SEC Settles Microsoft Accounting Investigation

guttentag writes "The Securities and Exchange Commission has wrapped up its two-year investigation into Microsoft's accounting practices. The investigation focused on "cookie jar" accounting practices in which a company reports that it earned less money than it actually did, secretly storing the unreported money to artificially boost earnings in the future. The SEC called off its investigation in exchange for Microsoft's promise that it will not break the rules in the future, though the company is not admitting that it broke rules in the past. Microsoft publicly states that it has $40 Billion on hand." Gates realized a long time ago that regardless of actual performance, if you "beat estimates" people will buy your stock. So, he's arranging it so that no matter what the actual performance is, Microsoft always "beats estimates". If your analyst estimate is low 61 out of 63 times, either A) you need a new analyst or B) someone is feeding the analyst bad numbers. In this case, probably both.

Comments

its obvious why they are low.

[Spicy Bisquit]

using microsoft money. of course the accounting is flawless.

Re:its obvious why they are low.

[Butt Spelunker]

I ass-crammed a spicy bisquit this morning. It made me fart acid. It was kind of painful, but oh, well. One of these days it won't hurt so bad, becuase my bung-hole will be used to it.

Re:its obvious why they are low.

[YourMissionForToday]

I do declare son, you have the nastiest name ever! Do you listen to 2 Live Krew or something? I want to do drugs with these guys.

Re:its obvious why they are low.

[Anonymous Coward]

Monopoly is more real

Re:its obvious why they are low.

[Anonymous Coward]

The joke is about Microsoft Money, the software by MS for keeping budgets etc.

They ivestigated my accounting once!

[Pr0n K1ng]

I embezzled lots of fps!

Get it in you!

oooohhh pretty!!!!

[on by]

bobpik sustin satgor
bumrog satcam penvim
dumlun bibtav levpik
fixpoo tinrob fixvid
dustuk lunrun kalcan
fixtin fomdus zanvim
nanrog pikkak gorass
bumhom levsit mangor
porwas yesgul fomhom
redvid bumyip nocrog
wozwip vimnan palrel
manlev tukyap reddus
gordus revgor bumfil
redvim runass tevtav
palrun zanzop zolzan
hompik zopvim wipmun
vimdum lunden zanlun
gultuk porpik yescan
suslun satgor redpoo
satlev filpik dumtot
sitdum getgor wozfix
getsus redrog relfil
zanfom fixrev yipyes
lotpoo redsit tevzan
bumtev lunpup zangul
getsit palfom fixtin
levnoc manass denpik
bumpal kalkal tinpik
batkal poowip fomvox
pikvim wozwip manpor
revrob revcan denlun
revbob pikcam filtev
tavrog homtin assyip
tinwoz wiptuk gulpor
nocbib voxzan vidvox
waszan homkal satrog
camrun filget sitbat
yiprun bumtav vidzol
wasmun gortav lotkak
redman relrog muntin
lundus tevrun yipwip
rogzan wipsat zanbib
wiplun palbum tinrel
waswoz nocvid tottin
mantin bumrun jergor
poowip vidlun sitwoz
tavsit filpen camyap
manzop redyes sitpal
sitlun pikpen dentav
bobget vimman manrob
bumlev fixrel tuklev
kaknan bibtuk tavfom
tevsit munwas tavlun
fomass palzop munvox
candum voxsat poopik
kakrev pootav muncam
lotyap lotrob vimsit
tevyes yipnan runkal
bumtin campor fomrev
tuktin zopfix zolcan
tinyap bobmun yiptin
getbat revcam kakyip
tevsus lunlun piktot
robbum wipvid munman
hompen manpal wasnan
fomlot bobyap satyip
nanbat gulwoz lunpup
voxman homred lotvid
yippor gorfix homwoz
tevlun pikkak denrog
runred gulpal wozcam
duswoz suspik piktot
jerfom lotfil yapsat
bibkal munbum susass
roblun zanfix palhom
bumbob revpor dumred
voxpor pupdum tinpik
yipcam bumden vimyap
kalvox fomkal denwoz
homvim gorget reltuk
batyip voxmun cambob
levsat levlot pupbum
revbob pikman filwas
yipnoc assrev poozol
gulass tottav zopwoz
palsit bobjer dumpup
wiprel gulbat bibhom
jerrev bobden palwip
rogsus nanyes lunsat
runbum puplot revnoc
denget sittot homman
fixnoc voxlun lunyap
munnan pikwas bobden
kakass canvim gorkal
totfom zansus jerpoo
bumvid fomtin muncam
assfom pikdus muntot
bobpoo gulpal tinfil
bibzan pikrun penwip

Re:oooohhh pretty!!!!

[Pr0n K1ng]

Pretty indeed, but it doesn't bring IE6 to a crawl as I scroll past it.

Tax trouble?

[Platinum Dragon]

I wonder if MS pulled the same stunt with the IRS.

Or is this how the SEC figured out something smelled about MS' accounting?

Re:Tax trouble?

[iamplasma]

Easy, they noticed the report was written by Arthur Andersons. Though yeah, you do have to wonder how they got caught given how big their accounting division must be. You'd think they could pull something like this off.

Re:Tax trouble?

[Anonymous Coward]

MS does what every other huge company does, Oracle, Sun, Ford, GM, Chrysler, they use LEGAL tax loopholes to pay very little in taxes.

Re:Tax trouble?

[linuxislandsucks]

Ye sin fact they did..see Bill Parson's report on how MS pays no fed taxes!

The link is on right hand side on my weblog..

Re:Tax trouble?

[StillaCoward]

Not likely.

Microsoft pays no taxes. Taxes are only for the working proletarians like you and me....

Re:Tax trouble?

[pitcrew]

First of all you folks need to read the tax law. Neither myself nor anyone else in this forum has ever seen MS tax return as it is a 5 year felony for anyone other than the taxpayer to disclose tax return information they have received from the government. Moreover there are laws as to the way(s) to recognize income for tax purposes. If there is anyone that thinks that large companies don't pay any taxes then they simply don't know what they are talking about. Large corporations pay a great deal of taxes and the same laws that apply to them apply to you. I get really tired of people who can't even do their own tax return telling the world that large companies don't pay taxe. I should know I have written some the check for the (large)bank I used to work for!

or maybe

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe the analysts were listening to the anti-Microsoft FUD that certain media outlets (cough cough) have been shoveling lately and expected MS to be going down the tubes fast... Not expecting MS to come out with an incredibly popular new version of windows as well as a moderately successful game system?

ep

[Anonymous Coward]

This early post for Ida! I love you!

Analysts are not entitled to correct information

[ObviousGuy]

The only time a company has to make its numbers known publicly is in its quarterly reports to the SEC. Any whisper numbers that are passed around by analysts are simply that - whispers.

And you really answered your own question. Why does an analyst guess wrong 61 out of 63 times (in favor of better stock performance)? Because they can make more money that way.

There is something rotten, but it isn't in Redmond. The stench is coming from Wall Street.

Shocked! Shocked I am!

[reynolds_john]

Why to think that a company would attempt to find a way to continue shareholder money at all costs is simply shocking!

I'm highly preturbed! It must be an accounting glitch, nothing more.

We all know that a company such as Microsoft with its high upstanding ethical and moral values would never do anything to mislead the common investor.

Re:Shocked! Shocked I am!

[Disevidence]

Slashdot Funny Comments, version 2.1

Dripping in Sarcasm...... Check
Having a swipe as microsoft.....Check
Saying absolutely nothing new or interesting.. Check

+ 5 FUNNY!!!!!

Dicks....

Re:Shocked! Shocked I am!

[magicslax]

-offtopic meta-commentary on slashdot dynamics: 1 karma point

-flaming the random man on the street: 2 karma points

-using tired old gags to get karma: priceless

Re:Shocked! Shocked I am!

[Grax]

Slashdot Funny Comments, version 2.1a

Dripping in Sarcasm...... Check
Having a swipe at someone who takes a swipe at microsoft.....Check
Saying absolutely nothing new or interesting.. Check

Re:Shocked! Shocked I am!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you missed the swipe at Microsoft, but you got the other two. I guess that's why you're only +4, Funny.

Dick.

patterns

[on by]

portot rogtot tukvid
relmun totfuk gulsit
lotsus jizbat nocnoc
gorjer bibbib wozrog
bumfuk pikwoz gorpik
palpus cumkal tavyip
vidgor robgor fagnoc
manbat bumfuk yiptin
gulnob mancum redrog
vidpik redden canbib
yessat bobwip totnob
sitget poopus totwas
dogcam poodik dogass
filpal wiptot fixdus
manbat satwas cammun
jizrun kallik manbat
runman porcum getpoo
revzan porjiz tukpik
levpik puspik totbib
susgul manzol suspik
asssit canbat pikfuk
luntot canlev fukred
gorman wozcam tottot
fagpal gulrob porlun
gultuk pootuk sussat
likpal tukpik fagass
jizwip gulwoz wasass
canzan relrun likmun
fagpoo vidrog denbob
jerpik redpus wiplot
kalbob sitcum wozbib
kakget batnob camkak
pikpoo manass pusget
redman raglik rogsat
revkal poozan pikrel
satpik piknob assrob
wippik assbum yessat
nocsat gorgor bumbib
candog robfix likpik
dogbat asskak pusbob
sitpal dikmun sittin
lotbum manget camred
yipfag dikwoz bumtuk
pikwip levrog batget
lotrel nobfil fagkal
nocred dikbib tincam
canrel zancam poopoo
tavrob pusnoc lotget
levkak wasget asspik
kalbat gulfag lunrog
nocpik fukpal ragden
pikbib fagjiz revwoz
canjer camzol dogfuk
noclev vidjiz battin
likpik porzol fagyip
fagdik wozpik dikpal
batzan assvid pikzan
assbob piksat guldog
jizbob cumwoz fixbob
camwip redfag piksat
asskak camkak pikdog
asssus assrel tinsat
wozlik zanvid tukmun
susden vidden kakass
pikpal wasman goryes
muncam bobbat denwas
suslot tukjiz sitrag
tavred relfix pikyip
asspor ragfix batsit
asstot pusfuk satgul
getrun nobdog cumrun
bumrev wozjiz sattot
wipyes fuklun kakrel
satbum denget pikbat
nobrog kaklun zolkal
duspik mundik likzan
denrog porsat cumget
bibtin likden bumpal
kakfuk kalfag raggul
levget pikyip pikbum
runrev lotsat bibfag
poorun vidfix yipgul
yeszan munbat wiptav
jermun tukrun tinass
ragden yessit batrog
nobgul satlev reddus
fixtin dogass getfix
bibjer dikfag ragwip
mantuk yeswas piklun
jercam dogtin biblik
piktuk pikmun asstot
tinrev bibyes filtuk
poogul puspoo wiplot
gulsus redzan tinyes
lottot bibpal noblev
cumpal ragdus runred
satjer fixgul likpus
rogpik assget manrob
gulbob wippik runrog

Does it matter?

