry mergers are often appallingly inefficient for the first few years while all of the organizational kinks get worked out.

    Then, when you start to see the synergies, they really take off, often out-competing all of the players from the industries the hybrid company was formed from.

    In two years, when you see tightly branded Time Warner content (i.e. Bugs Bunny!) "Available Only On AOL!", with AOL billing you per-view on your ISP bill on your DCMA/CBDTPA-enabled home Entertainment Appliance, don't say you didn't have the chance to buy stock now :-)

    vkg

    1. Re:In the long run... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its DMCA, nitwit.

    2. Re:In the long run... by Doomdark · · Score: 2
      No, no, no; you started the sentence right:

      Then, when you start to see the synergies,

      but the way it continues should be:

      They spin off most of these branches that were "not part of the core competency".

      See, in couple of years the whole strategy of behemoth company may (will) change. That's the way things work; one fraction sails the boat for a while, then another.

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    3. Re:In the long run... by phriedom · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, more buzzwords. Gotta work "core competency" in there somehow.

      --
      Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    4. Re:In the long run... by mike13down · · Score: 1

      "synergies", shut up with the stupid buzz words

    5. Re:In the long run... by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 1

      man, you are definetely buzzword compliant! Synergies? Better jump in on the "ground floor", and take advantage of those "innovative e-strategy solutions". Yeah, definetely a nice "paradigm" they have going there. Must be nice to see things "outside of the box".

      --
      Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
    6. Re:In the long run... by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1


      You mean just like AT&T/@home?

    7. Re:In the long run... by martinflack · · Score: 2

      Seriously, these kinds of cross-industry mergers are often appallingly inefficient for the first few years while all of the organizational kinks get worked out.

      Someone can pay me $50B to work out some organizational kinks any day.

      In two years, when you see tightly branded Time Warner content (i.e. Bugs Bunny!) "Available Only On AOL!", ...

      Oh, yah. Bugs Bunny on AOL will save them.

    8. Re:In the long run... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how long do you think it will take for them to make enough extra profits as a result of the merger to replace that $54,000,000,000 they've lost?

      Given what a dumb idea it was even at the time, I think maybe I could hire myself out to companies as a 'stupidity consultant'. For only $5,000,000,000 a time I'll tell them when their ideas are so insanely stupid they're sure to go wrong, which will be cheap when they can save themselves $50,000,000,000 as a result.

    9. Re:In the long run... by corey_lawson · · Score: 1

      You could say the same about Disney-ABC a few years ago, and that hasn't happened, either.

  9. But why? by apathyruiner · · Score: 3, Funny

    AOL charges $10+ more a month than most other ISPs how could they be losing money?

    --
    -= I can't think of anything witty, creative, or insightful for my sig, so deal with this. =-
    1. Re:But why? by batemanm · · Score: 0, Redundant
      AOL charges $10+ more a month than most other ISPs how could they be losing money?

      Perhaps because they are charging $10 more than other ISPs so people are using the other ISPs.

    2. Re:But why? by MaxVlast · · Score: 2

      Well, most ISPs don't have all the content and staff that AOL has. It's genuinely huge. And it wants to be a media empire (thus the T-W bit.) All that crap is expensive.

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
    3. Re:But why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a common refrain on Slashdot, but what I want to know is...
      Where the hell are all these $14/month ISPs?
      Seriously, let me know.
      I live in New York City, so maybe I'm getting screwed, but none of the ISPs around here are any cheaper than AOL. I've looked. And Panix the local geek-friendly ISP is almost $10 MORE EXPENSIVE than AOL.

  10. Damn by ThorGod · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I just wish everyone'd realize how shitting their service is...

    --
    PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    1. Re:Damn by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      How can you shoot yourself in your foot with rope?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  11. well duh... by edrugtrader · · Score: 2, Funny

    time warner employee's all had to switch to aol service, and that shit is expensive!

    --
    MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
    1. Re:well duh... by PsimanX1 · · Score: 2, Funny

      And then had to switch back when it all went horribly wrong...

      Wasn't that surprising?

    2. Re:well duh... by FilthPig · · Score: 1

      I wonder how much revenue went down the tubes in switching to AOL mail and back (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/22/14023 0&mode=thread).

      Of course, you've got Fox news reporting this, and MSNBC reporting on the story linked above. Neither of which are likely to paint a pretty picture of their rivals.

      --
      We eat the pig and then together we BURN!!!
    3. Re:well duh... by leviramsey · · Score: 2

      Especially Fox, a subsidiary of News Corporation. In any major media area, save for music (and News Corp. is working on that), if AOLTW is in that sector, News Corp. is, also.

      In addition, Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner (who founded CNN and sold it to TW for a large sum of money and stock) do not get along. Ted has tempted Godwin's Law on at least one occasion in his dealings with Rupert.

      One of the more recent chapters in the rivalry was when TW was very slow to put Fox News Channel on their cable systems (especially in Manhattan). In order for a cable channel to survive, it pretty much has to be available in Manhattan. Why? Because most ad execs live in Manhattan and if they can't see your programming, they're not going to buy ads.

    4. Re:well duh... by leviramsey · · Score: 2

      As an addendum, I should note that the bits on the AOLTW bureaucracy are pretty much describing Murdoch's philosophy on management of a media company (which I agree with, as it happens, though IANA Media Executive). Murdoch has always held that media companies should not be publicly controlled (stock issuance is fine, as long as the shareholders are not in voting control) and that whoever does have control should, at some level, micromanage (or delegate responsibilities to a few very trustworthy people; in Rupert's case, these would include his sons Lachlan and {name escapes me at the moment, though I want to say James} and his longtime lieutenant Peter Chernin; IIRC, Lachlan is essentially in charge of the NY Post, for example, while Chernin oversees Fox TV and movies).

    5. Re:well duh... by cp99 · · Score: 1

      ...these would include his sons Lachlan and {name escapes me at the moment, though I want to say James}...

      I'm not 100% sure of this, but you may have mixed in James Packer (son of Kerry Packer, the other (ex-in the case of Murdoch) Australian media giant).

      Incidently both Lachlan and James have both screwed up big time recently with daddies money when they invested in One. Tel

      --
      Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
    6. Re:well duh... by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      One of Murdoch's sons is named James. He's actually quite an interesting character, having only joined the family business a few years ago (he's also reportedly something of a fan of Chairman Mao). James runs the Star Broadcasting operation out of Hong Kong. There are rumors that, should, by some miracle, he turn that turkey around, he'll be the heir to the throne.

      There was an interesting article in Details (after they quit chasing Maxim) about a year ago about the state of the race for Rupert's throne.

  12. AOL/TW ExecThink (C)(TM) by GraZZ · · Score: 1

    "Confused Slashdot geeks into thinking we're not so big and evil..... CHECK"

    "Confused rival media company FOX into thinking we're not so big and evil....... CHECK"

    "Little guy crushed....... CHECK"

    "Big and evil agenda proceeding as planned...... CHECK"

    Face it folks, this drop in net worth is NOT going to stop AOL/TW from doing anything that we'll hate. FOX surprisingly got one thing right: "....the balance sheet net worth of the LARGEST MEDIA CONGLOMERATE ON EARTH has now been...." (text capitalized by AOL/TW router during transfer to let you know just how big we are MWAHAHAHAHA)

    Karma, karma, everywhere, so let's all have a drink!

  13. The day of reckoning is yet to come for dot.com by 00_NOP · · Score: 1

    No one should think that, just because they have survived the worst that they've made it through.

    It is when the recovery - already started - picks up speed that the brutallity will accelerate too. That's when businesses will have the funds available to meet the costs of dumping the really unprofitable bits they own - and as this story shows, that's going to include a lot of IT/internet related ventures.

    Not that I am saying AOL will get tourched - but many smaller (but still get big) operations will go - like Compuserve probably.

  14. How Much Longer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much longer will we get the opportunity to remind our clueless friends and acquaintances that AOL sucks?

    Clearly, the supply of morons who think AOL has something to do with the Internet and the Web has finally run out.

    The merger was, of course, one of the most idiotic business deals of all time.

    But at last, AOL's shitty karma has caught up with it. Munchkins rejoice!

  15. Gee, ya think? by delta407 · · Score: 1

    It's all those free coasters, frisbees, and clock parts they keep sending out. No wonder they're going downhill.

    Yes, I'm aware that the free CDs help AOL greatly, but still :)

  16. crosses fingers by reaper20 · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Everyone put your hands over your ears and chant "please don't kill mozilla, please don't kill mozilla, blame it on accounting ... "

    1. Re:crosses fingers by ender81b · · Score: 2

      It would be inane of them to destroy mozilla considering it costs them very little for the benefit they get out of it. Considering that *Alot of the development is carried out for free and they have little overhead - some yes, from developers who work on project/netscape + cost of bandwith and etc, but all-in-all it is probably very cheap to run.

      The benefits are simple: don't have to pay to license IE for every single AOL/Compusever/whathaveyou install. Plus the possibility of actually developing a competive product is probably high and the desire to not become a Slave of MSIE is also, I'm sure, a good motive.

      Of course corporate america offen does totaly asi9 things that boggle the mind but this would be an all time f*ck up.

    2. Re:crosses fingers by OneFix · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not likely...

      First off, Mozilla uses an open source license...while not GPL/LGPL, the idea is the similar. This means that if AOL/Netscape dropped support, someone could always take it up...

      But the truth is, Mozilla is one of AOL's biggest hopefuls...it will be taking over as the standard AOL browser and will be used by many companies who want branded browsers and still more that don't want to use IE as their in-house browser (IBM, Sun, etc)...

    3. Re:crosses fingers by NetGuruFL · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just to clarify, most of Mozilla is already under or will soon be (if not everyone who contributed to a particular file has been contacted for approval yet) under the MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license

    4. Re:crosses fingers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the truth is, Mozilla is one of AOL's biggest hopefuls...it will be taking over as the standard AOL browser and will be used by many companies who want branded browsers and still more that don't want to use IE as their in-house browser (IBM, Sun, etc)...

      That's all very good and well... the problem is, how does that make any money for AOL/TW? If they're giving the technology away royalty free, it's still a cost center. The only possible value to AOL/TW is an opportunity to spit in Microsoft's face. And while that may be emotionaly satisfying, it doesn't pay the rent.

      Three Dead Horses - Political Debate and Intrigue

    5. Re:crosses fingers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mozilla under 3 licenses? That's amazing. Just last night, your sister was under three dicks. Or rather, had 3 dicks in her. Amazing girl, that skanky ho.

    6. Re:crosses fingers by OneFix · · Score: 2

      If they're giving the technology away royalty free, it's still a cost center.

      But they aren't...read the terms of the license...

      First, AOL using it as their standard browser (as opposed to IE) has a real cost benefit attached...they are currently paying M$ lotsa $$$ (probably millions per year) for the ability to modify IE.

      Rebranding will also bring in $$$...under their license, Netscape can (and will) charge $$$ for this ability...

      And as for companies using the browser internally...not only will content providers actually be using it in-house, but the browser will also be more widely used...

    7. Re:crosses fingers by benedict · · Score: 2

      Clearly they can't "kill" Mozilla, but if they
      stopped paying their Mozilla staff, it would be
      a bad thing for the project.

      (Yes, Slashdot Pod People, I know that someone else
      could pick up where they left off, but it could take
      a while, and they might not have the expertise, and
      if these hypothetical third parties care so much,
      why aren't they paying people to work on Mozilla
      full-time already?)

      --
      Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
  17. Jeez. by SlashChick · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the article:

    "You can get as much of a return by investing in a U.S. government bond these days as you can from throwing your money into the AOL Time Warner black hole."

    Uncle Sam should definitely co-opt this for advertising: "U.S. savings bonds: not as bad as investing in AOL."

    1. Re:Jeez. by Mark+Imbriaco · · Score: 1

      It could be worse. If you invested in AOL look on the bright side, it could have been RedHat or VA Linux!

  18. Does that mean... by KingKire64 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Aol cant afford to send me those dopey cd/frisbees anymore!! Yippee

    --
    "All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
    1. Re:Does that mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's going to put a *huge* crimp in my AOL art clock business!

  19. What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by idonotexist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While I cannot present any proof, I am convinced what AOL acquires, AOL screws up. Netscape is a prime example. Certainly Netscape had value (server app, a browser...) prior to its acquisition by AOL and after acquisition, AOL left Netscape with a simple homepage. I guess I'll see if AOL brings Time Warner's assets to its knees. Certainly the Road Runner service is not improving since the merger.

    --
    "There ought to be limits to freedom"
    1. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by teslatug · · Score: 2

      I think they were pretty much done in by Microsoft's IE. If they had value why didn't they continue to exploit it? It's not like AOL wants to throw money away for no good reason.

    2. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by tekunokurato · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, but Netscape had very little value in itself anyway, AOL just failed to see that fact. The company has historically been all about the hype, and that's why it's acquisitions fail. Time Warner is the one part of its operations that has value, and it still does.

    3. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by Sandlund · · Score: 1

      It's AOL itself that turned to sand. TW's continuing pretty much as it did before the merger -- unspectacular beheamoth that it was/is.

      Steve Case made out like a bandit on this. He cashed out at the peak, exchanging his AOL shares for something with reasonably good value. Let's see...would he rather be holding AOL/TW stock that's down 60% or AOL stock that's down something like the 90%+ of other dot-com highflyers?