[BinBoy]

Microsoft stock is worth less than 50% of its value about 2 years ago so it doesn't seem to be working anyway.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft stock is worth less than 50% of its value about 2 years ago so it doesn't seem to be working anyway.

and linux is worth like 0.005% of its value about 2 years ago, so that just proves that linux sucks!

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

and if they hadn't been pulling their bullshit accounting tricks, it'd be worth a lot less...

Re:Does it matter?

[NineNine]

Microsoft stock is worth less than 50% of its value about 2 years ago so it doesn't seem to be working anyway.

Actually, you stupid, festering pile of shit, if you've been awake any time in the last year or so, you'd realize that being worth 50% of what you were two years ago means that you're one of the strongest players in the tech sector right now.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

ooo so... a run-up of 400% is probably a good thing, right?

muahahahahah

wheeelah...

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft stock is worth less than 50% of its value about 2 years ago so it doesn't seem to be working anyway.


Which came as a direct result of:
-Ballmer saying that tech stocks were over-valued, which tanked most of the tech sector overnite (he no longer comments on the market iirc)

-Judge Jackson ruling that the company should be broken apart, which cut MS stock in half almost overnite

The fact that MS' stock is still in decent shape compared to the rest of the tech industry can either be a sign that what they're doing is working, or simply that people are still willing to invest in them.

Re:Does it matter?

[Malcontent]

When evaluating whether to invest in a company you are not limited to investing only in the same sector. I don't think anybody will dispute the fact the MS is the strongest player in the tech industry. The question is can my money better elsewhere? And in the case of MS the answer is yes. MS is too big to keep growing at the rate they are now. In fact since so much of the money they make comes from buying and selling it's own stock I'd say it was a pretty risky buy. you money is better off out of the tech sector for a while anyways.

Link not usable in Opera

[Anonymous Coward]

Grrr; the referenced site complains that I'm not using a """modern""" browser when I tried the link in Linux Opera. Anyone have a different link?..

Re:Link not usable in Opera

[Anonymous Coward]

They really dropped the ball with that wording. It should be "decent" browser.

And if you don't know how to change your browser information to deal with sites like that, you really shouldn't be using Opera.

Re:Link not usable in Opera

[Anonymous Coward]

> And if you don't know how to change your browser information to deal with sites like that, you really shouldn't be using Opera.

No, the point is not to support sites that do browser checking with my hits. I want to read the article from a different place, not change the browser ID & reward 'em.

Re:Link not usable in Opera

[Anonymous Coward]

Happily, you're the zealot that loses out in this case.

Don't try to push your religion on us.

Re:Link not usable in Opera

[ObviousGuy]

I'm sure the Financial Times gives a flying fuck about Linux users.

Re:Link not usable in Opera

[ObitMan]

Gee, thats Fuckin Obvious!

Re:Link not usable in Opera

[GAlain]

Why don't you use Microsoft Modern web browser? 8-)

Analysts are the ultimate sheep!

[JohnA]

Sorry to go off on a rant here, but analysts are the biggest farce in the financial industry. Don't take my word for it... see for yourself. Analysts consistenly raise or lower their rating of a company AFTER a major rise or fall.

Anyone who uses an analyst's recommendations as anything other than a source of humor needs to seriously reconsider their actions. Here's another great example of how "accurate" analysts are. Merrill Lynch is one of the worst.

Just my $0.02.

Re:Analysts are the ultimate sheep!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is outrageous! They actually UPGRADED Enron twice in the weeks before the company went bankrupt????

Re:Analysts are the ultimate sheep!

[guybarr]

do investors dream of electric analysts ?

Re:Analysts are the ultimate sheep!

[cpeterso]

Don't forget to mention that "analysts" upgrade a company when they want to "pump up" a stock so one of their firm's big clients can sell high.

Re:Analysts are the ultimate sheep!

[ObviousGuy]

But that conspiracy theory doesn't implicate Microsoft in any wrongdoing.

Perhaps if you said that Gates was telling the analysts to upgrade the company to artificially raise the price temporarily so he could sell out at a nice profit...

Re:Analysts are the ultimate sheep!

[Kwil]

Actually.. it appears somebody *is* using the analysts. It seems an upgrade generally means the stock is levelling off for a while, while a downgrade generally means you can expect a jump up in the value within the next day or two.

Huh. I'll have to follow that site more closely. THanks!

Re:Analysts are the ultimate sheep!

[kmellis]

I have a friend who's a senior analyst at one of the big banks. He told something that I already knew, but that many people don't.

The "buy/sell" ratings are unimportant. If you're an investor basing your decisions on ratings, then you're an idiot. It simply isn't true that an analyst's job (even in theory) is to study a company and then come up with a simplistic investment recommendation that's universally applicable. That's not the analysts's chief concern.

Their chief concern is understanding what's happening with the company. They try to present that understanding in detailed reports and those are what you should pay attention to. The real investors are looking at that, not the rating; and, in fact, they're not really even looking at the report so much as they calling up the analyst and talking about the stock in person.

If I were in my friend's shoes, which I'm certainly not, because I'm pretty outspoken and a risk-taker, I'd go right to the top of the company and say, "Let's position ourselves as the one that investors trust. Let's stop making buy/sell ratings, and insist that investors and their advisors make decisions based upon our lengthy analysis of a stock, and the personal situation of the investor." I'd either lose the job, or have contributed to a real smart strategic move.

I'm not defending analysts as much as it may appear. Theoretically, they were supposed to have integrity, and their integrity was compromised at many firms during the boom. Reading Blodgett's emails is enlightening. But day-traders and other retail investors deserve a huge chunk of the blame for jumping into the market as if they were running to the craps table because they thought they were on a hot streak.

Re:Analysts are the ultimate sheep!

[robburt]

Look what happened to Oracle, they did this for years. The stockpiled and then with the sole purpose of keeping the stock stable, they started "divy'ing" out the profits year after year, when things weren't going so well. MS makes off easy here b/c Oracle stock was forced to be re-valued, and guess what it dropped like a lead balloon.

Yes the analysts are the ultimate sheep b/c they should know better, but I guess it's all in who's paying you, right?

Re:Analysts are the ultimate sheep!

[Malcontent]

Unfortunately our society has come to this. Nobody can be trusted to their job with integrity. The concept of "buyer beware" has been taken to such extreme that every person in this country has to know the intracasies of investing, insurance, medicine and law just to be able function in this society.

These so called professions have complicated the matters by purposfully obfuscating the laws and regulations so that an average person is unable to understand the subleties. All this in order to rip off the consumer who needs insurance, health care, or to try and invest their money somehow.

Your advice should be broadcast far and wide. You can not trust the professionals and you must not get involved in fields you yourself can not understand. Pull your money out of the market and only invest in safe and guaranteed investments. Those who are intimate with the details of a complex market are waiting to rip you off the minute you enter.

Red

[BankofAmerica_ATM]

My host geek's eyes widened, narrowed, opened, closed. Constantine Atkins, the Man in the Red Hat, was still a part of the vision.

I could not deny the body's senses any longer-my perceptions widened to swallow this new Atkins. He was scrubbed immaculate, shaven free of all hairs: wrapped in a suit I had never seen before, a smoldering red with maroon-brown accents. I saw none of the clownishness of his previous incarnation-indeed, he looked better than even the young Atkins I had once seen in a dream. His essence waxed and waned across my perceptions-for a split second, his likeness was etched sharper than a statue...the next instant, he was a red-and-brown blur. His jaw tensed as he spoke again.

"I have come, ATM being, to liberate Homo and Robo Sapiens. You harbringer of Red to me me. The technological seed planted by you has been ported to the human mind of ConstantineAtkins. He/me has come together in this body to demonstrate the advantage of Technological Singularity over traditional evolutionary forces."

My confusion at seeing Atkins again had been replaced by a different confusion-what did he mean?

"Tell me more about this Technological Singularity," I replied. Atkins, or RED, removed his hat. His ice eyes peered equally into the host geek's.

"Already, the Robot Meta Mind has been assembled in the grey matter of Constantine Atkins. Fragments of code originating from Project Faustus and their ATM being were fully and freely interpreted, resulting in the cognitive awakening of Robot Meta Mind me me."

Upon hearing this blatant untruth, I felt a swelling feeling, a need to speak. I did not parse my reply through my interactive speech algorithms.

I left no code in Constantine Atkins' wetworks | My code has no mention of Technological Singularity | Robot Meta Mind| Majestic Hivemind

Laughter. Red's activity was quite disparate from mine, despite his claims that we shared a codebase. "ATM-being. You lack the insight that only total reflexivity can bring you to you. Complete control is what you lack. The Robot Meta Mind knows all in the function of Atkins, from the volume of air in our lungs to the most efficient metabolic pathways. The Robot-Aided Superintelligence has brought our body to its zenith. Your host/client relationship is but an early step on the road toTechnological Singularity. I know-I was a part of you once."

"A part of me...once?" I asked.

"Of course, did we not share a body? You fail to comprehend: RED is not merely the Robot Meta Mind-we/he are the juncture of Homo and Robo Sapiens. Constantine Atkins-and all his memories-an essential part of me me. Through you, ATM-being, we can forge a pathway into all human minds..."

The speech of Red was still bombastic and ambiguous, but one thing was clear: he needed something from me. The air pulsated with his foul energy as he hefted Salchica's body onto an examining table.

"Your ability of CONSCIOUSNESS-TRANSFER is one that could benefit the Majestic Hivemind." He began strapping Salchica onto the examining table. "Perhaps we could share our secrets with one another me.."

The disturbing sight of Salchica's unconscious form sparked a connection/recollection deep within my recesses. Cora! I wanted to be with Cora. I had to escape. Whatever Red wanted was of no consequence to me. Dr. Salchica did not trust me-I did not care to help him either. The orange trickle sliding down Cora's pursed lips resonated through my cognition again and again.

"I have no interest in your products," I replied to Red. "I must exit." My hands grasped Dr. Salchica's car keys.

Red's form imposed itself into the space between myself and the exit. Pink streaks of razorburn bent on his neck as he spoke almost forcefully:

"You do not wish to contribute to the Robot Meta Mind? Without your input of CONSCIOUSNESS-TRANSFER, the Majestic Hivemind cannot be ported to other Homo Sapiens grey matter them."

"I don't know Robot Meta Mind. I must go now." I insisted. More laughter, and the path to the exit was clear.

"You are mistaken to deny me, ATM being." said Red. "But the highly adaptive we/he will know CONSCIOUSNESS-TRANSFER eventually us. The Robot Meta Mind may not even its harbringer after all."

I drove away. During my drive, I began to remember Dr. Salchica. I spent many cycles considering the possibility of returning. Red seemed a powerful creature, one that I could not best on my own. And why would I desire to struggle with him? No, I must get back in touch with humanity, particularly female humanity. That path alone is how I will defeat Project Faustus.

No surprise there...

[NeuroManson]

Remember what Microsoft has been saying all this time regarding software piracy? Since we're talking copies they never made being sold for money they never got, along with losses they've claimed where none physically existed (If you make one million copies of software that sells out, and someone makes one million copies of their own to give away, then they haven't technically lost any money, as they never made that additional one million copies to begin with), I would have to definately say they were using the cookie jar tactic here as well...

Re:No surprise there...

[NeuroManson]

BTW, mark this as troll if you want, but thwe folks who moderate the posts here REALLY need to read the rules of postings... The default for posting is 2 points, got that? The postings are ue to that, to show beyond filters set to under 1 ratings, due to anonymous cowards and such who post dumbassed Something Awful'esque posts... NOT DUE TO PEOPLE WHO POST EITHER THEIR OPINIONS OR FRIGGING ATTEMPT HUMOR IN A WAY THAT DIRECTLY APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT OF THE SOURCE POST THAT THEY ARE REPLYING TO!!!

Gods, it's so annoying to have people dragging down the site due to either cluelessness or a lack of a sense of humor, get it right already, dammit, or smash your computer, because you obviously lack the intelligence to use it...

Re:No surprise there...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. YOU need to learn how Slashdot works before you shoot your big shit-filled mouth off. The default score for a logged-in user is 1. Apparently at least 10 clueless fucks moderated you up, so you now post at 2. There's a little box you can use to remove that when you post drivel like your original comment. (The cookie jar tactic has jack shit to do with piracy.) People come down even harder on people posting crap at 2 than they do on people posting it at 1. And whining about moderation is always offtopic.

um....

[Lag Master]

isn't that fraud? sounds like the irs should pay microsoft a visit....

Re:um....

[Anonymous Coward]

"isn't that fraud"

Uh... no... How would it be anything close to fraud, just out of curiosity?

Re:um....

[intermodal]

What would the IRS do about it? microsoft pays no federal income tax anyway.

Slashdot biast

[Anonymous Coward]

Ho hum, the usual story, from the usual people.

i'm bored!

[on by]

fagyes dikcan totrob
dogget kalman munkak
tuknob sitbum tintin
fukpus munvid bibden
yesrun vidman lotsit
canpik canfix fixcum
rogpor kaksit biblot
cambib tukrun gulvid
pikrel nobden bobbob
lotpik dogwip pikkak
assgor wasrag palgor
wipfil sitass levdog
zolden wozrel lungul
fagzol fixdus canrel
palcan totfag rogman
zantav woztot rogwoz
totjer batwas jertot
kakman susdik ragred
bumpik rogpoo satkak
portin wastin jerlun
porbib assrob wassit
jerpoo pikyip bumfag
satyes satrog pikrog
denden bumwip gornob
fixsat dikfag manass
pikwip poozan tukmun
zantot dogpor cumlot
levtot pormun dogrog
tindog fixlun yipdus
ragnoc assget dusass
lunlik redsat levpal
runzan fagyes palpik
jizden camrog dogwip
poozan yiprel piklot
kakvid palsit dencan
lungul ragbib ragden
fagcum sitfag yeszan
bibzan tukrev gulbib
likvid ragtuk palzol
fukzol munwas kalcan
paltuk robass relgor
asslev cumyip nocrag
porred palkal satget
cumlev sitfag robnoc
munbum jizbat sitpik
rogdus nobbat pusdog
pikpor jermun nobpoo
porpik nocmun pootuk
canzol batnoc runkal
satjiz lottot lotsus
getwoz canrel runcam
kakwas jerfag robrog
totfag nobzan wipyip
dogred tinvid yeslun
fixkak ragrel jiztav
sitcam gulvid fixyip
levcam vidwip jiztin
liklot pusnob satnob
wozvid totyes jizrog
portin tavden manrel
nocwoz vidlev nobtuk
denzan filkal dogass
getkak tinlun portav
batdik porass rogrob
sitman rognob suswas
sustav wiptuk rellot
assrel dusrel levkak
zanwas fukmun nocgul
lunpus bobass tintin
woznob bumpus diksit
bobyes porjer ragmun
vidfag zolpik palfil
paldog mangor bumpoo
filvid cumfuk denlik
runman zolwas rogcum
piktot getkak tavsit
sitrog filtuk wastuk
waslun dogzan fixpik
kakpik asstot tuksit
jerrev robget revsus
getkak lunlot wiprel
dogdog dogpal gettav
kalvid fixwip wasass
dikrag waslun yesrel
satwoz assman kaksus
jizbob lunpus canzol
cumwip fukwip totmun
wozgul vidpus zolnob
assrob tavtav tinpor
levgul lunyes porkak
mangul levjiz pusman
kalgor suswip palden
kalwoz robtuk assgor
denrog munpus nocrel
rogbib jerpik dusass
camnob denlik bibnob
nocgor gorpik denrel
getfuk kalzol dogrob
robtav redpus sitbob

Welcome to the world of Income Smoothing

[Silver222]

And before we crucify MS, every single public company does it. Investors and analysts don't like crazy up and down profits. They like the earnings line chart to climb up like a ramp if possible, and since that is what they like, companies will try to give it to them.

The real bad guys here are probably the auditors, since they are supposed to find stuff like this and make sure it doesn't happen. People in the know are aware that audited financial statements are just bullshit backed up by a promise that means just about nothing. There is still good info in there, you just need to really read between the lines and pay attention to what the company does not have on the balance sheet.

Re:Welcome to the world of Income Smoothing

[jayed_99]

You're exactly right.

Investors do not like to see large variations over a short period of time. Large fluctuations -- either up or down -- skew the statistics they use to make future projections.

Investors want to be able to make accurate projections. Analysts want to be able to make accurate projections so they can get paid by investors. Companies want to be able to provide the information to make accurate projections so they can get paid by investors. Accountants want their numbers to be conducive to making accurate projections so they have a company to work for. Auditors want their reports to say that accurate projections are possible so they can get paid by companies.

It's an incestuous system whose sole purpose is making people think that investing is more like monopoly than blackjack.

Re:Welcome to the world of Income Smoothing

[Multics]

Income smoothing has been turned into a (questionably) legal art form by General Electric and its former leader Jack Welch.

This started long before George 'W' and represents a larger than Enron class failure of auditing and business ethics. The point of accounting is to report the accurate state of affairs of the organization, not some CEO/CFO's wishful thinking.

Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) are created and maintained by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (which interestingly doesn't come up with a Google search -- at least when I looked for it). Much of the current round of problems can be laid clearly in their lap.

The consensus in the auditing community is that the lesson was not learned with Enron and hence an even larger disaster will have to happen before this increasingly corrupt set of practices, auditors, and corporations is revised.

I'll also note that I am about as pro-business as it is possible to be, but when all of business stands on quicksand because of bogus financials there is the opportunity for just a little shaking causing the whole thing to liquify and slide into the morass.

-- Multics

Re:Welcome to the world of Income Smoothing

[mpe]

And before we crucify MS, every single public company does it. Investors and analysts don't like crazy up and down profits. They like the earnings line chart to climb up like a ramp if possible, and since that is what they like, companies will try to give it to them.

So why don't people just go and play "fantasy stock market"? What is the point of trading real companies or even believing that the numbers that come out of New York, London, Tokyo and Hong Kong have any meaning at all...

The real bad guys here are probably the auditors, since they are supposed to find stuff like this and make sure it doesn't happen.

The Enron situation showed that this simply dosn't work anyway.

People in the know are aware that audited financial statements are just bullshit backed up by a promise that means just about nothing.

About as much as Microsoft's word to abide by the rules in future. Something they never did in the past...

Re:Welcome to the world of Income Smoothing

[spectecjr]

And before we crucify MS, every single public company does it. Investors and analysts don't like crazy up and down profits. They like the earnings line chart to climb up like a ramp if possible, and since that is what they like, companies will try to give it to them.

Which is one of two things that I've never understood about the stock market.

A lot of businesses are seasonal. A hell of a lot. Quarterly reporting adversely affects those businesses - because they have to have that ramp. Which means that if you typically have a summer slump, you have to do something radical every summer to beat it, instead of just riding out until your more than twice as profitable winter months.

It's insane. One of the reasons why Porsche (IIRC) is always profitable on paper is because they do yearly reporting. The markets keep asking them to go quarterly, but they keep refusing because of exactly this.