    4. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by Razzak · · Score: 1

      AOL didn't acquire Netscape for its browser, it acquired Netscape for the right to sue MS.

      I mean, other than that, what did Netscape have left? It'd already "lost" the browser war, so the browser wasn't too useful.

    5. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by Cyno · · Score: 1

      They did. The value Netscape had was its employees. Once AOL took over they partnerred with Sun to create Iplanet with about half the netscape employees. And that startup was one of the first dotcoms to crash. Then they laid off a large chunk of those and sold some buildings to Verisign and maybe HP. They did a fine job exploiting Netscape. At least mozilla was open sourced before AOL got ahold of it.

    6. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by n-baxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, Winamp and ICQ have been abismal failures.

    7. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by jdkincad · · Score: 1

      AOL delibertly killed Netscape. Why else would they bundle IE with their software?

      --
      The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
    8. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by SoLoatWork · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the Mozilla project be considered the future of Netscape? If you think funding one of the largest OSS projects is screwing up, then I would disagree with you.

    9. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by archen · · Score: 1

      Well ICQ is sort of debatable. I mean what happened to cute little ICQ98? Over time its mutated into this big memory hogging hippie redition of AIM on crack. Even the MS paperclip is scared of it.

    10. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iPlanet was pretty much a graveyard of failed Netscape products that had already destroyed one company and weren't going to save another. Furthermore, it was a completely pathetic attempt -- it took them months to even get a website up.

      Netscape themselves was pretty much the first dotcom, and yes, the one of the first to crash.

    11. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Netscape refused to make an embeddable version of their browser until the next version, which was going to ship in 1998.

      Posted from the embeddable Mozilla 1.0RC1.

    12. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by gonzoboy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      AOL bought NSCP for three major reasons:

      1. Their home page. At the time of the purchase, AOL was dominant in the consumer market but had no handle on how to get access to the businesses. They saw the ability to drive significantly more advertising revenue by acquiring Netscape.com as they were the dominant business portal at that time. AOL closed deal after deal with major advertisers because of this.

      2. Their browser. AOL hates Microsoft and really hates IE. Between 33% - 37% of their support costs were directly related to IE bugs. At the same time, they were forced to go with IE if they wanted that icon on the desktop of every new PC. By purchasing NSCP, they hoped to get the people and hard-earned know-how to put a competitive browser in play that directly integrated with not only the Internet, but AOL services.

      3. Their servers. AOL was also looking at dumping their proprietary architecture and replacing it with a completely browser based solution. This, obviously, didn't pan out. But the thinking was they would have complete access to the best LDAP server, app server (performance and scalability wise), mail servers, and web servers on the market at that time.

      The final piece of the puzzle was an agreement with Sun to dump the rest of the enterprise software (BuyerX, SellerX, ECX, etc) on Sun. This was done in simultaneously with a major hardware purchase from Sun ($500M?) with Sun purchasing a huge amount of advertising from AOL ($250M?). This agreement took two years to complete as U.S. tax law would have stuck AOL with a $250M bill if they divested those assets within the first two years of acquiring NSCP.

      I, personally, didn't think it was a great deal. NSCP was on the way down and I thought AOL could have bought those assets at firesale prices 3 months later instead of the $4B they paid. Oh well, they made some of my good friends rich. :-)

      Just say no to cool sigs,
      gzo

    13. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when is winamp 3 coming out? It's been YEARS! They used to put out new versions all the time before AOL ate up nullsoft. It wasn't that bad of a program before, but I will not run anything associated with AOL on my computers.

    14. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, Microsoft threatened to keep AOL from being pre-installed on Windows machines if they didn't go with IE as their browser.

    15. Re:What AOL Acquires Turns to Sand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly Netscape had value (server app

      What server app? Netscape Application Server? Its a piece of shit. And my client just abandoned a migration to iPlanet.

  20. Exec payola by hedley · · Score: 2, Insightful


    These guys (Levin et al) live in a strata that most peons can't even comprehend. Imagine if you can, sitting there, seing on paper a massive payola for you personally if the deal goes through. Now... your task is to spin the deal to the shareholders so it looks like a great deal. Cha-ching.

    1. Re:Exec payola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right the whole fusion stinks of greed. But... mergers are also about minimzing competition, making money for the company and not only for the CEOs etc. Even though they are losing a lot of money the thought of this kind of integrated media/distribution company scares me, concentration of power, influence etc. Capitalism at this scale is by nature deeply undemocratic and dangerous. Companies should not be this big. If AOLTW does not fall apart under its own weight, then we should all be afraid...

  21. Who knew by benthesinister · · Score: 1

    A bad product at an inflated price....who would've thought that it wouldn't be a license to print money?

  22. It could have been worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...they could have realized this when they sank AOL's broadband business by endorsing the DMCA/xxAA bill of the week five years from now.

  23. AOL Time Warner record deal... by Byteme · · Score: 3, Informative
    Somewhat related, possibly goes to show why AOL is losing money. Ironic to say the least.


    Wilco's recent deal with AOL subsidiaries:


    It's their least poppy and most experimental effort to date. Which is why Reprise Records rejected it last summer: if the suits don't think you have a hit single, you're S.O.L, no matter how great your album is. Thankfully, after a fall tour and six months of shopping around, Wilco wrested "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot" back and sold it to Nonesuch. Both are subsidiaries of AOL Time-Warner, so in an ironic twist, the band was paid twice for the same album by the same company.

  24. biggest loss ever by any company by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 2

    was by AOL time warner which had a stated loss of 58.20 Billion bux.

    1. Re:biggest loss ever by any company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone remember that part of UHF where Kuni is doing that game show and the contestant picks what's in the box rather than the sure thing prize? Now, imagine him saying to TimeWarner: "STUPID! You're so STUPID!" :-) Please mod this up to +5 funny.

    2. Re:biggest loss ever by any company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can this happen? A company loses 58.2 billion by accounting issues? What drugs were those accountants smoking? Maybe our economy will be better off with people actually paying taxes and earning money instead of trying to hide money in some random accounts. I think I am starting to hate accountants more than lawyers now.

    3. Re:biggest loss ever by any company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You know nothing about accounting and didn't even read the article yet you decided to post your idiotic comment anonymously.

      Congratulations on being the prototype slashdotter.

    4. Re:biggest loss ever by any company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You anonymously posted a useless flame using a word you don't fucking understand.

      Congratulations on being the archetype of an idiot.

  25. Personally what I think they should do. by papasui · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In order for them to be succesful they need to have time warner drop roadrunner and make it AOL high speed access. The simple fact that its possible to have time warner roadrunner without AOL reduces the value of AOL-TimeWarner. Granted, this would make some of RoadRunner's users unhappy, but if they charged a comperable rate to what RoadRunner is right now I would assume the vast majority (power users excluded) wouldn't care. And for those that hate AOL they could up the price of basic roadrunner service and give a faster connection without AOL. I work for a competitor of RoadRunner (although I live in RoadRunner subscriber area) and I personally recieve about 5-10 phone calls a day about people wanting our service so that they can use it in conjunction with AOL.

    1. Re:Personally what I think they should do. by owlmeat · · Score: 1

      Now it's my personal opinion that dropping the roadrunner would be a disaster. I mean, who would Wile e. Coyote have to chase if they get rid of the bird? And what about all the ACME stuff that would go to waste?

      --
      They stab it with their steely knives,

      But they just can't kill the beast.

    2. Re:Personally what I think they should do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I work for a competitor of RoadRunner (although I live in RoadRunner subscriber area) and I personally recieve about 5-10 phone calls a day about people wanting our service so that they can use it in conjunction with AOL.
      In other words, people are still paying for AOL even if they get their broadband from someone else. How is dropping Roadrunner going to change that? Either they pay for RoadRunner plus AOL or they pay for your (competing) service plus AOL - which do you think AOL would prefer?
    3. Re:Personally what I think they should do. by ONU+CS+Geek · · Score: 4, Informative
      Ok. I work as an Installation Coordinator for a contractor for AOL-Time Warner. Albeit your idea is a nice one, there is a good reason why AOL HSD (High-Speed Data) won't work.

      The AOL Software is buggy, bloated, and won't work. They use VPN's and unlike road-runner, you must be signed into the service before you are connected to the internet. Another good reason is that the AOL Backbones are slower than roadrunner.

      We've had customers whose computers that just WILL NOT work with AOL's HSD, but with RoadRunner and AOL's BYOA program, they connect to the net just fine. The pricing? The same (Roadrunner + AOL's BYOA = AOL HSD).

      Also, something you have to look at is Support. AOL's support is ok...but RoadRunner's is better. If you're having Road Runner problems (e.g., your 31337 child installed a firewall and now you can't connect to the internet) if you call us, we'll be out in a Day...because it's a PC problem...and we support that. AOL will only support via the phone, unless it's a NO CABLE type of work request, then an line tech goes out...who doesn't have working knowledge of computers.

      Anyway...from what I've seen Comwaves (who is our biggest competitor up here) uses RoadRunner at their CEO's and a majority of their employee's houses.

      --

      I disable sigs...do you?
    4. Re:Personally what I think they should do. by haizi_23 · · Score: 1

      ian, this is your boss. you're fired!

    5. Re:Personally what I think they should do. by ONU+CS+Geek · · Score: 1

      Cute...then why am I still at work?

      --

      I disable sigs...do you?
    6. Re:Personally what I think they should do. by jedi_gras · · Score: 1

      Hahaha..So YOU'RE that service coordinator. I work part time as a service consultant and actually go to these really strange locations to install highspeed data.

      I totally agree with you as to the stupidity and complexity of AOL's Highspeed service (AOL PLUS) err..Minus however you want to look at it.

      The problems with AOL DSL.

      1. People don't know how to install DSL filters on all their lines properly.
      2. AOL Software requires more than the minimum system requirements before it will play nice
      3. More than half of the houses trying to upgrade to AOL Plus in my area (BOSTON) have copper that is over 20 years old! (Last week I went to one place, had to crawl through a rat infested attic, and try to rewire a old 1968 NID!) Oh yeah...like DSL will really run on homes like that.
      4. Because DSL in most areas have no 1 company responsible for the whole installation, too much finger pointing goes on. I'll go in, do the installation, and get "no sync" on the modem. Oh, okay, it's verizon's problem. No wait, after a week, verizon says...it's the customer's problem...but then, the customer doesn't know a thing about DSL and calls back AOL saying verizon told them it's AOL's problem...and I get sent back to the same house to address the same issue that I already identified!
      5. (Sorry if this seems like a rant, but is to some extent.) Lastly, (not to be mean to some subscribers), AOL's market in general isn't exactly "high-end". Most people that use AOL have stacks of the "Get 100 Hours Free!" CDs and they just re-activate every month. I'm sorry, but you cannot do business like this under any circumstances.

      DOT COM Economics of customer retention just doesn't cut it. Why don't these companies have internal auditing that works? FUNDAMENTALS guys! Shame on you TimeWarner. I may expect this type of thing from AOL but a well established company with real management and an actual infrastructure?

    7. Re:Personally what I think they should do. by mlman · · Score: 1

      I am a TW roadrunner customer. I will not use AOL high speed if aol-tw decides to do away w/ roadrunner. I'll go back to dialup before I use aol. I do not have any other broadband choices in my area yet since verizon hasn't put DSL into my area yet.

      --
      I may grow old, but I refuse to grow up!
  26. Interesting analysis? Hardly. by g051051 · · Score: 1

    Calling that piece "an interesting analysis" was off the mark. It seems to be a pure opinion piece, and by a Time Warner competitor. There wasn't even a hint of journalistic neutrality. This kind of junk doesn't deserve to be recognized, let alone thought of as news.

  27. If it was only US$50 Billion... by AKAJack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...but unfortunatly the value of AOL/Time Warner is down over $150 billion if you look at stock prices now and what they were when the "merger" took place.

    Don't expect them to answer any questions about:

    What assets EXACTLY did you write down?
    What about the rest of that lost value, when are you going to take that hit?

    Inflated .com dollars from AOL didn't buy Time/Warner. It was a stock trade that did it and that's what will kill Time/Warner on their end of this "deal."

    Big problems brewing for the future.

    1. Re:If it was only US$50 Billion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The asset that written down is called "goodwill" i.e. the value of the AOL name etc... It cost a LOT of money to get every human on the planet 50 aol disks and to knwo what the company is and waht it does so that gets built up over the years. When you do a merger/purchase etc all of the value over and above the assets go onto the balance sheet as "goodwill" which you get to write off over a LOOOOOONNNNGGG time. But sometimes you've got write that down which is what happened today.
      The core operations of the company have not been afected at all, they will be around tomorrow.

  28. Time Warner traded cow for magic beans by mmacdona86 · · Score: 2

    --and there is no beanstalk growing. AOL, on the other hand, was smart enough to convert it's Internet hyped valuation into control over a company that would be worth something after the crash.

    1. Re:Time Warner traded cow for magic beans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      AOL, on the other hand, was smart enough to convert it's Internet hyped valuation into control over a company that would be worth something after the crash.

      Does anyone else think that AOL pulled the biggest dotcom coup of all? Sure, thus far they haven't been able to do much with TimeWarner, but I do think they played their chips wisely while they still had 'em.