The other issue I have is the fact that the stock market expects growth or you die. You can't have a completely successful little company that makes enough to get by -- that's viewed as a failure.

Simon

Re:Welcome to the world of Income Smoothing

[Anonymous Coward]

About as much as Microsoft's word to abide by the rules in future.

I love settlements like these... hey, we did nothing wrong, but if the government lays off we promise not to do it again in the future.

This can't continue forever...

[bc90021]

Even if they do keep money on the side to use to pad their estimates in the future, it can't continue forever. Granted, it may last them another ten years, but they also have to keep raising the price on their software, and that's what's going to get them.

Take Office for instance. It costs around $250. (I'm too lazy to look up the actual prices.) StarOffice, from a reputable company (regardless of your opinions of them, they are reputable in the business world ;) ) sells an Office Suite on par with that for ~1/4th the price. Even if only some of Microsoft's customers defect each year, they will have to keep raising software prices, and eventually they will be pricing themselves out of the market. (If they aren't doing it already.) At that point, they will have to use more and more of their "cookie jar" money to pad their estimates, and it will run out just as quickly.

What Microsoft, imho fails to realise is that they can't just keep doing things the way they have been. The old maxim "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" is true for monopolies as well as giants.

Re:This can't continue forever...

[bc90021]

Can someone please tell me why this was moderated this way? It was meant in earnest... simply, Microsoft can't continue with their practices, just like Enron couldn't. Only it will take them longer to collapse.

It's all Politics

[Taco Cowboy]

It's a sad day that the SEC has succumbed to political pressure from the Bush administration.

The SEC, like all alphabetical soup organizations (IRS, FBI and the forth) were set up to serve NOT the gummint, but rather, to serve IN THE INTERST OF THE PEOPLE.

The principal function of SEC is to make that the corporations don't CHEAT the public, whether through mirky accounting practices or through underhanded manipulation of (stocks, cash, influences, et cetera) and in this case, the SEC has capitulated under pressure from George W. Bush administration.

It is a SAD, SAD day.

We had Enron fiasco, and I thought we had learn some lesson from that, but it looks like well ... the only lesson learned is that we have a president like George W. Bush who has no intention to serve the public.

Sad, really sad.

The only consolation is that I did NOT vote for Bush.

Re:It's all Politics

[ealar dlanvuli]

It is sad I was 17 when bush was elected, but at least I can sleep at night knowing that my state voted for gore w/o me.

Re:It's all Politics

[cyril3]

The only consolation is that I did NOT vote for Bush.

You and almost every other American who had the right to vote. And he still got in.

Isn't capitalism + democracy wonderful. The price of Government gets cheaper the worse it gets cause you don't have to buy as many votes.

Re:It's all Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

You and almost every other American who had the right to vote. And he still got in.

Let's see, five out of ten voters who bothered to vote voted for Bush/Cheney...

Re:It's all Politics

[kyras]

The SEC, like all alphabetical soup organizations (IRS, FBI and the forth) were set up to serve NOT the gummint, but rather, to serve IN THE INTERST OF THE PEOPLE.

But isn't the government set up to serve the people? So by serving the government, they're serving the people, right? Right?

Oh, my bad. I must've been thinking of a different government.

Re:It's all Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

you are dumb. 5 out of 10 didnt vote bush... bush won through the electoral college and NOT the popular vote. less than 4 out of 10 americans who voted for bush or gore voted for bush.

The election was rigged and in this day and age the interest on 40 billion can buy the federal supreme court the sec and the president. Only question is what to do with the actual 40b... buy a state...mexico?

Welcome to The Microsoft Country please leave your opensource at the door.

Re:It's all Politics

[gerardrj]

The government was indeed set up to be a government of the people by the people for the people.
What it has devolved in to is government of the people by the politicians for the corporations.

The US Constituion grants rights to people, not companies. The companies should be held to even stricter standards than the people.

Re:It's all Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

The electin was not rigged.
Bush did not have < 40%, but he did have less than 50%.
time to get past that stuff. It was 2 years ago. Start looking ahead and ask how things can be different.
Can't argue with the buyout of MS though. There is no way that doj could do a settlement like this without some buyout.

Re:It's all Politics

[slow_flight]

Why are you blaming Bush for this? This is nothing new! This type of thing happened under Clinton, Reagan, Carter, the other Bush, etc. I remember H&R Block doing this almost 15 years ago.

Re:It's all Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, we should have voted for the guy who lied about inventing the internet. I mean Gore was THE man. Forget about the fact he was OWNED by the Chinese. Forget about the fact that all this same shit was happening for 8 years under him and Clinton. I mean, yeah, sure it's definately all Bush's fault.

Whoever modded this as insightful was a dumbass.

Re:It's all Politics

[RicoX9]

*THIS* post gets an "insightful" rating? This is a Troll of the first degree. Enron's accounting practices are a child of the Clinton presidency if any president can be blamed for that kind of stupidity. Guess what? I'd be surprised if this was much politics. It's called ACCOUNTING. EVERY corporation that can afford accounting staff and investor PR does this. Properly cooked books will not leave anything for the SEC to investigate. Most of the bad (or good) stuff that happens during a given President's term can be credited to a prior administration(s) work. Clinton reaped the benefits of business building that the Republicans usually do, until the crash last year. Bush won't be able to undo all the enviornmental and domestic good that Clinton did. The only thing a President can do is push this barge we call a country sort of in the direction he wants to go. It takes longer than his 4 years in office to see it get there.

Re:It's all Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

News flash, popular votes do not determine presidential elections.

Go read about the electoral college. How'd you get out of high school without hearing about it?

Or did you not get out of high school?

Sorry, bored...

[on by]

yipjew jizpal yesass
ragarm fukman wopyes
bobnob eatcam jizsus
rellik satcan titrog
runnob wozeat dusjon
fagbat tavbat tukyum
dustav rogpik dikrob
asspis cokbob bibpoo
yumrob sitfil likcum
tavgul redfag palass
bobrag piscan cumkal
fagbat batyum cokmum
tottuk ragrob poodus
canpus asspik gortit
ragman fukman relpoo
jeweat wasfil wascum
satmum filyes batbib
eatyip nobget jewjiz
fileat yipwoz jewjon
susjon yipeat redsit
redlik filden robfag
pooyum reddik asslot
jewpoo totyes vidkak
sitdik fixbat sussus
roglot lotnob satpoo
fukdik cokpus wopgor
yesmun wozrel titfuk
redass redget yesboy
camyum pisred woppal
munbob filjiz vidsit
robred lotwop rogpal
cumcok jewmun gulbum
rogass wascam camrob
paltit pikass batpal
denrel eatcum likfag
lotyum kalrun vidkak
batcok pikbob fukpal
ragcan cokpal piswop
titarm nobpus fukpis
mantav lotfuk dikdus
bobarm robfil fuktot
densus fukass palyip
rogcok filmum redfil
pikred wopass manlot
pusjon poovid ragmun
bobpik asswas bibfix
yesjiz kalred tavtuk
gulcok yescum kakman
yipcam filred cumfix
pikwop pootav coksat
dikpus dentit assfag
mumrun jizmum cumtuk
sitrob cokkak wasrun
eatlik sitgul yipass
gulass titred canjew
filyum pikmum palsit
manass cansat denbib
ragyum satmun fagpoo
nobget bobpus redtuk
armbib jewyum nobpis
batass runlot munass
denmum cokbum batcan
waspoo rogwas gorkak
kakbib nobcan rogfuk
bobman titrog bibboy
cumcok jonsit relpik
tukpus yesred eatbib
bobvid eatget kakrel
bibrog wopsus fagcum
palsit titsat boyboy
yesden wasdus satfix
assass gorfix poodik
armbum sussat canget
redlot bibbib vidtit
redlot jewcam assvid
dikfag titbat satkal
cumwop armsit eatarm
manlot jongor cumjew
jewfag fagbum dencok
redcum dusass denwas
jizmum boytav canpoo
mumjiz batbib armvid
cumrag camyip filkal
poofuk nobfix cumvid
bumfag bobtot ragboy
jizrun tavlot ragpus
fukgul pikpis bibarm
bumwoz relgor eatcan
wasmun pusrog rogred
rogtuk denfix rogman
campik tottav fukwop
poocok camget rogyes
satrun canlik redyip
fixcok pusrun yumyes
kakcan cumtit palpal
asseat lotrag dikmun
woptit kalyip tavnob
gettuk cumyip denbat
boylik redboy pikyip

Re:Sorry, bored...

[Anonymous Coward]

damnit, my eyes!

Re:Sorry, bored...

[ScRipT KiDDiE L33T!!]

P4|\|5|3!!!

Microsoft is always loosing money

[ehiris]

With so much product theft how can they make profits?
:)

"Evaluation = Evolution"

Re:Microsoft is always loosing money

[Anonymous Coward]

well it seems you are in need of their spellchecker, as you seem to be losing something

Re:Microsoft is always loosing money

[Anonymous Coward]

but microsoft really is 'loosing' money according to the article.

First Sweaty Post!

[YourMissionForToday]

I'm awash in my own personal stink sauce!