    2. Re:Time Warner traded cow for magic beans by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2

      Yup... they used their overvalued stock to diversify. A damn smart move by case. Of course it sucks balls if you own their stock (and I do). But if I were in the same situation I would have done the same thing. Case was savvy enough to know AOL's valuation wouldn't be that sky high for long. You might as well take advantage of it.

  29. You're a lot more right than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I predicted a few years ago that since AOL's marginal cost for aquiring each new customer keeps going up, and their revenue per customer keeps going down, at some point in the next few years it will cost them more (in advertising and CD distribution) to aquire each new customer than they earn from that customer -- at which point the business implodes. Apparently it hasn't happened yet, but I still consider it a real possibility. AOL doesn't have a viable business model. At least Time Warner had a business model -- milk your (historical) content for all it's worth, and screw your cable customers out of every penny you can get.

    1. Re:You're a lot more right than you think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the business won't implode -- they'll just stop growing. Your other points are just as insipid. Perhaps you should spend your time studying for the economics course you're apparently flunking instead of playing armchair economist on slashdot.

  30. This is just Karma by PD · · Score: 2

    AOL was the first destructive force on Usenet. (spammers were the second).

    Everyone who is happy to see these bastards writhing around please follow up with a "me too". And then post something stupid. And then someone else followup (without quoting the original article, or if you do, get the attributions all wrong) with a heartly LOL, or even a ROTFLMAO.

    AOL losers make me sick. I never saw a Henry Spencer post with LOL in it.

    1. Re:This is just Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      me too! (My first ISP was AOL, for about 3 months...)

    2. Re:This is just Karma by robkore · · Score: 1

      Me Too!!!!!
      Visit my new homepage at http://members.aol.com/robkore/ !!!!

      uh oh... here come the moderators... oh well...

    3. Re:This is just Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mee t00.

      Slow down cowboy? how long does it take to post a meeee t000 post d00dz?

    4. Re:This is just Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be glad to "Me Too!" on AOL/TW sinking, but not because of the AOL side of the house. I used to work for Time Inc. (pre Warner)in the 80's, and those guys were pricks from the word go. The company was not-so-affectionately refered to by their long-suffering employees as the Cocksucker Plaza. Why is that companies run by "for the little guy" liberals always seem to treat their own employees like dog shit?

    5. Re:This is just Karma by linzeal · · Score: 1
      we love you long time

      for aol subscription

    6. Re:This is just Karma by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 2

      AOL losers make me sick.

      Me Too.
      (an AOL/TW/RIAA/MPAA (TM))

      (admittadly, I posted one "Me Too"...once, and only once, a decade ago.)

      Soon there will/shoud be a AOLA (AOL Anonymous) and the meeting will start of with "Hi, my name is ____ and I got a clue...I've been AOL free for XXX days."

      The meeting will end with "Give me the strenght to reject the ISP that I can not change, the courage to switch to a real one, and the wisdom to know anything but AOL is better....Me too".

      .

      --
      Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    7. Re:This is just Karma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ADD MEE 2 YUOR LIST PLZ!

  31. It's all those CD's by teslatug · · Score: 4, Funny

    They probably just wanted to send out a couple of samples, but due to programming deficiencies ended up in an infinite loop and now they can't stop sending people free CD's.

    1. Re:It's all those CD's by archen · · Score: 1

      Maybe with any luck they'll revert to floppies I can format and actually USE for something. I mean there's only so many coasters a guy can own. Besides which, MS truly has a place in my heart when it comes to using their latest free software for coasters.

    2. Re:It's all those CD's by JFMulder · · Score: 2

      I use the AOL CD's as glass covers so I don't stain my table. So they have use too. I Like also to throw them around and see them bounce. They make great frisbies! ;-)

  32. uh oh, I can't hold it in.... by searcher · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    BWAhahahahahahahaha!!
    Mwahahahahaha!!!
    *snort*
    Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

  33. I'm not too worried by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 2

    At the moment, with Mozilla at almost-but-not-quite-there 1.0 version, it now has enough momentum that even if AOL killed off the funding, it would probably do pretty well. The Gecko core is helping other businesses, and since AOL knows that MS is their #1 enemy (right behind that furry thing that crawled up Wolf Blitzer's chin and died), they're going to keep their bets open. With moments like this, they'll at least keep it as a bargaining chip:

    AOL: So, Mr. Gates. Do you want to put AOL links in Windows XP - or do we need to shift to Mozilla and watch as web developers remember how to program HTML 4.0 compliant web pages?

    1. Re:I'm not too worried by larry+bagina · · Score: 1
      well, talk about backwards. Why do you think AOL uses IE? Hint - MS and AOL swapped IE for an AOL dektop icon back when MS didn't yet own the browser market.

      AOL: I don't know if we should ...
      MS: Come on now, I'll still respect you in the morning!
      AOL: Well, ok.
      MS: You don't mind if I videotape it and show it to all my friends, your parents, coworkers, and anyone who checks out my web site, do you?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  34. now is a great time to buy really by nich37ways · · Score: 1

    look at what was done by people in the 70~80's especially Sir James Goldsmith who made 500 million US off one deal alone by breaking up these synergized copanies to get at the real value. I won't be suprised if at some point in the future there is some kind of repeat of companies buying others for breakup value again and there is another wave of mass money making from doing nothing but spoting value where noone else does

    --
    37 - what does it stand for really...
    1. Re:now is a great time to buy really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These companies are still trading at 5 times their true value. YOU can buy them, I'll stay away, thanks.

  35. Insightful? Bah. by KFury · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The linked article is actually very poorly written, and highly specious in its analysis.

    "Save for the monthly subscription revenue, there was nothing much to the AOL business to begin with, as the first mild downturn in the economy has convincingly shown, with advertising revenues from the service having now collapsed in a heap."

    Actually, AOL was making quite a lot of money on advertising, and though the online ad market dove after the merger, that doesn't qualify the statement that there was nothing there to begin with.

    The whole tone (mocking poetry writing, yapping about black holes, colloquialisms instead of actual business terms, and the overly familiar 'I-you-we banter' show this article to be a sensationalist 'I told you so (even though I didn't) editorial rant, and not an 'analysis' of any kind.

    I'd love to find out where the money went, but the only thing this article taught me is that Fox's online news is the equivalant to WB's prime time news.

    1. Re:Insightful? Bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So would trust a piece from CNN(who's parent company is AOL/Time Warner), any more?

    2. Re:Insightful? Bah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      There was no "money" it was all what is called goodwill. That is what gets recorded on the balance sheet of a company to balance out the diffrence between what you paid for a company and what it's assets are worth. It is supposed to be a measure of the "value of a name".

    3. Re:Insightful? Bah. by figment · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes.

      Save for the monthly subscription revenue, there was nothing much to the AOL business to begin with, as the first mild downturn in the economy has convincingly shown, with advertising revenues from the service having now collapsed in a heap."

      Furthermore, the "save for the monthy subscription revenue"... Dude, the monthly subscription revenue is what makes the company so attractive. If you can count on $21 * (areallylotofusers) / mo. guarenteed, you're already way better off than say, the services industry which is a lot more affected by economic downturns.

      The monthly subscription revenue is what separates AOL from your typical ad-market company, it has a large revenue base that i can use to cushion the impact of advertising revenue, which looks to be very cyclical.

      Once the ad-market has an upturn, AOL/TW is going to be quite fearsome. They have the ability to do a huge branding effort. Think how MSN teamed up with espn.com. Then MSN teamed with GE for MSNBC. Now multiply that by 20, given the TW media assets. They would have the ability to keep people within AOl/TW owned websites, further increasing ad-revenue. If they so chose, they would have the ability to create 'aol-subscriber' only content, much like they did in the late 90.

      Just because things arent working out perfectly doesnt mean a) it was a bad idea, or b) that everyone should abandon ship. While TW was probably charmed by the large amt of stock thrown at them, and soldout for too low, the merger was certainly not as horrible an idea as the article makes it sound.

    4. Re:Insightful? Bah. by swb · · Score: 2

      Once the ad-market has an upturn, AOL/TW is going to be quite fearsome. They have the ability to do a huge branding effort.

      For clients that will pay. The big trend in advertising has been better media spending by improved demographic targeting. Charging me more to blast my message across the wrong demos simply because you own a huge chunk of the media outlets won't make it smart. The web is still dominated by 18-35 males, just because you own AOL and TW doesn't warrant extra revenue spending on overly broad demos.

    5. Re:Insightful? Bah. by awol · · Score: 1
      They would have the ability to keep people within AOl/TW owned websites, further increasing ad-revenue.

      Insofar as "ad revenue" exists within the web world. The metrics of the industry suggest that the collapse in funding was not to do with the _fall_ in click through, but the complete non-existence of "page impression/click through" to sales link. That link will not magically appear when the economy picks up.

      --
      "The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
    6. Re:Insightful? Bah. by TheSync · · Score: 2

      The web is still dominated by 18-35 males, just because you own AOL and TW doesn't warrant extra revenue spending on overly broad demos.

      I don't think you know much about the ad market. 18-35 is the PRIME demo, these people are actually very difficult to snag. Broadcast trends very old (40-60), cable a bit younger (30-50).

      But I have bad news - the Net does not trend 18-35 either. It is much older. The young people are busy having a life...present company excepted, of course! ;)

    7. Re:Insightful? Bah. by corey_lawson · · Score: 1

      MSN bought go.com from Disney. Disney was selling it off.

  36. NYPost by way of the Inquirer by sweatyboatman · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I know trolls are an ever-present nuisance on Slashdot, but posting a troll as a news post? I mean come on!

    • "a biblical-sized tidal wave of losses"
    • "To reconnect with his feminine side and "write poetry" as he eases into early retirement."
    • "the largest balance sheet evisceration"
    • "advertising revenues from the service having now collapsed in a heap"
    • "after more than fifteen months of bloodletting"
    • " last week's write-off has only thrown $54 billion of it into the trash bin"
    • "more could disappear before the carnage is complete"
    • "You can get as much of a return by investing in a U.S. government bond these days as you can from throwing your money into the AOL Time Warner black hole."
    ...etc...

    Yes AOLTW is getting slammed and their value is low, but so are many former high fliers. This guy doesn't provide any real insight into the situation. He's just flaiming AOL/TW.

    And to me this just looks like merger pains. In ten years, maybe, we can begin to pass judgement on whether the deal was worthwhile.

    Sweat

    --
    It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
    1. Re:NYPost by way of the Inquirer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 years from now? How does that help today? $54B written off this year alone. That's only One Million Dollars per employee they lost. It would be almost impossible for them not to improve in 10 years. Good thing the outgoing CEO is only the #3 paid CEO in the US. Hell he only made $165M last year.

      10 years from now this will not matter. Today this matters. What can be done? I don't know but I'm open to suggestion, as long as they don't require new laws.

      Enron was wrong because? AOL is right because?

    2. Re:NYPost by way of the Inquirer by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2

      The HP-Compaq fiasco, the AOL-Time Warner debacle, and the dot-com bust all point to one thing: a managerial elite class that is stuffing itself with cash whether the companies, the stocks, the employees, or the customers win or lose. One-million-dollar-a-year golden parachutes, massive management bonuses and the like are part of a huge logrolling scam the is being perpetrated on the economy. And if you get critical of it, you're accused of being hostile to "wealth creators". (What the hell is a "wealth creator"? I can understand "good producer," "value creator," "innovator" and all the rest, but somehow I get the feeling that "wealth creator" is a feel-good word for someone who takes a little bit of everyone else's geld and stuffs it in his pocket, "creating" one wealthy schmuck.)

    3. Re:NYPost by way of the Inquirer by Saeger · · Score: 1
      What the hell is a "wealth creator"?

      The "wealth creators" are the guys who have enough capital to surround themselves with enough scummy lawyers in order to conduct the kind of "big business" where the bar has been raised 1500 meters by their pals in the gov't. :)

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
  37. Tulips for houses by new500 · · Score: 2

    . . .

    To me it was always a story of AOL cashing out its funny money stock at the height of the internet boom. Many manias have come and passed, leaving a scorched trail of people who bought in too close to the last hurrah. My guess (since largely vindicated) was that Time - Warner was one such sucker.

    Nevertheless, TW was desperately seeking growth, as a mature massive media business. It's much harder to grow incrementally the larger you get and still hit that year on year percentage target for your shareholders. TW's growth prospects were heavily tied to, e.g., newsprint subscriptions, and the internet boom looked then to be able to run and run.

    As many corporations who have been out of fashion have found (think banks during the '70s, when all the "smart" money was in the conglomerate boom) out of fashion can quickly mean out of access to capital too, and print and press is desperately cyclical, and very capital intensive - worse even, tied to the sharp acceleration and decelleration of advertising which behaves exaggeratedly in synch with that most nebulous of economic indicators - sentiment.

    Things change, and may get better for AOL - TW, but boy does it look tough for them for the forseeable.

    Here's some selected quotes from recent Financial Times articles :

    But broadband is different. Anyone buying a high-speed internet access over a cable system, for instance, will already be paying for the cable company's own ISP. Why pay for AOL as well

    The logic of the synergies, and the merger itself, have failed. . . . shareholders consistently fail to restrain management from empire-building. . . a fine example of hope triumphing over reason . . .AOL used its overvalued paper to buy some real assets . . .Those loyal to Time Warner shares have underperformed the media sector by more than 60 per cent.