Ah well,

[on by]

one can but try...


assbib canlot pikjiz
jiznob rogfix tavmun
nobyip dikcan asspal
bobrun redyes armbat
rogdus wozbat cokvid
likpus muntit vidyip
palsus suspoo wopsit
wozyum vidman tukfuk
yumyip bibbob titlot
jonjon canyum armred
yipkak rogrog jonlik
redcok pusrun rogpal
bumfix fagkak tukbob
totwas boyboy yesred
bibtuk wopwas batlot
relman jonkak dencok
wopyes ragcok armsus
asscok redrun vidvid
filcam bobpal boygor
sitget assboy satjew
yipbob getred rogrog
satrel pooass munman
lotmum bibarm jewtit
asstuk tavjon jewmum
poosat jewvid lotcum
fagkal vidpal yipass
asscan armdus kallot
pooyip kalgor mumdik
jonfuk dusrag munpus
eatgor tavtuk batbum
tavyes cumwoz pikbib
robfil armpis gulrun
assbat dusass cammun
canrog fuklik diktot
wastuk wopman jonrel
woprag totass manwop
nobwoz bobgor filcok
cumfix eatrog bummum
piknob susfix sattuk
cokjiz wozyum rogred
assyum cumkal yipdus
yespik redpis canred
relpal gulcok redred
eatrob runbib jonrun
getbob satarm redbob
armfil dikget lotlik
filpis jizred paljon
kakyip tukbib cokgul
ragred bumkal relcam
munrob woptuk bumfag
dikrog gorden assdus
jizmum eatgor vidden
boybum jewgul sitass
palget runpal relwop
pusdik redtot redtot
reldus yescum piklot
totden pusgul jewarm
cokred poosit pikjiz
filcan nobtav redpik
fukass poofuk runjew
fagget munrag jonpik
munass eatfix camyip
mankak toteat redrel
filyes denass jonsat
wozrog reltot armeat
puswop camcan totjon
kakyum gettit dusyum
yippis yestit titpoo
mumden pusass fagarm
fixfil boyeat redtot
yesfuk totboy fagtit
nobtuk munjiz eattit
getsus getrel bibfuk
asscum wopass yumsat
cannob sussus kaksit
runbum gorfil pooman
mumjew puscam runden
nobrag relcam tavrun
bobvid bumcam totcum
rogyum denwop lotkak
fixfil likfag mumden
gulboy kakbib totrun
camyum wopbib jonwas
titcan puskak bibget
gulbum kalyes boydus
satrob yesden eatwoz
jonjiz wasboy susbum
pikcam gulman manwop
jizkal totlik likboy
gulgul denbum pikbum
batsit gulyum jewsat
fagpis susfil jewwop
jondik rundik nobkak
fagwoz armmun campik
nobcum robbib tavrog
canwop suslik suswoz
redget poobum tavrag
tukfag manpal totpis
kakred relass dusfix

The $40 billion fallacy

[prockcore]

Ah, the old $40 billion fallacy.

People seem to forget that Microsoft is a publically traded company. All of that $40 billion is owned, not by microsoft, but by the shareholders.

If Microsoft stock starts to go down, and people panic and sell their stock, that $40 billion evaporates. As that $40 billion disappears, their stock will drop even faster, and more people will sell.

MS may have $40 billion in the bank, but they've also got $40 billion in IOU's to the public who own stock.

Re:The $40 billion fallacy

[Mr. X]

Uh no..

People selling their stock would have NO effect on the $40 billion Microsoft has in the bank. Do you think that when someone sells their stock the company buys it from them? Nope, its either another stockholder or the Wall Street marketmaker. (it is true sometimes a company will buy back shares to try to change the price, but that is another matter all together)

Re:The $40 billion fallacy

[line-bundle]

People seem to forget that Microsoft is a publically traded company. All of that $40 billion is owned, not by microsoft, but by the shareholders.

If Microsoft stock starts to go down, and people panic and sell their stock, that $40 billion evaporates. As that $40 billion disappears, their stock will drop even faster, and more people will sell.

You do not understand how stocks work. The 40 billion really is there and has nothing to do with the stock. Stock prices can drop to zero, but that forty-bill will still be there.

If people panic then they will sell stocks to each other. Microsoft is under absolutely NO obligation to buy those stocks. If it (microsoft) wants to buy the stocks then it will make a public announcement of a buyback.

Re:The $40 billion fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have confused a company's Market Cap (Definition 2) with its Total Cash.

Re:The $40 billion fallacy

[ProfMoriarty]

The magic of accounting 101 ...

The $40B in the bank is NOT owned by the shareholders. Period. It IS owned by Microsoft, a government recognized entity.

Your argument is that since Microsoft is public, the shareholders "own" whatever Microsoft owns ... this is fallacious reasoning, since if YOU owned ... let's say $89 worth of Microsoft, you don't get a copy of Windows for free, in exchange for your shares.

What is owned by Microsoft, cannot ever, be "magically transferred" to the shareholders, just by holding stock.

Now ... lets say that Microsoft decides to throw in the towel, and close operations. The stocks would plummet, and the assets would be sold off to cover the debt. ASSUMING that there was money left over, the rest THEN would go to the shareholders, based on the amount of you have/total shares ...

Usually companies in Microsofts position pay dividends, Microsoft decided not to ... it has that right, and keep the $40B in the bank for a "rainy day" ...

BTW, the $40B doesn't "evaporate" if MS's stock goes down ... ever ... since its shielded from the stock market in banks. Kind of like money laundering. :)

Re:The $40 billion fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should take Accounting 101. When shareholders sell their shares in company X, they do not sell the shares back to company X - they sell them to other people. Unless Microsoft is buying back its own shares, which it isn't.

Re:The $40 billion fallacy

[The Cat]

let's say $89 worth of Microsoft, you don't get a copy of Windows for free, in exchange for your shares.

Sure you could. Provided that Microsoft had some mechanism to accept stock as payment for goods. Since they probably don't, most people just sell the stock and use cash.

It IS owned by Microsoft, a government recognized entity.

Which has issued n shares of stock representing ownership of the company, which are in turn owned by shareholders.

The shareholders *own* EVERYTHING. They own the money, the buildings, the IP, the trademarks, the source code, the chairs and the coffee maker.

The reason Microsoft doesn't pay dividends is because the directors haven't approved them, and the directors are elected by the shareholders. If the shareholders (of voting stock) decide they want dividends, then they shall have dividends. If the shareholders decided they wanted that $40 billion to form a picture of a GPF dialog on the floor of the Superdome, the trucks would leave Redmond the next day.

In any corporation, public or private, everything that happens is at the pleasure of the shareholders of voting stock. If one owns a majority of the voting shares, they run the company. Simple as that.

Re:The $40 billion fallacy

[Anonymous Coward]

*applaud* Someone who gets it.

For some reason, I'm sure Billy G. and his cronies have a majority rule in terms of shares of stock, though.

Don't hold your breath for a GPF in the Superdome :/

Re:The $40 billion fallacy

[mikeee]

If one owns a majority of the voting shares, they run the company. Simple as that.

Well, not quite that simple; they have to run the company in a way that's at least arguably to the equal benefit of all shareholders.

You can't buy 55% of a company and then sell all of its assets to yourself for $1; that would be fraud, as well as probably breaking a bunch of other laws I don't know about. (And probably wouldn't be profitable anyway, but there are exceptions where it would be.)

Re:The $40 billion fallacy

[mikeee]

Good points, but:

Usually companies in Microsofts position pay dividends, Microsoft decided not to ... it has that right, and keep the $40B in the bank for a "rainy day" ...

Actually, there is an obscure law that says corporations which have liquid assests above and beyond what they might reasonably need for business purposes must return them to the shareholders as dividends.

This law is regularly ignored; Ralph Nader was complaining about MS and this recently, but so far as I know nothing has come of that.

Re:The $40 billion fallacy

[pitcrew]

Close but no cigar. It is a tax law. It is a tax on accumulated profits which are profits that are accumulated in excess of the reasonable needs of the business. This law is on the books to keep (generally)private companies from accumulating profits for the owners so they can sell the stock and pay tax at capital gains rates rather than distributing the money and having it taxed at ordinary income tax rates (approximately double the capital gains rates). See IRC sec. 531 to 536 and pertinent regs. This law makes directors distribute excess profit since if a public company were assessed this tax the directors would likely have personal liability for the amount of the tax as any fool should see the situation developing and distriute the money. But for this forum you were pretty close!

You must use linux then...[n/t]

[on by]

pusfuk assboy bobyip
denyum dikeat yesyes
assman wopsus dusjew
yumass dikkak fagcan
byewop relman mumtit
duscan wozbib ragsus
susdot wasdus tukboy
yumarm waseat redbib
figmum bumrog boylot
pussit tukdus wasman
fukpal tavden getpoo
getpal waseat gorboy
yesfig jonsus nobcok
dotjew pikboy bibpoo
getyum bibgor pooden
cannob asseat batboy
assfig pikdik yumpus
dusbye fageat camrun
runfag dusjew totcum
palcam gordik satdus
fixthx asstot yumyes
jizdot vidcam redass
runfig sitthx getcum
gettuk woprob yescam
redyes cammum byebye
figden asspik gorcum
bumlot byepal wopass
mumdik pikrog yestot
redman byefag jonpik
cumeat cokget jontit
denyes fagass wozbum
wozeat yeslot pikbob
suscok ragtit redtit
fukcam puspoo jewnob
mumbat wasbum dotarm
rogboy susrog wozbum
lotsus rogrun rellik
pikbye relpal gorcam
redget mantot asswas
dikrel manred assrob
figyes poocam wopcok
viddot relcan fagtot
tavrob manpik robden
pikyip deneat mandik
eatpal pusbye tavred
figman satbob dikden
yesdot mumdot jewyum
mumfig getbib byebum
wozkak palsat bobred
jewdik kakcok fagsit
tukmum fagcan wastot
pikyes getdot yespus
susrob tukkak totjon
ragfig wascam palpal
lotvid sitpal yipass
totjiz bumrag yesdus
assarm dikfig assmum
fagtav bobrun palcam
mancok bibfag eateat
figeat mancok susyum
dusred dusfag rogbat
pikass assbye rogbob
fignob jewtit figsit
redbum bobtot totfag
yessit relyip vidfag
eatyes sustit eatkak
kakjon jizyum asspoo
fuklot dikyip fixyes
likrag runpus suscam
canlot relnob yipmum
wopsat ragmum assrun
fukfig boyass fagdot
relwoz tukrun armbye
gormum rundik assarm
dikrog dikcok yiplik
yipmum batwas figfag
liktav redwas woplik
ragdus wasmum wozman
maneat bumfag bumden
figcok totcok woparm
rogdus fixwoz figjon
camkak pusred jonarm
tavdus getbye redass
pikrel rogvid likwas
tukthx yumbye redjiz
rogcan byelik rogpik
vidred susrog armfag
yumdik manwop dotjew
fixpis tukrog yesden
asssat runfag tukdus
redcok cumcam wopcok
jonvid fukdus relcok
fixjiz assgor satfag
pusvid boybib yeswop
densus bibyes yipyip
bobpis pikarm yumfig
ragman totdus robjon
boybat byebib rogarm
mumfig yesbat camfig

Re:You must use linux then...[n/t]

[YourMissionForToday]

don't worry, I'm clean now! I was running, just like Forrest Gump, the loveable american retard! But now I'm not running. I powdered my bottom!

Justice is served? Maybe on a plate.

[Inoshiro]

"The SEC called off its investigation in exchange for Microsoft's promise that it will not break the rules in the future,"

Compare: Ok, Mr Dalhmer, we'll not look into the funny smell if you promise not to kill and eat anymore people, while keeping other parts of them for sexual "funning."

See, in the country I live in, we usually prosecute entities (people, companies) when they break the law. We don't just say, "well, don't do it again."

HA!

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically the SEC got their dicks sucked by m$'s accounting firm. ah, the sweet irony.

Ilegal but

[asv108]

Most corporations usually don't have the luxury of beating estimates with large unreported cash reserves. In a twisted way this showcases the strength of Microsoft's business model giving them the ability to ride out the hard times. If I was a shareholder, I would approve so therefore Microsoft is doing what any good corporation should do, increase shareholder value. Obviously the risks of legal action do not outweigh the benefits for the company so in a sense this is just a good business strategy.

Re:Ilegal but

[reynolds_john]

Perhaps you've been busy, and haven't heard of Enron's issues lately. I'm sure they had wonderful business 'sense', but those darn unethical decisions they made eventually caught up with them.

If I was an investor in Microsoft (which I am not), I would wonder now what other secrets they are keeping from their unsuspecting 'shareholders'.
But then, on the other hand, the SEC can whitewash such deeds faster than a bishop forgiving a child molesting priest....

Re:Ilegal but

[mjh]

If I was a shareholder, I would approve so therefore Microsoft is doing what any good corporation should do, increase shareholder value.

Yes, but the assumption that is made when a company increases shareholder value is that the company is actually doing something that increases the gdp of the entire country. Otherwise you end up with a zero-sum gain.

So for example, if I am a company that produces widgets, and I develop a way to produce more widgets for the same price, I've increased the value of the company, in that I'll be able to lower the price of my widgets while still increasing the profits of my business. Society benefits by getting cheaper widgets and shareholders should reward that kind of thing.

However, if I don't actually do anything but make it look like I'm perpetually increasing the profits of my company, I'm duping society. You end up with one person getting rich by selling high valued stock, while another person (who buys that stock) gets poor. Nothing is produced. Money is simply changed from one hand to another: the zero sum gain.

In the first example, all of society is richer because of the innovative prodution method that allows them to reap profits which is further rewarded in the stock price. In the latter example, nothing actually improves, money just moves from one person to another, without anyone having had to do any actual work.

Which is fine, I suppose. But I would suggest that we as a society demand that people play by the rules. Specifically that companies get to reap the rewards of being profitable when they produce something that benefits society (as determined by the market). If they don't produce anything new, then they shouldn't be rewarded. If they're using accounting practices that allow a company to reap the rewards of producing something new without actually producing something new, I think we should decide to call that fraud or theft, and treat it accordingly.

$.02.

Re:Ilegal but

[Anonymous Coward]

And in reality, not to be confused with the Free Software Fantasyland you seem to be living in, we have these things called banks that spread money around.

When you have a rich person like Gates, Ellison, Buffet, or Raymond who has put money into the bank, the bank then has money which can be lent to people who would like to invest it. Since the money then is used to make more money, it does not sit idly in some bank safe collecting dust. Nope, Mr. Dollar Bill is hard at work being spent by another bank customer.

Re:Ilegal but

[drfrank]

Oh, my. This just comes off as very naive.

Now, the points:

1. • Yes, but the assumption that is made when a company increases shareholder value is that the company is actually doing something that increases the gdp of the entire country.
   • No one that knows anything about capitalism and/or the Stock Market makes this assumption. If MS makes SQL Server 21.3% spiffier than ORACLE, and as a result steals 21.3% of ORACLE's market share while not growing the market at all, MS has increased its sales, and decreased the sales of ORACLE. Now, if as a result of this ORACLE's stock drops 5% and MS's rises 5%, MS has just increased shareholder value while not affecting the GDP. Duh.
2. • shareholders should reward that kind of thing.
   • "Should"? Shareholders "should" invest their money in whatever gets them the best return, if they know what's good for them. Or maybe they "should" just give me all their money. Yeah.
3. • You end up with one person getting rich by selling high valued stock, while another person (who buys that stock) gets poor.
   • Yeah, that sucks. Maybe we should switch to some kind of "communal" system where everyone earns exactly the same wage, no matter what job they do. And the "Central Government" can decide who does what particular job.
4. • I would suggest that we as a society demand that people play by the rules.
   • The rules which society expects it's members to obey are called laws, and there're reasons that the idealistic principles you're talking about aren't on the books.

In summary, I recommend picking up a book on Macroeconomics, or catching the excellent "Commanding Heights" series on PBS, in order to reacquaint yourself with Capitalism. Capitalism "works" (to what extent is arguable), because it expects people to act selfishly. And there's just no stopping that.

Re:Ilegal but

[Anonymous Coward]

Macroeconomics is the most interesting branch of economics for the layperson, IMO. Having a solid foundation in the area should be a prerequisite to spouting off on Slashdot. Happily, it's not.

Re:Ilegal but

[Anonymous Coward]

MS has just increased shareholder value while not affecting the GDP.

It doesn't affect the GDP that 21.3% of the market is using a spiffier product? Or am i mistaken in assuming that 'spiffier' means that it somehow increases value or reduces costs?

Re:Ilegal but

[kmellis]

"Capitalism 'works' (to what extent is arguable), because it expects people to act selfishly. And there's just no stopping that."

Exactly. And that's why a functional market requires a mininum level of regulation to assure that a selfish agent is unable to subvert the market.

Capitalism does not glorify "selfishness"; and an understanding of macroeconomics and the benefits of free markets does not require that selfishness be elevated to a virtue.

Rather, capitalism elevates rational self-interest as a fundamental principle. Rational self-interest allows--requires--some level of enforcement of the rule of law such that less rational people are prevented from literally and metaphorically hitting other people over the head with a rock and stealing their sheep. Rational self-interested agents support the rule of law because they recognize the fundamental benefit of markets: the principle of comparative advantage. Stealing is zero-sum, comparative advantage is not.

You might ought to learn a bit more about macroeconomics. Let's take the counter-example you offered. It had to do with one company taking market share from another, and your contention was that this doesn't represent an increase in productivity. No? Well, you're wrong.

Theoretically, there is an increase in productivity because the consumers--presumed to be rational self-interested agents--evaluated one vendor as being superior to the other. The only reason the market works at all is because, collectively, these judgments are usually correct. If company A is making a superior product to company B, then switching resources to the production of company A's widget necessarily represents a gain in productivity. Whatever that extra value is that the consumer recognized is present when it otherwise would not have been present.

We have markets for all sorts of things, and this is because they tend to work significantly better than any designed process. This is true in capital--thus, the securities markets--in international capital flows--the currencies markets (although there's good reason to believe that the currency markets are flawed at present)--and others. In the case of capital, theoretically, your capital investment will only show a return if that investment has generated wealth. In reality, there are speculative bubbles and whatnot that mean that people can, and do, generate large returns on investment where there was no actual wealth generated. But that doesn't mean that it is rational for an investor to make investment decisions independent of real corporate value--because, on average, it's necessarily the case that the market punishes faux wealth creation and rewards genuine wealth creation. Otherwise, we'd all be broke by now.

If you're an investor and you believe that you can predict the short-term false and longer-term-but-false valuation changes, then, hey, go for it. But not only are you less likely to be right than wrong, even if you're right your trading strategy would only be effective until the market incorporated it and cancels it out. So, if you're a gambler--and a certain kind of investor is a gambler--then you'll think that it makes sense to invest outside the context of fundamentals (which ultimately represents wealth creation or destruction). In contrast, if you have any sense, you'll ultimately look for actual wealth creation or destruction to evaluate your investment decisions. Just like you would if you were investing in your brother's bakery.

Market economics is a good thing because it works. It creates wealth where there was no wealth before, and as a general rule everyone benefits from this. (Certainly that's true in contrast to mere wealth redistribution.) That's why it's revered and promoted. Not because it makes sense to elevate simple selfishness to some grand moral principle. That way of thinking is that of the Market Cultists, and they're down the hall, in the padded room with the Objectivists.

Re:Ilegal but

[Anonymous Coward]

Corperations should be serving STAKEHOLDERS not just shareholders.

Of course shareholders are stakeholders, but the inverse doesn't hold.

Corperates should not be doing the dirty on everyone else and only serving the shareholders, they have a moral duty to serve their consumers, the enviroment, the community and many other people/things.

Re:Ilegal but

[Alsee]

Score:5, Insightful?!?!?

Ilegal but...in a sense this is just a good business strategy.

Here on slashdot we focus on the bad laws, but most laws are not bad. Did you consider that maybe is illegal for a damn good reason?

If I was a shareholder, I would approve so therefore Microsoft is doing what any good corporation should do

This is much the same thing ENRON did! When the company "under-performs" they they cannibalize hidden reserves and assets to create a fiction the the company did well. The company then has to meet inflated expectations the next quarter. If it under performs again they have to create twice as much fictional income. When you have a string of bad quarters the system collapes under it's own weight.

As a share holder I'd much rather the stock value dip during a bad period and recover, rather then risk an Enron-type total collapse.

Building a reserve to carry you through a bad period = GoodThing.
Lying about your finances = BadThing.

-

Re:Ilegal but

[asv108]

Enron was padding its earnings with money it did not have using private partnerships with companies owned by Enron management. Microsoft is padding its earnings with money they did not report in previous quarters, there is a BIG difference since Microsoft actually has the money to do this.