    It's a sad indictment of much of mainstream press that which was - to me at least (and allowing I spend a good deal of my time studying speculative bubbles) - plain dang obvious, is only talked about now - after we've all been hit by the train. But then it's easy to go with the flow, ain't it?

  38. No wonder they're bleeding money by Doomdark · · Score: 2
    I bet their cash flow displays about 2 billion $ annually for producing those (sn|cr)appy little "AOL 8" CDs that they send. I've so far received 12 of those (I kid you not); of which highest daily batch was 3x. They sure are desperate to try to lure me into Happy AOL family...

    The irony is that I could actually use my free corporate AOL account if I wanted to, to begin with, but have absolutely no intention to change from the cool and reliable local smallish ISP I'm using.

    --
    I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    1. Re:No wonder they're bleeding money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bet their cash flow displays about 2 billion $ annually for producing those (sn|cr)appy little "AOL 8" CDs that they send. I've so far received 12 of those (I kid you not); of which highest daily batch was 3x.

      Did you guys get on some kind of AOL spam list or something? I've only received about 6 of those over the past 10 years. Before they started shipping CDs I used to get the floppy disk version included with practically anything I bought though. I must just be lucky I suppose.

    2. Re:No wonder they're bleeding money by Doomdark · · Score: 2
      Did you guys get on some kind of AOL spam list or something?

      I have no idea... I think it's because of the apartment, as none of those came with my name. Or perhaps my neighbours will just dump their copies in my mailbox? :-)

      --
      I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
  39. AOL made a very smart move by MeanGene · · Score: 2, Insightful
    They realized that their stock was overpriced in the "Internet bubble," but unlike the rest of us mortals they could profit from it by buying a "real business."

    They did an equity swap (as opposed to getting bond financing) which was a great move. JDS Uniphase could've bought, say, Boeing - but they didn't and now they're worthless.

    No wonder the "original" TimeWarner people are pissed - they were had by a bunch of cowboys, and there wasn't a goddamn thing they could do about it at the time.

  40. Goodwill: The Asset Balloon by jamesmartinluther · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My accounting teacher got pissed at me last year when I opined that the "goodwill assets" are often what a company overpaid for some other company. He called it the "keys to the business" and said that it was something of value.

    I think that this can only be true if the keys were bought for a reasonable price. TW shareholders got ripped off because they gave away the keys of the business for too little tangible value (in the form of new AOL shares). TW shareholders got greedy in approving that merger and, if they did not unload their new AOL stock quickly, lost out big time in that deal.

    Financial leaders such as the CFO and the CEO need to apply engineering principles to the financial aspects of the companies they are responsible for. How is that tall buildings structurally fail far less often than the corporations that contain them? Shareholders also need to analyze financial statements and the decisions that they vote on (especially mergers) in the same way.

    - James

  41. Cost of CDs by Servo5678 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally, after all these years, the costs of sending out free AOL CDs has finally caught up with them!

  42. Spin Doctor by phriedom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Wow, you sure have a bunch of nice buzzwords packed into that short post. But I don't see how any "synergy" is going to turn the AOL unit into a money-making and growing division like it used to be. They are not going to be "out-competing" my local ISP. If they were to start making T-W content exclusive to AOL, they are only going to be choking off the potential for T-W.

    AOL made a sweet deal. They turned a vast amount of very perishable stock value into some real assets by buying T-W. T-W was blinded by dollar signs in their eyes. They looked at the (temporary) value of the stock, instead of (real) value of the AOL company.

    I know they are not going to shrivel up and blow away or anything like that, but if I was a T-W stockholder I would be pretty pissed off. There were billions of dollars here last time I looked. Where did it go?

    I shouldn't be too hard on them though. Tyco, who has nothing to do with the dot-com bubble, and nothing to do with energy trading, and makes and sells actual products rather than just having intellectual property, has dropped in value by 30 BILLION dollars in the last 2 weeks. Think about that: 30 billion dollars that used to belong to stockholders has EVAPORATED in the last 14 days.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    1. Re:Spin Doctor by SquadBoy · · Score: 2

      I think it should be modded "funny" instead of "interesting" read it from that viewpoint and it makes *much* more sense.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    2. Re:Spin Doctor by JamesOfTheDesert · · Score: 2
      Think about that: 30 billion dollars that used to belong to stockholders has EVAPORATED in the last 14 days.

      Hmm, not quite. There was potentially 30 billion dollars that stockholders might have has, iff they sold the stock to a willing buyer. The opportunity evaporated, not any actual dollars.

      Of course, that's still a good reason to be pissed.

      --

      Java is the blue pill
      Choose the red pill
    3. Re:Spin Doctor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if I was a T-W stockholder I would be pretty pissed off.

      IIRC, the shareholders filed a class action suit against TW for accepting too low a price.

    4. Re:Spin Doctor by billnapier · · Score: 1

      They are not going to be "out-competing" my local isp

      But they don't have to out compete your local ISP for your business. They don't want your business. They want average joe american who's heard of this internet thingy and wants to see what all the fuss is about. They want people willing to pay an arm and a leg for a simple user interface

      "If you thought of first 30 million users were dumb, wait until you meet the next 30 million".

    5. Re:Spin Doctor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Basing your business on people who have never used the internet? Sound like a real growth market.

    6. Re:Spin Doctor by moeller · · Score: 1
      I shouldn't be too hard on them though. Tyco, who has nothing to do with the dot-com bubble, and nothing to do with energy trading, and makes and sells actual products rather than just having intellectual property, has dropped in value by 30 BILLION dollars in the last 2 weeks. Think about that: 30 billion dollars that used to belong to stockholders has EVAPORATED in the last 14 days.

      I always get annoyed at the terminology of "30 billion dollars evaporating" from market capitalizations. Is the current company's market cap $30 billion less than it was? Yes. Is the company worth $30 billion less? Hell no. Company analysis reveals that (except some more debt than would be nice, though it is serviceable by cash flows) the company is fairly healthy with some short term problems. Using discounted cash flows, the company is probably worth more like $35-40 per share. That's significantly above the $17-$20 it trades at now. That's why a lot of good fund managers have been buying it recently (Bill Miller & the Clipper Fund analysts).

      Remember that the company's value may at times have little to do with their price. That's how you make money in the market--buying companies that are worth more than their price, with value being defined as the discounted future earnings of the company (or cash flows if you're pedantic).

      So when a big company's price goes down a bit, but the basic business is more or less the same value, it isn't a bad thing for shareholders. If anything, it's a good thing. It provides an opportunity to purchase more shares at a discounted price, before the business's price increases again.

      Sometimes, of course, the company's price may decrease for a good reason, if the company is becoming increasingly unhealthy and is unlikely to recover for more than 5 years or perhaps never.

  43. all i can say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HAHAHAHAHA i hope you go belly up you fuckers! time warner's road runner is shit! their customer service doesn't exist. i'm moving in 2 weeks and no more time warner for me! dsl & satelite all the way!

  44. Am I the only one.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... who questions the source of this article, from the Fox network? You don't suppose the competition between the two contributed to the analysis?

    1. Re:Am I the only one.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't very observant, the article really
      comes from NYPost, the unquestioned champion of journalist integrity!

      --www.nypost.com/business/46726.htm--

      Alot of it wasn't really good journalism, but the premise and conclusion seem valid. AOL/tw is a huge disaster.

      Yes, they have competitive motivation to slam on Tim/warner.

    2. Re:Am I the only one.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fox and NYPost have a common owner, dude. Check out the 'who owns what' chart at the Poynter institute for details.

      In any event, the article is given national play from Fox. Most people don't read/care about the Post. But Fox is everywhere, with a much large audience. The point is that we have a competitor reprinting clap-trap about a nemesis. It's not exactly truthful reporting here.

    3. Re:Am I the only one.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, dude, thanks for the info.
      I'll have to see this poynter institute chart

    4. Re:Am I the only one.... by ragnarok · · Score: 1

      Do you have a link for that chart? I'd really like to see it and can't seem to find it on poynter.org.
      Thanks

      --
      Search first, ask questions later.
  45. Merger was good for AOL shareholders by andrel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Steve Case, chairman of AOL is an investing genius. AOL stock was wildly overvalued at the time of the merger; the price would have tanked with our without the merger. Case used internet bubble speculation to buy Time Warner, converting soon-to-be-worthless paper into a valuable asset. Without the Time-Warner side of the company AOL would be worth a lot less today. (The Time-Warner side might be better off today without the merger, but it was definitely good for AOL shareholders.)

  46. VA Money Pit by isolation · · Score: 1, Funny

    Slashdot it one to talk about money pits.

    --
    Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
  47. Interesting... by OneFix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As the leading U.S. broadband provider, Time Warner Cable added 278,000 net high-speed data subscribers this quarter, for a total of 2.2 million. This is an increase of 1.0 million high-speed data subscribers, or 86%, since the same period last year. At the end of the quarter, digital subscribers represented 28% of basic cable subscribers while high-speed data subscribers represented 11% of eligible homes passed.

    It looks like they are trying to spin this as a positive, but if we belive this story, they are almost treated as a liabilty!!!

    Ok...so exactly how are they going to spin the fallout when they see a mass exodus after they implement these bandwidth usage quotas...it's been discussed before, regardless of their usage, the average user will flee at the first hint of bandwidth usage quotas...

    1. Re:Interesting... by jw32767 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I strongly disagree. They won't set quotas so that the average user goes over it. They would be better served by rasing the monthly fee at that point. Instead, the quota will hit the average geek user who is using far more than the average amount of bandwidth. Joe Blow doesn't care if they limit the bandwidth to 3 GB a month, they don't use anywhere near that much in the first place.

      --

      Josh Winslow
    2. Re:Interesting... by OneFix · · Score: 2

      But, you see...Joe Blow doesn't know what 3GB a month is, as I would assume most geeks would have difficulty determining that without software (cat /proc/net/dev) as well...

      Just wait until the DSL companies start telling the cable subscribers that they could reach that limit in 1-2 days time...

      I know alot of ppl that are not geeks that will run when confronted with a technology that they don't understand. Many users are going to see the possibility of being charged for over-quota usage as too much and simply go to DSL.

      And even though DSL is slower in most circumstances, many users will take a slower service with unlimited usage over that of a faster service that is monitored.

    3. Re:Interesting... by benedict · · Score: 2

      All they have to do is say "the average user used
      X bytes, N percent of our cap last month", and then
      tell people on their bills how much they used the
      previous month. That would calm people's fears.
      Yes, people can be easily frightened, but it won't
      take a marketing genius to figure out how to calm
      their fears on this issue.

      --
      Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
    4. Re:Interesting... by OneFix · · Score: 2

      You underestimate their competition. How long do you think it will take DSL providers to start running ads on Radio and TV for Unlimited Internet (no quotas ever).

      What they don't realize (or maybe they do now) is that their biggest assets are those ppl that use their connection all of the time...these are the ppl that tell friends and family how good their connections are and how great the service is...

  48. Respectfully, no. Not at all. by twilight30 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Synergies": dot.com-speak for "We don't know what the hell we are going to do next".

    Don't believe me? Look at Margaret Wente's commentary on BCE's chair resigning at the Globe and Mail, Michael Posner's comments on Vivendi's fall from grace, and perhaps most damagingly, a recent NYT comment (registration, blah blah).

    One problem is that 'content driving distribution' ends up looking like trying to play monopoly (in general terms, not the board game), especially when the 'synergistic' entity restricts content competition on distribution channels. Remember the ABC cable fiasco from a couple of years ago, when they wouldn't let one channel show up on people's tv screens?

    Another is not restricting access to avoid the public/governmental response outlined above: where's the 'synergy'? If there is no 'synergy', why bother?

    AOL-TW is just the biggest failure, not the only one. And to be honest, the prospect of seeing this kind of 21st century 'new' mercantilism fail actually doesn't bother me a whit.

    --
    ========================================
    Death will come, and will have your eyes
    -- Pavese
    1. Re:Respectfully, no. Not at all. by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a quote from "No Logo" (Naomi Klein, very good book), and Im paraphrasing here:

      Isn't the pure nirvana of total and complete synergy just a monopoly?

      Something to that effect. I agree with your post.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    2. Re:Respectfully, no. Not at all. by evilmrhenry · · Score: 1

      Synergy is what comes between "Give product away for free" and "Profit"

      (Don't tell anyone)

  49. Downright unreadable. by EvlPenguin · · Score: 1

    The FoxNews article is so full of hyperbole and peurile "artistic licence" that it's rendered unreadable. On K5 this would get -1.

    But we're not on K5 now, are we? Hrm.

    --

    --
    #nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
  50. This is Gerald M. Levin! by ragnarok · · Score: 1

    This guy must be Gerald M. Levin! After all the article said he was leaving AOL/TW to become a poet!

    --
    Search first, ask questions later.
    1. Re:This is Gerald M. Levin! by littlerubberfeet · · Score: 1

      Sorry to dissapoint you, but I am merely a highschool student. I am not even a poet. But thanks for the ego-boost.

      --
      Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  51. Sun / Netscape / AOL by twilight30 · · Score: 2

    < sarcasm off > Um, could someone quickly enlighten me as the precise relationship of Sun to AOL-TW? Are they a full component of AOL now? Were they ever? How does that relate to Netscape and so forth?

    From the article AOL owns Netscape wholly, but I still don't really see how Sun fits in. Anyone with a cluestick, comments greatly appreciated.

    --
    ========================================
    Death will come, and will have your eyes
    -- Pavese
    1. Re:Sun / Netscape / AOL by NetGuruFL · · Score: 1

      I dont believe AOLTW has any controling shares in Sun.

      They did enter into a Netscape/Sun technology cross-breeding alliance 3 years ago, which just expired in March. You will recall that is when technologies such as iPlanet were shared with Sun, who now totally own it since the alliance is over.

    2. Re:Sun / Netscape / AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Since when has Sun ever been remotely involved with AOL?

      Some AOL servers run SunOS and Solaris, but that's far from making any deals with them.

    3. Re:Sun / Netscape / AOL by kubrick · · Score: 1

      Ummm... AOL hates MS. Sun hates MS. Sun took the Netscape server business during the AOL takeover.

      There was a Sun/Netscape Alliance formed at the time of the AOL takeover, which seems to have ended according to iplanet.com.

      Sorry I can't be any more help. :)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  52. Two words... by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

    Ha ha.

  53. 1/3 Less by NickRob · · Score: 1

    Yet they're not going to pass the savings onto the consumers.

  54. Lets just wait and see. by LordZardoz · · Score: 2

    Admittedly, right now, AOL-TW is a huge confused mess. Its ugly, inefficient, and bloated. And no one likes them.

    However, that is not to say that there is no chance of things working out. That chance is diminishing, but it is still there. Once the situation with media over internet and copyright gets sorted out, things could work out quite well for them. They could very well succeed yet.

    Then again, they could also screw it up. In either situation, it should be very intesting to watch. So lets just wait and see what happens.

    END COMMUNICATION

  55. AOLTW's Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    An Open Letter to our Stock Holders

    We here at AOL Time Warner believe that our quality service and ability to deliver content rich applications can be leveraged in many areas of society. Therefore we have instituted an agressive expansion plan that will allows us to better serve our customers and the American Society at large. We are excited about the future of AOLTimeWarner and hope you will be too.
    First, We have managed to secure the National Public School system in an asset swap with the US Government (The FBI REALLY wanted to get thier hands on our extensive Consumer Databases, plus the Republicans are in power.)
    Secondly, we have bought out the rights for the bible (for our exclusive broadcast rights in China) Jesus now isn't only pitching Peace and Love, but also Gillmore Girls.
    Finally, we have obtained exclusive rights to the Milky Way from the governing body (this was a hard negotiation, wich boiled down to us stopping all transmissions of Smallville into space) Now rednecks (our number 3 customers, behind Teenagers and Algae) will no longer have to worry about any "Recreational Anal Probes"
    I am pleased to bring you these changes and I hope to see you at the next stock holders meeting.
    Richard Parsons, CEO

    1. Re:AOLTW's Future by rmohr02 · · Score: 1
      [T]his was a hard negotiation, wich boiled down to us stopping all transmissions of Smallville into space...
      Why stop with Smallville? Get rid of all the WB shows once and for all.
  56. News corp versus aol by rkgmd · · Score: 1

    Plot of News corp's (parent of fox) verus aol. Obviously, aol dropped in value recently, but it appears to me that, long-term, it is more successful than fox. The article contains inaccuracies as well---a company's stock price has only a light relationship with either a writeoff (which only represents the "overpaid" amount in stock) or its bookvalue. Therefore, statements like " In other words, perhaps as much as $100 billion more could disappear before the carnage is complete." are completely inaccurate and don't constitute "analysis".

  57. Reminds me of dilbert by Swix · · Score: 0

    Boss - "We are going to destory a perfectly heathly company through a process we call a 'Merger'"

  58. what do u mean: office? by idontneedanickname · · Score: 1

    that's the closet or one of the smaller toilets!

    --tzan

  59. Bad for TW, good for AOL shareholders? by markwelch · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I have to take issue with this statement:
    >> "The conclusion, not surprisingly, is that the merger never should have happened" In fact, this all depends on your perspective.

    If you were a Time-Warner who kept your stock instead of selling out during the merger, you are certainly annoyed: your stock, which once represented a share in a company with genuine assets and occasionally real income, was diluted with an immense credit for meaningless goodwill, all in a marketplace that grossly overvalued internet stocks like AOL.

    But if you were an AOL shareholder, holding grossly overvalued stock with no reasonable prospect of generating a meaningful return (via dividends or earnings), then buying the Time-Warner assets was a huge improvement. Of course, if you bought those shares at post-1997 prices, you are annoyed, but you are still probably better off than if the merger didn't happen.

    Sure, there has been a huge "failure of synergy" and none of the expected benefits of the merger have been obtained, and sloshing the numbers around shows that only an idiot would hold stock in AOL-TW now. (No offense intended -- I was one of the idiots who held AT&T and Lucent and even Enron stock as they plummetted, I just never bought any dot-com stocks, except for a two-week excursion when I was included on a "friends and family" list.)

    --
    -- http://www.MarkWelch.com/ Pleasanton California
  60. Another article by cr@ckwhore · · Score: 2

    I read a similar article in the NY Post earlier today. http://www.nypost.com/business/46726.htm

    Although I don't care for AOLTW, I have noticed a common theme in all the articles I've read about the subject today... they all mention explicitly, "the merger should not have happened". Seems to me like a little fishy business going on in the media, especially with such a story breaking out on a Monday morning. Just be aware that this news may be a bit orchestrated.

    --
    Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
    1. Re: Another article by RealTimeFreeAgent · · Score: 1

      Of course it's orchestrated. Faux News and the NY Post are both owned by News Corporation. Maestro Rupert Murdoch is definitely using multimedia synergies to flame AOL/TW, depress the stock price more and further weaken one of his greatest rivals.

      --
      "You get what you pay for after all." --
    2. Re:Another article by bjohnson · · Score: 1

      you saw the *same* article in the NY Post today...both Fox and the Post are owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Co. a direct competitor of TW/AOL, and somewhere around the Weekly World News in terms of journalistic credibility...

    3. Re:Another article by egomaniac · · Score: 2

      Nonsense. They were all saying "This merger shouldn't happen" back when it was still being negiotiated. The fact that they're still saying it now is not the least bit suspicious.

      This deal was pushed through so that the TW execs could make a lot of money, and so that AOL could have some real assets when the Internet bubble burst.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    4. Re:Another article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only problem with that theory is that the Time Warner execs held their stock options when they could have taken them, whereas the AOL execs cashed out at their first opportunity.

  61. It was only about the IPO and stock options by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot would be more profitable if they converted their assets to cash and deposited it into a savings account at 3.1%. Instead they foolishly continue to operate, continue to squander their cash reserves. Lets hope they get a clue, and shut down.

    Slashdot & VAlinux never were a viable business, the whole thing was about IPO.

  62. Steve Case, Super Genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For unloading this stinky poo-poo AOL stock for full hyped premium and obtaining a crown jewel, namely, Time Warner. I laughed at the time when most ANALysts said AOL is not getting enough premium for Time Warner. HA!

    AOL is a dial up internet company people!
    The technology was new 8 years ago!

  63. Its not a troll, its a very good point... by jatbrowne · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...coincidentally made earlier today by Will Hutton (a British economist and newspaper editor) about the pointlessness of big money mergers like this.

    He produces some very interesting statistics about how they almost always lose money, for example;

    The management consultant McKinsey's, for example, reviewing 160 mergers between 1992 and 1999, discovered that only 12 of the merged groups succeeded in lifting organic growth above the trends before the merger; the other 148 failed.
    The article is really worth a read. Just ignore the, um, inflammatory title!
    1. Re:Its not a troll, its a very good point... by mgblst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The point that your missing is that things could have been worse for the two companies left alone. One big company might not be able to increase "organic growth", but might actually be able to survive. This sort of assumes that if there was no merger, things would go along rosily!

    2. Re:Its not a troll, its a very good point... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      But how many of those mergers made the decision makers absurdly wealthy? I mean, you didn't REALLY think that the mergers happened to maximize shareholder value, did you?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  64. Over a square kilometer by coyote-san · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm struggling to come to terms with 13 million square feet of office space.

    That's substantially over a square kilometer.

    It's just under a half-square mile. (10 city blocks by 5 city blocks.)

    Of course, the real issue isn't the amount of office space they need, it's that incomprehensible 25% of revenue going into overhead. Not production, but overhead. That's one central office person for every three people who actually produce the product or directly support those who do.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    1. Re:Over a square kilometer by Mark+Imbriaco · · Score: 1

      And the very vast majority of that comes from what was formerly Time Warner. AOL in comparison was quite lean, especially for a pseudo-dotcom.

    2. Re:Over a square kilometer by archen · · Score: 1

      Maybe they include the parking lot where AOL tech support continually jump out of windows and land.

    3. Re:Over a square kilometer by alumshubby · · Score: 2

      Shhhhh. I smell further layoffs.

      --
      "How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
    4. Re:Over a square kilometer by shrikel · · Score: 1
      that incomprehensible 25% of revenue going into overhead ... That's one central office person for every three people who actually produce the product or directly support those who do

      Well, I don't think that's quite the case. I mean think about it -- you've got to include the CEO and all the other upper-level officers and board members in there. I bet there's a billion dollars annually divided between a handful of people. (I don't know how many. 25 or so.)

      One thing that could REALLY help the economy today is decreasing the salary gap in large corporations. Do the CEO's really need hundreds of millions of dollars? I mean, yeah, it's nice, but I don't understand how they can justify taking that much money when they know full well that some of their employees struggle.

      Personally, I don't make a lot of money, especially compared to other network admins. But I make enough to get by and pay my bills, and put a little aside for a rainy day.

      Why can't the rich let the less-rich in on a little of the wealth?!? What's wrong with the world?!!?

      Oh yeah. Capitalism. I distinguish between "Free-market economy" and "capitalism." Capitalism is the dark side of the free market system. A free market economy lets products / services / companies succeed by virtue of their quality and their meeting people's needs at a price that people are willing to pay. But capitalism is where people and companies are driven by Capital (i.e. money), and they'll go to any lengths and use any means to get it. Whether that's unfairly undermining the competition (I'm not a Microsoft basher, usually, but they're a good example of that) or taking the lion's share of money.

      I lived in Brazil for a couple of years, and I was appalled by the disparity between the salaries of the top-level managers of a company and their lowest employees. The top-level officers lived in the lap of luxury, without any regard for their employees, who couldn't even feed their families. (I know one man and woman who didn't eat for a week so their 2 children could eat.)

      Sorry to rant about this so long, but I think this is a real problem in the world today. Our economic difficulties and disparity are a result of greed, and nothing else. When are CEO's and other top officers going to learn that that which is "for the good of the company" (read "their wallets") is NOT what is good for humanity?

      --
      Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
  65. Fox did the analyzing??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Remember people that Fox News is the direct competitor to CNN and AOL-TW. They are a just a little biased.

  66. competitor? by phriedom · · Score: 1

    The New York Post is a competitor for AOL-TW?

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    1. Re:competitor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ruport

  67. Think of it this way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The merger was an excuse for a big dividend payout to the chiefs at TimeWarner as well as AOL. It was the shareholders of TimeWarner that got taken. The big boys in the board room made out JUST FINE.

    1. Re:Think of it this way... by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      The merger was an excuse for a big dividend payout to the chiefs at TimeWarner as well as AOL. It was the shareholders of TimeWarner that got taken. The big boys in the board room made out JUST FINE.

      Dividends are payouts to all shareholders, not just shareholders who are chief executives. They may have gotten huge amounts in the form of bonuses but most of them also took huge hits from the decrease in stock value. I know that Steve Case dropped off of the billionaire list (poor baby).

  68. MOTLEY FOOL SEZ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:MOTLEY FOOL SEZ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I read it. And the quote "and the real profits may not come until the wireless Internet takes off through the use of Microsoft's ".NET" and/or AOL's "Magic Carpet" services" leads me to believe this guy should just shut the fuck up when talking about tech stuff.

  69. AOL shareholder reaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  70. Why I think this is cool. by MisterBlister · · Score: 1

    Though obviously one case can't be turned into a scientific study, I think the general agony being felt by AOL/TimeWarner is a sign that huge corporations can only get so big before crumbling under their own weight due to natural market forces. This is a comforting thought since it doesn't seem like the government is going to do anything about stopping these mega-mergers.

    1. Re:Why I think this is cool. by stoolpigeon · · Score: 2, Informative

      History does not support your premise.

      AT&T, Microsoft, the Rockefellers, and on and on.

      .

      --
      It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    2. Re:Why I think this is cool. by MisterBlister · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      AT&T, Microsoft, the Rockefellers, and on and on.

      Stop lying, dick.

  71. "Synergies"? by Tabercil · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hmmm... we have all these multimedia folks talking about "synergies" - how stuff from one place will drive another will drive another and so on... for instance, the music division will feed the internet division, which in turn will enhance the television division...

    Isn't this merely another form of the corporate conglomerate? And wasn't the concept of the conglomerate pretty much disproven by all these large corporations in the sixties and seventies experiencing difficulty in operating because no-one had the background, skill and knowledge set to properly run all of these divisions?