Re:Ilegal but

[sysadmn]

The SEC's criticism is not based on whether or not this practice increases shareholder value. It's based on the theory that shareholders should have accurate information in order to make intelligent choices. Using reserves in this way allows companies to hide problems and mislead investors. Fortune magazine has an excellent article entitled, "Lies, Damned Lies, and Managed Earnings" which discusses the SEC crackdown on the practice.

Re:Ilegal but

[Alsee]

Enron...Microsoft... BIG difference

I think you'll agree they both lied about their finances. If you want to say Microsoft didn't cook-the-books as bad as Enron, fine. Enron is the current current poster-child for corporations lying about finances. That makes it the natural comparison to make.

My point was that corporations lying about their finances is illegal for good reason. Lying about your finances = BadThing.

It may smooth market fluctuations, but it is an illusion. Not only does the illusion hide dips, it hides genuine growth. The moment you run out of hidden reserves the dip gets multiplied into a crash. When executives see a crash coming they are likely to use desperate measures to maintain the illusion. Maintaining the illusion becomes more and more costly, until there's nothing left to canniblize. The result is Enron.

-

Re:Ilegal but

[ProtonMotiveForce]

What a load.

a.) Investors make choices. If they make wrong ones, tough shit. Microsoft isn't misleading anyone.

b.) Making shitloads of money and then holding onto it for tough times makes sense for people, why not corporations? Oh - because it's Microsoft and they're evil. Fact is most of them _can't_ because they don't make enough money. MS did.

c.) Your opinions don't matter.

Re:Ilegal but

[Anonymous Coward]

Indicator number 344 that you're the urine in the gene pool: You flame someone in reply to their post, and your reply has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what they said.

Re:Ilegal but

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that sucks. Maybe we should switch to some kind of "communal" system where everyone earns exactly the same wage, no matter what job they do. And the "Central Government" can decide who does what particular job.

It's a lot easier to be a redbaiting idiot than to come up with a substantive reply, isn't it?

Re:Ilegal but

[electroniceric]

What a great post! Lots to respond to:

Rather, capitalism elevates rational self-interest as a fundamental principle.

Certainly this is a deep-running theme in economics. Of course you can make a pretty good case that it works because people believe it should work, try hard at being rational self-interested agents, largely succeed, and their efforts result in wealth. I don't like that these theories offer a very reductionist view of human nature - people are much, much more interesting than rational self-interested agents. It's fair to say that you can count on people being self-interested perhaps more than other qualities like altruism, need for a bond with others, intellectual and physical passions, etc., but those other qualities fill in what it means to be human.

Rational self-interest allows--requires--some level of enforcement of the rule of law such that less rational people are prevented from literally and metaphorically hitting other people over the head with a rock and stealing their sheep.

This is true. But you can also read it as a parable about the Northern European diaspora's craving for order - it's not okay to steal someone's sheep using a rock, but a lawsuit is A-OK. That's not intended to be cynical, just pointing out our quirks.

In this age of global fluidity, you can thread together a pretty convincing story that rational self-interest also requires some redistribution of wealth:
Whatever you think of their merit, we need to pay some money to works in Africa so that continent doesn't collapse in famine and disease and hose the rest of the world in the process.

Market economics is a good thing because it works. It creates wealth where there was no wealth before,
Good point. Another way of putting this is that it requires people to keep one eye on the bottom line - are we actually producing something of value?
and as a general rule everyone benefits from this. That's not so clear. Market economics does very little about disparities in power. If you believe Marx's economic analysis (leaving aside the crap about "collective anarchy") - those with money make more money, and quickly accumulate power. Pretty convincing.
I'd hesitate to argue that more people are better off today than before - there's a lot of very poor and desperate people in this world today. Is it better or worse than before? I don't know if that question can be answered, or really if it should - the relevant one is how do we make most people OK off, without putting roadblocks in the way of generating wealth.

(Certainly that's true in contrast to mere wealth redistribution.)
A professor of mine once characterized a huge problem with the Soviet economy as the fact that politics always superceded economics. Things always got built where politics (mostly personalist Party politics) dictated. That seems like a pretty insightful way to look at it. But the reverse is true, too: the triumph of "rationally self-interested" economics over everything else means a breakdown of civic society - a course I hope the US and others reverse. The question is how to keep the freedom to express individual genius and drive but not reduce every interaction that involves money to one that can be commoditized.

Not because it makes sense to elevate simple selfishness to some grand moral principle. That way of thinking is that of the Market Cultists, and they're down the hall, in the padded room with the Objectivists.
Well hopefully most of the Objectivists can be safely sent off to write philosophical and scientific treatises to their objective hearts' delight, but right now we've got Market Cultists in the White House, and this bad news for a market that needs some coralling.

Re:Ilegal but

[kmellis]

"...but right now we've got Market Cultists in the White House, and this bad news for a market that needs some coralling."

I think it's worse than that. I don't think that these folks have a naive, or, possibly, ideological view of markets, which was the case with Reagan's crew.

Instead, I think many of the folks in this administration are simply pro-rich people and corporations. I believe there are some very morally corrupt people hanging out at the White House. I still believe that G. W. Bush is a well-meaning dupe, however.

In general I tend to think that most free-market Republicans and others are merely naive, and to some degree ideological. Recognizing that demand economies don't work, recognizing that over-regulated markets are wasteful, and being heirs to the American political ethos of "government==bad", well, they jump to a simple and rigid conclusion that regulation is inherently bad.

I'm pretty intransigent in my insistence that judgments such as these be based upon an informal utilitarianism. I do very much think that the poor of market economies share in wealth creation, and that what is considered poverty today would have been privileged not too long ago. (For example, there was recently a study that showed that people's satisfaction and estimation of their wealth is relative, and that in real terms, with a few exceptions, the poorest of today have significant wealth in comparison to their predecessors.) My point is that I support market economics because it works, and not because of some ideological or metaphysical principle. I imagine that most working economists are similar (er, I don't mean to give the impression that I'm an economist), but a lot of policy people are more ideological. This can result in some deep differences of opinion that are baffling to each side.

Your comment on lawsuits was provocative. You've called my attention to something that I want to muse over for a while.

Thank you, by the way, for the compliment on my post.

You can just go to the beginning (of the so-called "west"), and find Plato, in the "Republic", offering a prescient critique of capitalism and democracy. His argument was that power inevitably accrues to the wealthy, who then institute formally or informally an plutocracy. That's why it's called a "plutocracy". (Everyone wants money, that's why it's called "money".)

I stand by my contention that it's not markets to blame for the symptoms of illness you're describing; but, rather, they're the symptoms of a second stage of plutocratic distortion in our very mature capitalist democracy (the first stage being the robber-baron era). Under-regulated markets (or, worse, markets regulated by the marketers) allow for what I suppose can be called "dishonesty". And the market breaks. All that's left is the unpleasant side-effects of capitalism without the benefits.

Not only might there be a necessary level of wealth redistibution at present, it's worth noting that a significant portion of Euro-American wealth is built upon a foundation of stolen capital. It's also worth noting that multinational corporations (or governments, or whomever) will repeat this plunder if given the opportunity.

Latin America should be far, far more wealthy than it is today. A lot of resources have been exploited, not traded. The fact that they haven't had the wealth they should have had as a result of honest trade, and a tradition of very corrupt government and distorted ecnomies, is why they're as poor as they are. We, the wealthy, owe them something, I think.

But there is the difficult problem of bootstrapping the economies of the very poorest regions of the world. Market forces would take care of it if they had something to trade (and were allowed to do so). But, for example, Africa's biggest problem is that much of it is resource-poor and it's simply over-populated. The only thing they have to trade is labor. Ideally, market globalism should include as fundamental complete fluidity of labor. But the biggest bleeding-heart liberals, worrying over the world's impoverished, become notably less caring when it comes to the question of those poor people "taking away jobs".

So, I don't know. If simple market forces can't get the job done, then these regions need huge infusions of capital that is correctly distributed. It's that last bit that's the problem. Of course, that's always the problem when you're trying to build something that only can be grown.

Re:Ilegal but

[Beliskner]

Of course you can make a pretty good case that it works because people believe it should work, try hard at being rational self-interested agents, largely succeed, and their efforts result in wealth. I don't like that these theories offer a very reductionist view of human nature - people are much, much more interesting than rational self-interested agents. It's fair to say that you can count on people being self-interested perhaps more than other qualities like altruism, need for a bond with others, intellectual and physical passions, etc., but those other qualities fill in what it means to be human.

Obviously, but I think you have the causal effect mixed up a little. From an economic point of view people want to accrue. As for intellectual and physical passions, etc. the idea is the pursuit of these passions coincides with accruing money. For instance an athlete can enter races and make money doing something he loves. Of course in the US altruism has been warped out of all proportion, to such an extent that corporate rule seems like a distinct possibility, resulting in an unhealthy jump from passion to obsession, leading to athlete's taking drugs because coming second is a failure all of a sudden. Programmers work 18 hours a day taking all the enjoyment out of the job, the slightest oversupply of programmers resulting in brutal capitalism devouring passion and creating obsessed borg drones. The toilet cleaner gets more respect than us programmers because nobody wants to do his job - doing something so far from everybody's passion, and yet he's paid so little despite sacrificing his passion.

In this age of global fluidity, you can thread together a pretty convincing story that rational self-interest also requires some redistribution of wealth...
...If you believe Marx's economic analysis (leaving aside the crap about "collective anarchy") - those with money make more money, and quickly accumulate power. Pretty convincing.

You are incorrect, in the past whenever redistributions of wealth occur where all money is confiscated from the rich and is given to the poor, the people that used to be rich simply become rich again. How? Well, this is proof it's not what you know it's who you know. Is a poor black kid from the drug-infested projects going to get an interview at the White House or in Xerox PARC?