    Viewed in that light, small wonder AOL-Time Warner ran into difficulty. The skill set needed to run AOL is fundamentally different from that of Time-Warner. Hell, I'm curious as to how efficient Time and Warner were together prior to AOL coming into the mix...

    There will be a dramatic split-up or disinvestment coming in the future to AOL-Time Warner - it doesn't matter how they spin it. They need to get a central vision of what the business is and should be, and remove what doesn't fit into it.

  72. From the little-known press release by vex24 · · Score: 2

    It turns out AOL's "Mozilla Project" cost the company $34B, prompting AOL CEO Steve Case to utter, "Whatzilla? What the fuck?" The most blatant of the charges turned out to be the $12m on "foam dart toys and accessories" and the $17m line item simply labeled "caffiene."

    --

    People shape laws. Not the other way around.

  73. Christopher Byron == Smarmy Little Cocksucker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This piece of trash journalism is typical of the hack clusterfucks at Fox. This jackass takes something that's been obvious to everyone for about a year, writes an indignant little article about it, and probably thinks he has some kind of profound insight.
    Asswipe.

  74. THE FOOL SEZ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  75. HP-Compaq Merger by hendridm · · Score: 1

    > In the end, what began as a stock swap wound up, as an outright takeover of Time Warner by America Online.

    I wonder if a light is going on in Michael Capellas' head right now.

  76. More exec compensation and options, really by WillSeattle · · Score: 1

    As a minor shareholder (I'm down $10,800 on my remaining 200 shares, but sold about 400 at much higher valuations) - it's my perception that a lot of the losses are on the executive compensation side and bad accounting practices.

    -

    --
    --- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
  77. Your post is entirely false, and you can check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can go through the mountains of statistics for mergers over the last twenty. Most of them have proven to erode shreholder value by a substantial margin.

    1. Re:Your post is entirely false, and you can check by MaxVlast · · Score: 1

      Hey everybody, it's Mr. Hewlett!

      --
      There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
      Max V.
      NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
  78. Bah. AOL just wastes too much money. by Julius+X · · Score: 2

    I find it interesting to see this story considering that I recieved not one, but TWO AOL cds in my mailbox this afternoon.

    They weren't just the regular-old AOL-on-CD type either...one came in hard DVD-like plastic case, the other came in-get this-a metal tin.

    All that was in the tin was the CD, nothing but that... talk about a waste of money... is there really any point to putting a CD that is going to get thrown away anyway into a metal tin?! I would say that even the tin would have use...but I really dont want to carry stuff around in a rather large flat tin that has AOL plastered all over it.

    AOL-Time Warner would probably do fine if they didnt waste millions of dollars on marketing methods which may have been effective in the past, but probably aren't today. If people want AOL, they know wherre to get it...you don't need to spend millions to keep shoving it down their throats.

    --

    -Julius X
    remove "-whatkindofspamdoyoutakemefor-" from email to send
  79. dollars by phriedom · · Score: 1

    Ok, good point. It wasn't cash money that disappeared. I should have said 30 billion dollars in stockholder value evaporated. The effect on the stockholder is the same though.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    1. Re:dollars by Pogue+Mahone · · Score: 2

      All these stock values are of course pure fiction, because if all the stockholders decided at the same time to (try to) cash in on their fortune, the stock price would drop like a lead Zeppelin.

      --
      Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
  80. For goodness sakes, this is the New York Post by alecf · · Score: 1

    ... also responsible for headlines such as "Prez Looks Bushed"

    this guys article has no data to back up his flaming claims. Yes, AOL is a behemoth who's stock has tanked, but the fact is that earnings growth bested the economy's growth, and the $54b "loss" is a direct result of the stock tanking, not the other way around. the $54b "charge" was not paid to anyone, it was lost value in market cap.

    This is like me (who knows nothing about sports) spelling doom for the Boston Red Sox because three of their players are injured. Not only would that claim be absurd, but I don't even know what I'm talking about when I make claims about sports teams.

    And yes, I'm an AOL Time Warner employee at Netscape (since before the AOL/Netscape merger!) and I'm not happy about the situation, but I get so sick and tired of 'analysis' of the company made by idiots who know nothing about the subject they're analyzing, and are just looking for something else to rant about.

    1. Re:For goodness sakes, this is the New York Post by Oswald · · Score: 1
      the $54b "loss" is a direct result of the stock tanking, not the other way around

      I'm sorry, but I don't think you much more about accounting than you do sports. The write-off reflects AOL's considered opinion that the value of these assets, previously carried on the books at $54 billion is now $0; it was triggered by their (mandatory) adoption of FAS 142, which halts the practice of amortizing goodwill against earnings. If the company were to pretend these worthless, non-producing "assets" were of some actual value, they would be stuck from now till eternity (or such time as they got honest and did write them down) explaining why their return on equity was so poor.

      On the plus-side, for stockholders, it can safely be assumed that management went ahead and threw out every conceivable bum "asset" as a first step towards showing massive financial improvement in the future (okay, they're managing earnings, but that favors present stockholders--who have a chance to unload on unsuspecting buyers).

      Oh, and one last thing--nobody is predicting doom for AOL. Stagnation and disappointment, maybe, but not doom.

    2. Re:For goodness sakes, this is the New York Post by alecf · · Score: 1

      Heh. Well learn something new every day. between this and a few of the other posts I've finally come to understand what this means!

      Its amazing that it takes some slashdot posts to actually get this information. All the "traditional" financial information sources (CBS Marketwatch, CNN/Money, etc) couldn't explain it in a way that made sense to me :)

  81. where? read second paragraph of the statement. by Erris · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Revenues for the quarter increased 4% over the same period in 2001 to $9.8 billion. Subscription revenues increased 14% to $4.7 billion, reflecting strong subscriber growth in the Company's AOL and Cable businesses. Content and Other revenues were essentially flat at $3.2 billion, primarily because of robust theatrical results in the current year, offset by strong prior-year syndication sales. Advertising and Commerce revenues declined 13% to $1.8 billion, reflecting weakness in the overall advertising market and difficult comparisons against last year.

    So, duh, the cable business is growing while the traditional entertainment is dying. No news here, exept trolls like to call it a "dot com bubble burst" and other stupid shit like that. Nope, sorry, the internet subscription is doing well, the rest is flat or sagging. When was the last time you read Time or any other monthly print magazine without wondering what kind of clueless hermit would consider any of it news? Is it any supprise that assets like that might lose value?

    Where did the money go? It was "good will" overpayment for those "crown jewels", Time Warner. Enetertainment is not an easy business to be in, especially right before a small recession. The internet business, however, is a good bet. When things get tough what are you going to axe, Time, cable TV or your internet connection? I don't have the first two and I'm doing well.

    Dead trees is dead business. Pththth-fit! Good riddance, now those trees can be used on things like houses that don't fill up landfills as fast. Books are doing well, and that is nice but the mags sag. Here, read it for yourself:

    Publishing's EBITDA grew 14% in the quarter on revenue gains of 3%. Revenue growth reflected increases in Advertising and Commerce as well as Content and Other revenues, which were partially offset by a decline in Subscription revenues.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  82. Can you say Bill Parish? by Ixohoxi · · Score: 1
    A couple articles to offer some hindsight and/or insight:
    • http://www.billparish.com/20010404americaonline. ht ml
    • http://www.billparish.com/20010430aolpart2.html
    • (bonus link) http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=972 6
    --
    What's a second? An hour? A day?
    It has much more to do with
    the Earth's rotation than with cesium.
  83. Slashdot could DEFINITELY be viable. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1


    I don't know about VA Linux, but Slashdot could DEFINITELY be a viable business.

    The people who run Slashdot have no understanding of marketing or advertising. Yes, those are big intellectual challenges, but it is surprising how little skill they have.

    Am I saying I could do better? Yes. I could turn Slashdot into a viable business.

  84. Re:Bah. AOL just wastes too much money. by RedWolves2 · · Score: 1

    You did not mention that the tins are harder then hell to open.

  85. you got mail by imsirovic5 · · Score: 1

    Now every time Ted Turner opens his e-mail he hears: "You've got F*****"

  86. Re:Bah. AOL just wastes too much money. by PRickard · · Score: 2

    Julius X typed: They weren't just the regular-old AOL-on-CD type either...one came in hard DVD-like plastic case, the other came in-get this-a metal tin.

    But if you purchase a Warner DVD, it comes in a sorry-ass flimsy cardboard case that won't hold up to anything. I don't know of any other DVD distributor that does this with ALL of its titles, and they apparently do it just to save $.003 cents per sale. AOL TimeWarner is a busines school class project for MGMT 4106: Customer Alienation.

    --

    == Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====

  87. The Zik Zak Effect by President+Laguna+Loi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, the reason they're doing so poorly is the Zik Zak Effect. Does anyone here remember Max Headroom (the ABC TV series that aired during the 1980's)? There was an episode in which Zik Zak, a large corporation, bought out a controlling share in Network 23 thinking they would increase their profits. What actually happened was that many of the other companies who were advertising with Network 23 stopped doing business with them because they did not want to pay a rival for the air time and Network 23 (and Zik Zak) ended up losing money rather than gaining it. In the end, the only way for Zik Zak to recover was to sell Network 23 back to the original owners. Essentially, AOL has done the same thing by buying a controlling portion of Time Warner. Unless they are willing to take initial loss and sell it back to its original owners, AOL will no doubt find Time Warner to be a white elephant.

    1. Re:The Zik Zak Effect by lsdino · · Score: 1

      The amazing thing about your post is that minutes later (9 minutes to be precise) Slashdot puts up this article on Max Headroom. I just *had* to check the times to make sure you posted this before the article showed up. It's unreal!

  88. AOL was always inflated. by diggem · · Score: 1

    I don't have any examples but for the past 4-5 years AOL has been over-inflated in worth. I remember reading or hearing about this very thing. People were talking about AOL and saying that one should avoid it as a stock because it was overvalued. People who were looking at the company couldn't figure out how the stayed in the black with all the spending they've done. Frankly I think the board ought to be personally responsible for 50% of that write-off. If all boards were held responsible for such things, they'd think twice about messing with the books.. especially THAT much.

  89. Re:The reason is simple a use for CD by kurt555gs · · Score: 1

    Fool! .... AOL cd are usefull, simply microwave one for 1 minute and it makes a great reflector for your mailbox. Actually, with enough AOL cd's you can protect lots of stuff from errent drivers, trees , culverts on your driveway, etc.

    So, I like the free reflectors AOL sends out

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  90. Tribute by dacarr · · Score: 1

    In tribute of their failing, I will transcribe and change the opening line from the first America Online commercial I actually saw, on TechTV (or whatever it was called) back in 1996:

    "A friend of mine told me I should get a set of America Online coasters. 'Why?' I asked. 'I already have a wet bar in my home!'"

    --
    This sig no verb.
  91. How WIDE can a money pit be? Let's see! by Ralph+Nader+sux0rz · · Score: 0
    This is how wide Ralph "Fagggot Wanker" Nader's asshole is!

    Oh, and K1erck is a god! Bow to the almighty widener!

    http://www.eveeieyhfgfcdoosammgwsnboivvbsczxlzgabc / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /ooieiabdcdjsvbkeldfogjhiyeeejkagclmieooionoepdk / /abcdefmfighyiqxjklmonopqrosoyotuvwxoyqwertyuiov / /sdfghjklqewiuznmbjadzmcloeuirquakndsflksjdflkas / /fskdfasiewurznmcvweroiqewrnamdnzcvuowieramnfkas / /dfhzuxcihskjrnakjzkjcxbviusayrkajsfzxncvizudyri / /bakdnfbzkcvhgiuegriweramdnfzxlcvueirhamdnzkciue / /jranbsdmfzcowierandmfxzncbkjhfabsdifuweajzkxcuw / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /fzbxcvkxlkcnvmndskfjwehaiursdfzjxnbjkdfhskdflas / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /yroausdfzxmncvskeyiqozsjhfasdfoiwueranmcnzbkjhd / /ueafhksjfwheuirasdjhbzxiuewjhasmdnkfzxciurhaskj / /roiquwermcvkhiruhasdkjfnzxkjyeiuahsdbzxckjvopwe / /uqweuirjhvxzckjhweriuasydfoiqurnmxckvhweruiahdj / /znkxcvjhwierahsfzkxhhidufhsakjbzxjchiwueryqagsd / /kjhaksdfnbakwreyhaisknfjkzxbcvkoiqwueraskfzxcbk / /nlkwejrasoidjfxzlknvlkwjeroiasudflknzxlkbjeoiru / /slkdjfzxnmvkljdfawienzxveoriuaskdfjzxcmbnkseuri / /kfjlznxcvksjroeijasdklzjfowierqouasdhfzxncbkjhd / /jsdfljkweoriuasdfkjzxmcnvlkjdowuieraksdflkzxjbo / /werklasdnfmzxclkjewoijasdlfknzlkjwoeirqpweoiasd / /kjzxjvwperaksdjfxzweirjaslkdfzxnclvkjweroiasufd / /zxclkjeworijasdflknzlbkoiwuraksjflknxblkwjerois / /jfweknasdkfjzoxijkenraksjdfoizxjvlknwerlkajsdfo / /erhasdfzxncvkjdfyiuzxcnvsikirkajeajsbdfkzxbuyef / /rahsdjbzcvxmnvcuweyriausdnfzxbcvkwueyrajnbvkjxg / /iwueyajdfkzxjcnbkeyriaushdfkjbzbuowrnasdkfbhuie / /asjmfnkkbyiurnakjsndfkzjbhiuwerajsknfkzbyhweiua / /dkfjbzkxvbjywekrjaskjnvzxjcweruiasdhfkzjxnsjkld / /fasoidfjalskdfasklhfxjdnmenrqoiuozxcopjgneaksjo / /nzxdkfajlsdfkljsdfoiasdfasndflzxkcvozixucoqweiu / /pwoeiruzxmncvoutyqwerizxnvmxmcnvoweurqmznxmbouw / /rmnzbkhuyrtjghanzxcvbkhgjweyriaudfbznbkweruyabz / /bcvnkdhityqhagsdfjglsieurakfsdnfbvfdsajkbiuyqwe / /kweorjasdknfbkjsdoifuzxbcmfgsltjewioahsdfnbzxcb / /heoiroaisjdfzbxckjksrhiuehadsfbzkxjcbhkeuryaksj

    --

    The untermensch Ralph "FaggotWanker" Nader is a goat rimming douche bag!

  92. Maybe an AOL club? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they start a special platinum club for especially gullible subscribers?

    More seriously, the article is hardly an "interesting analysis". Is there anyone on the planet who didn't already know this?

  93. Article from Time magazine 4/22/02 by nucal · · Score: 2
    This is kind of a long post of the entire text (since Time restricts access to online archives). Time had a really scathing article basically outlining all of this ... amazing considering that this was basically an "FU AOL" coming from a subsidiary. Oh, but Steve Case remains confident ....

    -----

    April 22, 2002

    The Engine Stalls At AOL

    Steve Case's online giant was supposed to take Time Warner to new heights, not lows
    BY FRANK GIBNEY JR. AND DANIEL EISENBERG/DULLES

    Six years ago, Bob Pittman traded away his job as CEO of the world's largest real estate company to rescue a struggling Internet company that many critics had already written off. He did that and more, using his marketing wizardry to turn America Online into a new media powerhouse, big enough to eventually swallow an old media standard bearer called Time Warner. He became a self-designated prophet of 21st century success: AOL was going to rocket Time Warner into a brave new world, delivering music, movies and you name it, anywhere, anytime--and of course make a killing in the process.

    But last week Pittman had to be called on once again to save AOL, which is beginning to look like the media giant's albatross. After eagerly devouring Pittman's hype just a year ago, investors and critics now feel woozy. Incoming AOL Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons, 54, clearly felt that nobody could clean up the mess better than Pittman, which is why he asked his top deputy to go back to Dulles, Va., on a new rescue mission. "AOL is our biggest problem, and so we're putting our best fighting general on it," says Parsons, who was designated CEO when Gerald Levin abruptly announced his resignation last December.

    Pittman takes over from Barry Schuler, the former tech entrepreneur who has run AOL since the merger in January 2001 and will now head a new interactive services division. Although Pittman, 48, is known as an agile manager with an uncanny ability to build big consumer brands, this is the Mississippi native's biggest test. He must restore AOL's luster and regain the trust of colleagues, business partners and, most important of all, Wall Street.

    The fact is, two years after the merger was announced, AOL Time Warner's top brass is being forced to prove the decision was not a mistake. Despite its powerful brand and unrivaled global member base of 34 million, the AOL division has seen its once stratospheric subscriber growth slow, its ad revenue fall and its international operations bleed money. The much ballyhooed broadband move--in which networked homes will enjoy high-speed connections to movies and music whenever they want--is off to a rocky start. Any delay is crucial to consumers eagerly anticipating the broadband revolution, because if AOL, with all its affiliated cable systems and entertainment properties, can't deliver those services, who can? Microsoft? Comcast? Rupert Murdoch?

    The AOL service's woes have infected all of AOL Time Warner, whose stock is the third most widely held in the U.S. By the end of last week, those shares had dropped to $20.10--wiping out nearly two-thirds of the market value of the combined companies since their merger was announced in January 2000. Several Wall Street analysts estimate the company's cable, entertainment and publishing divisions (which include CNN, Warner Bros., Warner Music and Time Inc., the parent company of this magazine) are worth about $19 a share. That leaves AOL near zero. When it reports its first-quarter financial results next week, AOL Time Warner will take a write-down of $54 billion--the biggest such charge in U.S. history--to reflect the decline in value of the combined company. This meltdown has revived questions raised by some Time Warner division heads in the months following the merger: Why was a solid company sold for overinflated AOL stock?

    In part, the AOL division is a victim of the lofty expectations generated by its successes in recent years--and the hyperbole of some of its executives. After the online service's ad and e-commerce revenue doubled in 1999 and nearly doubled again in 2000, executives--led by Pittman--declared that AOL could power AOL Time Warner to a 33% annual growth in cash flow, even during a 2001 that was clearly shaping up as a recession year.

    But while managers in New York City were trumpeting these goals, the folks at the AOL division's headquarters in Dulles were overwhelmed by them. Even before the merger was finalized, many of AOL's top managers and technologists were retiring--either formally or in practice--on the immense wealth they amassed before the dotcom bubble burst. Pittman, meanwhile, moved to New York to help run the parent company. And founder Steve Case, now chairman of AOL Time Warner, stepped back from day-to-day responsibilities, in part to spend more time in California with his brother Dan, who is battling brain cancer.

    That left Schuler--who had never managed anything larger than the 100-person software start-up that he sold to AOL in 1995--in charge of a fast-swelling staff of 15,000 and $9 billion in annual revenue. Instead of setting strategic priorities, Schuler and his lieutenants bounced between brainstorming sessions for soon-to-debut products like universal messaging and agonizing meetings over how to fulfill short-term earnings goals. One executive bemoans that at the old AOL: "Our great strength was keeping it simple, the goals clear and everyone pulled together. We really ended up losing our focus."

    In the first move to restore some discipline, AOL Time Warner last fall sent chief financial officer Michael Kelly from the New York headquarters to become the AOL division's chief operating officer. Kelly found what a senior executive refers to as a "big sandbox," in which in the name of synergy, it seemed as if anyone with an idea was suddenly proposing grandiose new projects with Time Warner divisions. "People are doing crazy stuff and wasting money," says the executive. "Someone has to set some priorities." Case, 43, says ruefully that rather than speeding AOL's move into the broadband age, "the merger actually slowed us down."

    Case is confident that AOL will haul itself out of the ditch; he points to a history of unfulfilled predictions of its demise. During the winter of 1996, just before Pittman arrived, the company was dubbed America on Hold because its servers couldn't handle the dial-up volume. But AOL invested heavily in fail-safe server technology and launched a massive marketing effort. "I've seen this movie a lot," says Case, who recently bought an additional 1 million shares of stock at $24 a share, after selling twice that amount early last year at a significantly higher price. "I kind of like being the underdog again. That's when we've always done our best work."

    The situation is serious enough, however, that Case says he will rely more heavily on his founding fraternity to set the company right. AOL's cash cow is its 26 million U.S. subscribers, most of whom pay $23.90 a month for AOL's dial-up service. Almost half of that subscription revenue represents pure profit. But the U.S. dial-up market is already close to 60% saturation and isn't expected to hit 70% before 2005. AOL subscriber growth this year is estimated to drop to about 10%, just a third of its torrid pace in 1999.

    The AOL division's long-term-growth gambit is to attract as many of its dial-up customers as possible into the promised land of broadband, where they would pay more--eventually as much as $200 a month, in Pittman's rosy scenario--for a variety of on-demand services, from wireless instant messaging to the ability to listen to Norah Jones or watch A Beautiful Mind anytime they like.

    But delivering those services--and doing so at a profit--is proving a vastly more complex business proposition than anyone imagined. As the ongoing battle over music and video downloads suggests (think Napster), success in a broadband world requires solving complex questions about copyrights and digital encryption. Few executives, even at AOL Time Warner's movie and music divisions, are ready to open their treasure troves to the threat of piracy in an online, on-demand world. The broadband business also requires AOL to pay a cable or DSL provider for access to the pipes that reach customers' homes--at least in the 80% of the U.S. where Time Warner Cable doesn't control the cable systems--and to figure out a way to share additional revenues with a disparate array of partners. Such deals have become especially imperative since December, when AOL Time Warner lost out to Comcast in the bidding for AT&T's 14 million cable customers.

    All this adds up to a grim reality: until AOL can offer easy access to premium content such as movies and music on demand, not enough customers will pay even the $55 a month it charges today for its broadband service. Those who do--the early adopters--are actually cutting into AOL profits. Every time one of its dial-up customers shifts to broadband, the AOL service goes from a nearly 40% profit margin to one potentially as low as 10%--mainly because it has to share broadband revenue with cable partners.

    Can Pittman put AOL back on track? His appointment was lauded among employees who view him as an impassioned leader with a down-home style that reflects his Southern roots and a long stint in the music business. (After an early spell in radio, Pittman went on to found MTV and VH1 and did a stint at Time Warner before joining real estate firm Century 21.) He flies his own jet and has houses in New York, Colorado and Jamaica. But unlike many other AOL millionaires who spend more time with their toys than at the office, Pittman is committed to the company (although his wife Veronique and their two young children were not thrilled that he will be working two jobs, one of them in Virginia).

    Both Parsons and Pittman have insisted that AOL's troubles are not as dramatic as the headlines suggest. Growth may have slowed, but it hasn't vanished. Pittman has told AOL division staff members to refocus on the service's core mission, "figuring out what's important to people and how to make it more convenient for them to do that online."

    But his immediate priority is to attract more advertising. If it weren't for the $130 million that AOL's sister divisions plowed into promoting their brands on the service during the fourth quarter, ad revenue would have plunged 26% instead of just 7%. In fact, AOL Time Warner is one of its own biggest advertisers. Many of the New Economy companies that used to advertise on the AOL service are either bankrupt or close to it. And although consumers are spending more and more time and money on the Internet, Fortune 500 companies and their agencies remain doubtful of the impact of online ads.

    AOL executives say that by using its online network to build buzz for such hugely successful Warner Bros. films as Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, the AOL service has proved its worth. Likewise, AOL's revamped music channel--one of its hottest content areas, drawing 9 million visitors a month--is fast becoming a key promotional vehicle in the record business..

    But to draw more advertising, the AOL division is going to have to change its notorious our-way-or-the-highway culture. The AOL service's business partners, suppliers and advertisers trade stories of sitting around tables listening to AOL executives yammer on about who is wealthier or has a nicer private jet. To his credit, Schuler had started an effort to inject a little humility. One might expect that a battered stock price had already done that. "They're still copping attitude and alienating people," says an ad executive. Managers at a telecom giant found AOL so uncompromising on a recent contract that they are shopping their business elsewhere.

    For all its troubles, the AOL service, which accounts for nearly a quarter of the media giant's cash flow, is a global leader whose 34 million subscribers dwarf the 8 million of its nearest competition, Microsoft's MSN. None of AOL's competitors offers a service that so successfully combines simple e-mail, instant messaging and chat. And no one matches AOL's unique system of parental controls, which makes it the family service of choice. But to keep its user base growing, AOL has been giving away more subscriptions--one reason its revenue per user has stayed flat, despite last year's $2 price increase. Kelly maintains that the trial offers are worthwhile because nearly three-quarters stay on as full-paying members.

    Though AOL says its members have never been happier with the service, independent surveys show that dissatisfaction is on the rise. In one by the Yankee Group, a Boston, Mass., research firm, AOL fared worse than the industry as a whole at "providing value for the money." Last fall, in a Consumer Reports look at Internet service providers, AOL came in last in connection reliability, far behind leaders EarthLink and AT&T WorldNet. To many, AOL seems more and more like a carnival barker, flashing pop-up ads in their faces. Pittman last week indicated to colleagues that he considers the pop-up ads out of control and will move quickly to fix the problem.

    AOL believes it can still count on users' loyalty. Plans are in the works to further segment AOL, so that "professional" subscribers would get more features for their money, while the budget-conscious would pay less. And AOL will soon introduce a variety of multi-user family packages. But so far, at least, subscriber "stickiness" may have less to do with satisfaction than with complacency. As Standard & Poor's analyst Scott Kessler puts it, "Nobody wants to change their e-mail address." The competition is working hard to get those AOL subscribers. Microsoft, which banished AOL from its Windows XP desktop last summer, is investing heavily in new features for its MSN service and generally getting good reviews.

    To help turn things around, the AOL service has forged a few promising partnerships with hardware and software powerhouses, including Sony and Apple. Online retailer Amazon has contracted to provide AOL with its powerful shopping search technology, beginning this fall. But AOL hasn't yet made the most crucial kind of deal--with another cable provider. After investing billions to upgrade infrastructure, rival cable providers aren't ready to hand over their lucrative customer relationships. AOL will soon enjoy access to all of Time Warner Cable's 13 million homes, but that's less than 20% of the total market. Its high-speed service, now offered as an option on the Baby Bells DSL service and 20 of Time Warner Cable's markets, has garnered only around 500,000 paying customers, about 5% of the 10 million U.S. residential broadband users. Part of the problem is that AOL charges around $55 a month, compared with $30 to $50 for rival cable and telephone companies. Even on Time Warner's cable systems, the cheaper high-speed isp that the cable guys built before the merger, called Road Runner, has nearly 2 million customers and is reportedly still outselling AOL.

    The AOL division's quest for rapid growth overseas, meanwhile, has been slow and costly. AOL Europe lost $600 million last year, even as AOL was forced by contractual obligation to buy out the 50% stake in that business owned by German media giant Bertelsmann. The price--$7 billion--had been set at the height of the Internet bubble and represents about twice what the Bertelsmann stake is worth today.

    That sort of liability is just part of a debt burden that, combined with the current ad recession, hampers AOL Time Warner's ability to pay for new cable assets or another TV network. In fact, analysts are concerned that its balance sheet may put the company at a disadvantage when competitors like Microsoft are hoarding cash to fight tomorrow's new media battles.

    Throughout AOL Time Warner, morale is slipping along with the stock price. People gossip about Pittman's stock sales--he sold 1.5 million shares last year for $70 million and now holds only about 13,000--and wonder how he will handle two full-time jobs. Company sources say there may be more executive moves as early as May, when Parsons formally succeeds Levin; while some speculate that if Pittman is successful he could be back at corporate full-time in a matter of months, others say that if he can't show progress at AOL by year-end, he may leave the company altogether.

    For his part, Steve Case is confident in his former deputy and their joint vision. "The AOL business is still the crown jewel in the AOL Time Warner portfolio," Case says. "It will surprise the world yet again by raising the bar and inspiring imagination."

  94. ObSimpsonsQuote by kubrick · · Score: 1

    Lisa: We _are_ insured, aren't we, Mom?
    Marge: Homer, tell your child what you bought when I sent you to town to get some insurance.
    Homer: Curse you, magic beans!
    Marge: Oh, stop blaming the beans.
    -- "Homer the Vigilante"

    (all thanks to snpp.com :)

    --
    deus does not exist but if he does
  95. Two important points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The management consultant McKinsey's, for example, reviewing 160 mergers between 1992 and 1999, discovered that only 12 of the merged groups succeeded in lifting organic growth above the trends before the merger; the other 148 failed.
    1. It's not about money, it's about bureaucracy. If bureaucracies knew when to stop eating, many of New Roman society's ills would never exist.
    2. (Sort of another way of saying the above) Perpetual growth does not exist without cost, and anyone who thinks that it can exist on a macroeconomic scale is not only kidding themselves, but is a danger to free society.
  96. overhead by wagnerer · · Score: 1

    25% is nothing. Educational institutions run about 50% overhead and government doesn't do percent but multipliers.

    1. Re:overhead by edremy · · Score: 2

      Educational institutions run about 50% overhead

      It's actually higher, but what's considered overhead in education circles wouldn't be in a business setting.

      Admissions? Education overhead, but sales&marketing for business folks.
      Development/Alumni? Education overhead, but sales&marketing for business folks.
      Communications? See above
      The museum? Ok, but that's not something that a company normally has.

      Most schools run very light on the "management" side. We've got 70 faculty here and one Dean for the faculty, who also teaches a course+ 3 administrative assistants to the Dean. Department head is just a position that nobody wants.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
  97. $54 bil in losses is NON CASH and goodwill only! by MattRog · · Score: 2

    Sheesh, take an accounting class or something!

    Check out page #44:
    http://www.aoltimewarner.com/investors/annua l_repo rts/pdf/2001ar.pdf

    Basically the FASB 'used' to allow for amortization (e.g. 'writing-off') good-will over a period of many, many years (40 I think). Remember that goodwill basically is an asset on a purchaser's balance sheet and has the value of the excess paid over the net worth of the purchased company. That is to say if AOL paid $100B for Time Warner and all of Time Warner's assets etc. added up only accounted for $46B then the 'excess' paid would be goodwill (stuff like trademarks, that stupid Road Runner 'beep beep', other intangibles, etc.).

    Naturally almost every buyout includes that sort of thing. Before the accounting change, however, this excess paid (goodwill) would be written off as an expense over a period of 40 years. However, the new accounting change by the FASB says "No more!", so now AOL/Time-Warner must write off the ENTIRE amount. Again, this is a NON-CASH write-off and says NOTHING to the value of Time Warner, AOL, etc. -- if we were going on past FASB declaration this $54 billion would have been written off over a number of years anyway -- and no one would've cared.

    But, since it is the largest 'loss' by a company in US history everyone is jumping on it as some sort of a monumental failure. Granted AOL probably overpaid, but traditionally this overpay was smoothed out over the amortization period. Now they had to take it all at once, but to say that somehow the merger should have 'never taken place' or that AOL is now '1/3rd the company it was' is pretty wrong.

    --

    Thanks,
    --
    Matt
  98. Re:$54 bil in losses is NON CASH and goodwill only by MattRog · · Score: 1

    Sorry I mis-stated the past amortization periods. It was in fact 20 years and not 40. Sorry!

    --

    Thanks,
    --
    Matt
  99. Their financial statement breaks my parser by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There's so much nonstandard material in their financial statement that my financial statement parser can't parse it properly. Trying to make sense of it manually is also tough. This is one of the most confusing financial statements I've encountered. They have columns labelled "Historical" and "Pro forma" in the main balance sheet in their SEC filing. They have something called a "backlog securitization facility", which sounds like something Enron would have tried. AOL used to capitalize the costs of AOL disks, until the SEC made them stop. Now they seem to be capitalizing something else. There's other wierd stuff, too.

    The press release touts "Normalized EBIDTA" instead of net income, always a bad sign.

    I have no idea what's really going on with this company. I doubt that anybody else on the outside does, either. There's too much "creative financing" involved.

  100. aol cds rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i have no issue with the aol cd thing i love them

    why you may ask

    well using my buisness license i convinced aol that i was an onlie retailer selling about 100 computers per day and i would like to send an aol cd with each one thus they sent me (for free) a pallet of aol cd's to my dorm room mail box at college, i now have 25,000 aol cd's in my room, i drop atleast 20 into the micrwave everyday. i used 200 of them to cover my door and i'm working to cover all the walls and roof of my dorm room with them

    before you all start calling out fraud i should note that i i had said was my company had sold 100 computers so far that day which i had to my largest client (nearby database company). not that this was a daily ocurence and yes i have sent out another aol cd with every system i have shipped since recieveing the cd's, all 5 of them.

    AOL i love you cause u keep me entertained with your sheer stupidity as a company.

  101. Conspiracy theory time and Page Widening. by (outer-limits) · · Score: 1

    Why is it that this one story in particular has multiple page widenings, not modded to -1? Is it because page wideners are actually paid to harass /. and especially stories that AOL doesn't like? No other stories today are suffering this problem. Just a theory, but the truth is out there.

    --

    Microsoft - Where would you like to go today, Maybe Jail?

  102. M&A Doesn't Usually Work by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 1
    Mergers and acquisitions rarely help companies and often cause failures. As for why, just look at the effort it takes for two company cultures to come together. The only time it works is when practising slash and burn capitalism, i.e., an aggressive takeover of much a smaller company, asset stripping and then disposal. Mergers of equals or 'nearly equals' doesn't work because of the baggage that must be absorbed.

    Time-Warner and AOL were clearly two quite different companies, but both very large. Bringing them together has not helped either company.

  103. A Grain of Salt by IHateEverybody · · Score: 2

    As much as I would love to gloat at the incompetence of two evil corporate giants like AOL and Time Warner, did anyone else feel uneasy about reading a scathing analysis of the financial fortunes of one corporate juggernaut from a news source that is owned by another corporate juggernaut that is in direct competition with it? The tone of the article seemed rather smug and self-serving -- even by Fox News standards.

    --
    Does this .sig make my butt look big?
  104. My dreams have been shattered by inkswamp · · Score: 1

    Does this mean that mindless growth might not be such a good thing?

    Mmm... I hope I get some of that coffee that corporate America will be waking up and smelling soon.

    --Rick

    --
    --Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
  105. Warner & Tech: Atari by ch-chuck · · Score: 2

    Kinda reminds me of the days when Warner Communications ran Atari into the ground, before selling it off to competitor Jack Tramiel of Commodore, who managed to eek a small profit before they were buried by the Japanese.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  106. Worse Still by baldass_newbie · · Score: 1

    Worse. It will be acquired by Caldera.

    Worse still --> Being acquired by Corel. Damn near killed Borland.

    --
    The opposite of progress is congress
  107. soo let me get this right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    AOL-TW hates you all.

    AOL-TW particularly hates linux

    AOL/TW is going to crash and burn


    what problem?

    When they go down it'll be fucking great because the market might HAVE to be FORCED into getting to 70% braud band penitration, and reach 60-80% saturation

    thus allow more people in CA etc to call buba in florida cheeper instead of 60mill/nananoseconed

    Oh this is going to be fucking great, and to save alll you all ameba's some time


    flamegrits, conspiracy everyone hates me my linux my box my small pos vid card and sound card and my fucking pathetic life,fuck you fuck the world and fuck my sister

    -5 troll:Unkarma Horing again

  108. complete loss of any reason by aeryn_sunn · · Score: 1

    I was glad to see other people see the idiocracy in this stupid merger

    I have always maintained TW never needed AOL, that it was AOL that needed/needs a content provider/Last mile owner to help AOL survive.

    TW can sell their content to anyone if they so choose, just like Eisner had enough sense not to waste money on any portals (ala Yahoo) or ISPs for some illusion of synergy.

    somebody sold the TW board and management a bill of worthless goods...I am still amazed at how supposely intelligent old economy men/women were duped by a bunch of carpetbaggers from Virginia? Steve Case is not that great of a manager or visionary..it was only the hoopla and frezny of the tech boom that made him look good....

    at least Levin had enough sense to pick an old school boy as his successor. Parsons (mispelling?) comes from a background that is a bit more conservative than Case and his cronies and I am just waiting to see when Parsons is going to spin of the AOL albatross...or if he has the balls to do it...which I think he does.

    TW owns the content, owns the cable systems,...what the hell does AOL really have? a large customer base? I would take a gander and say most of those customers are either a) already cable subscribers to one of TWs cable systems, so essentially, TW is re-buying their own customers b) AOL customers are not really the kinda customers I would think TW, or any content provider would want.

    tsk, tsk..I wonder want Ted Turner said about the TW-AOL merger?

    Levin: Ted, I am merging TW with AOl, this is the perfect syngery
    Ted: (in his southern drawl) what the fuck are you talking about? I think that ash on your forehead to making you more stupid that you already are...jesus, I shoulda bought TW and fired your ass when I had the chance.

  109. Re:The reason is simple a use for CD by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

    1 MINUTE?? Everybody knows a CD is usually fully cooked after about 5 seconds.

    --
    John_Chalisque
  110. I used to work for Turner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked for Turner for about a year and a half...in that time I had gone through 2 managers...the whole company was broken down into fifedoms that did nothing but fight....and when the you know what hit the fan...the lowest guy on the totem pole that could get blamed, did. The upper management and middle management were never held accountable nor was there ever any effort to. This company will not be sucessful until it is bleed dry by the "branding" spin doctors of the 90s who now control it, and real mamagement shows up instead of all the frat boys that have given each other jobs.

  111. TW/AOL by 4of12 · · Score: 2

    From a pure business perspective, it looks as if AOL made the most of its inflated market value in buying TW at the time. AOL executives get an "A" for that, while their TW counterparts get a "D".

    Other dotcom oneday wonders should beat themselves for not taking advantage of the situation.

    If I was in charge of Cisco in 1999 I would have thought about trading market value shares for something of more enduring value that investor expectations of high growth rates. [Although I'll have to give them due credit for staying away from some of telecoms (Worldcom, Lucent, Qwest, ...) that have recently been cratering.]

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  112. AOHell floopies and labeling by 87C751 · · Score: 1
    Hell, for several years, AOL provided my front-line scurity for my Linux box. The boot disk was a Mac AOL floopy. So Mr. Black Bag tries a 'dir' and gets a note from General Failure.

    Tenn-SHUN!

    :)

    --
    Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
  113. Re:Insightful. Bah by Surak · · Score: 2

    Furthermore, the "save for the monthy subscription revenue"... Dude, the monthly subscription revenue is what makes the company so attractive. If you can count on $21 * (areallylotofusers) / mo. guarenteed, you're already way better off than say, the services industry which is a lot more affected by economic downturns.

    Yeah, but the costs to support those (areallylotofusers) users is probably much greater than $21/month.

    Bandwidth, equipment, maintenance, storage space, etc. all cost money, even for AOL. I'll bet AOL's costs are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than a lot of other ISPs, given the VAST number of users they have.

  114. value by phriedom · · Score: 1

    That is a silly requirement for value, because it applies to pretty much everything. If everyone in my city decided to sell their house at the same time, then the price would drop like a lead balloon too. Houses are very real and yet subject to the same laws of supply and demand that stocks are, and both are tied to the wider economy. That doesn't mean the value of either one is "pure fiction." At least not any more than the U.S. dollar itself, which is to say not in any meaningfull way.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  115. Fox News: not the most rigorous of news sources... by Merlinus · · Score: 1

    Fox News always presents their stories in an almost tabloid-ish, pushing panic buttons manner... not a good news source in general.