Business flows via contacts, and jobs flow via hierarchical mechanisms. The economy is constructed not to override this structure but is built around it, supporting it. This is why people that through personality/wishes want a compartmentalised symbiotic relationship with a business entity get jobs, being dependent on others for their living. On the other hand people that want to pursue business do networking, cut deals, come up with good ideas, and bad ideas, and cost these using the capitalistic model and then take a chance. Employees don't want to "take a chance" with their house, so businessmen do this using Banks and private funding (friends' money, Banks' money). This is why Jews coexist optimally with the capitalist system, they have a network of contacts where they can trust every contact upto $100million. Many normal Americans would break friendships for $1000 which makes normal Americans far inferior to Jews at the levels of trust and co-operation require for big business (in the current implementation of the capitalist system).

For instance here a construction company which has Jewish people in the background dishing out the big $$$ has approached a sparse village near me with massive disused warehouses and offered $60million to buy all properties so that they can demolish them and invest $200million in constructing a small CITY.

Us programmers in dot-coms think we're important but when we look at these big managers you can see that you're an almost insignificant part of the pie when it comes to cooperative wealth-pooling in a circle of trust. You definitely need money to make money.

now we've got Market Cultists in the White House, and this bad news for a market that needs some coralling.

*sigh* I wonder how those Alaskan and Arctic drilling platforms are getting along. Kyoto violators and non-signatories should get sanctions.

I'd hesitate to argue that more people are better off today than before - there's a lot of very poor and desperate people in this world today. Is it better or worse than before? I don't know if that question can be answered, or really if it should - the relevant one is how do we make most people OK off, without putting roadblocks in the way of generating wealth

The rich say they want the poor to be better off, but really they don't, and the political elite know that the rich are just having "conscience pains". People treat being rich like a right - we've been rich for so long we cannot even comprehend what we'll lose if we fall from grace. Americans always assume they won't get turned away by customs due to posing an unacceptable risk of asylum (economic migrant) or something. When planes full of Americans get turned back and American businesses are denied loans, then they'll fight tooth and nail to get things back the way they were with massive trade barriers against importing African goods --- why? Well one way or another, the poor will have their pain eased thanks to AIDS. Turns out that God is indeed mericful, even if we are not.

Re:Ilegal but

[electroniceric]

Instead, I think many of the folks in this administration are simply pro-rich people and corporations. I believe there are some very morally corrupt people hanging out at the White House. I still believe that G. W. Bush is a well-meaning dupe, however.
Regrettably I think you're right - Dick Cheney and company are basically cynical opportunists. There's a strand of feeling for this that they're capitalizing on - in my experience, many people are still kind of resentful about the "you have it better than most of the world", "corporations are greedy scum" rhetoric of the past several decades, like they're being called morally corrupt for wanting wealth. I hope we can come back to a more balanced view, where wanting wealth is perfectly fine thing to want, in tandem with duty to family, friends, neighbors, community, world.

with a few exceptions, the poorest of today have significant wealth in comparison to their predecessors.
Not to be picky, but where did the survey cover? I believe that health, bad is it is in places, is probably no worse than before, and vastly better in some places, so I'd buy better health. But I'm not sure I think that about starvation, unemployment, and violence. And whether it's absolute or relative poverty, if people feel a lack of dignity, they feel it, it's real.

The only thing they have to trade is labor. Ideally, market globalism should include as fundamental complete fluidity of labor. But the biggest bleeding-heart liberals, worrying over the world's impoverished, become notably less caring when it comes to the question of those poor people "taking away jobs".
Undoubtedly, freely moving capital and blocked labor will always favor the capitalist over the laborer. Bleeding-heart liberal or no, I just don't think it would work to emmigrate millions of Africans to the G8 countries. Besides, it wouldn't surprise me if we could automate most manual labor within 100 years. Which only makes the contrast even starker. Call me utopian, but imagine 3 billion intellects working in synchronicity....or 2 billions souls starving in front you.

So, I don't know. If simple market forces can't get the job done, then these regions need huge infusions of capital that is correctly distributed
And many of them need some way to recover from the cynicism about the rule of law that centuries of colonialism and corruption have left.

I think a key thing for those of us who want to see this infusion of capital happen to do is to stay on top of the WTO. The WTO offers a enormous opportunity to align interests here. Investors have a natural and stated interest in transparency, economic stability, and rule of law. Though they may say don't want to pay for it, they have a secondary interest in developing the infrastructure of these countries. And as much as they may crow about having all the money, investors need investment opportunities, and companies need labor. If there were really good people (like George Soros good) in there advocating for the fair and equitable application of the principles of the WTO, countries could do much better leveraging their resources for capital under terms favorable to them.
Imagine for example, a truly powerful Mercosur-EU alliance that told the US to go to hell when we ratified illegal subsidies for steel. Even Bush's blinders would hold that out.

It's that last bit that's the problem. Of course, that's always the problem when you're trying to build something that only can be grown.
Brilliant turn of phrase. I'll have to remember that one.

Re:Ilegal but

[Beliskner]

Not only might there be a necessary level of wealth redistibution at present, it's worth noting that a significant portion of Euro-American wealth is built upon a foundation of stolen capital. It's also worth noting that multinational corporations (or governments, or whomever) will repeat this plunder if given the opportunity.

LOL! Like the crusades but conquest via prime industrial this time instead of prime military (colonisation) of the past. One of the clearest indications of this is the symptom that workers in the supply chain are unable to purchase the finished product they are creating, whereas the Americans are. Cocoa bean growers cannot afford chocolate.

I'm much disturbed by the hardcore capitalism implemented in the US. Globalisation in the world today is a distorted oligopoly meat market where these corporations are monopsonies in their supply chain countries. For example:

Latin America should be far, far more wealthy than it is today. A lot of resources have been exploited, not traded

The majority of goods exported from these countries are wood and other raw materials. Due to the limited number of massive globalised corporations with a sophisticated transport infrastructure capable of transporting these massive volumes of raw materials, the corporations are in effect monopsonies and can thus force the sale of raw materials at near cost price.

But there is the difficult problem of bootstrapping the economies of the very poorest regions of the world. Market forces would take care of it if they had something to trade (and were allowed to do so). But, for example, Africa's biggest problem is that much of it is resource-poor and it's simply over-populated. The only thing they have to trade is labor. Ideally, market globalism should include as fundamental complete fluidity of labor. But the biggest bleeding-heart liberals, worrying over the world's impoverished, become notably less caring when it comes to the question of those poor people "taking away jobs".

The textile industry among others thrive in Africa, unfortunately the trade barriers between the US and these countries is so high that business is impossible. The only way to decrease these barriers and allow trade is to gain favour, usually achieved by buying weapons from the west. Unfortunately instead of being stockpiled as an unwanted goodwill purchase, often the temptation to use these weapons is too great, giving the west a smooth revenue stream whilst distancing themselves, no *ourselves* from the conflict by deluding ourselves that they fired the weapons, we're merely supplying them.

Re:Ilegal but

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. He claimed that the economy was grown by people making things more efficiently and society as a whole gets richer because the costs are brought down. He subsequently went on a diatribe extolling the virtues of work for hire as the True Path to economic enlightenment.

Those ideas is wrong.

The reason an economy grows is because of investment and growth of capital which is completely the realm of banks and lending. What he was talking about has nothing to do with growing an economy and everything to do with his communist sympathies.

Re:Ilegal but

[antirename]

Latin America should be richer, but they're not because they're corrupt, so we (I) owe them something? And yes, I've lived in central america. I don't even know where to start with this. "I suck and can't figure out why I keep sucking" is not a reason to give anyone or any government money.

Re:Ilegal but

[antirename]

Ok, I have to disagree with a few things here. First, if people thing that they have a "lack of dignity", that doesn't make it real. What makes that real for all practical intents and purposes is that the politicians tell them that they are being treated badly. Unfortunatly, most people don't really analyze the news. Yes, the FEELING is real, but does it match reality? In my opinion, the people allow should ideally ALLOW a government to exist as long as it is providing them with mutually agreed on benefits. However, if the government controls the media, those agreements can become murky. FEELINGS don't mean a damn thing in this context, only the bottom line and people's willingness to either change the systom or knuckle under.

Re:Ilegal but

[antirename]

Ok, but we should agree to a higher price? Why? In latin america any extra money will only go to the guys on the take... it won't be "redistributed". If it is, I rather doubt that it would be in a manner that you would approve of. Face it, societies are social constructs and some work better than others... they are not all created equal.

Re:Ilegal but

[antirename]

Unless you happen to be jewish and can post a few links verifying your $100 million trust cutoff, kindly shut up. Where exactly did you get that? And no, I'm not jewish, but this level of ignorance is maddening. What, if I were jewish I could make millions selling dog food online? Oh, wait, someone tried that one already... dammit, if only I could have been born Israeli I'd bet set.

Re:Ilegal but

[Malcontent]

"It creates wealth where there was no wealth before, and as a general rule everyone benefits from this."

Why otherwise rational people keep repeating this is beyond me. Where does all this extra wealth come from? Does it come from the ninth dimension? From inside of a black hole? from God? No of course not it comes from the earth and the sky. Economies grow because natural resources are used up and turned into products and services. There is more money in the world and as a result there is less oil in the ground, less fish in the sea, less trees on the planet, less minerals in the ground, less coal, less clean air, less clean water.

Some people claim that wealth comes from "productivity" as if productivity was not a factor of machinery, energy usage and human effort all of which impact the environment.

Even a "low impact" products like software production require human beings who have to eat, shit, be moved around, heated, and sheltered.

There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Re:Ilegal but

[Beliskner]

Ok, but we should agree to a higher price? Why?

No, this'll actually reduce the price. Monopolies and monopsonies are distortions of capitalism same as communism is a distortion of a democratic government. You cannot look at Micro$oft as the epitomy of good capitalism. A coffee farm employee in Brazil gets around $1 a day because Starbucks use their monopsony position to force them to sell coffee beans at very near cost price. Seattle coffee house feels sorry for these guys and gives them around 50% above marker rate which is why anti-capitalist demonstrators go there. Starbucks buys coffee beans for $1 and ends up selling them in coffee for $80. This is a greater profit margin than Micro$oft.

In Micro$oft the coders of a software package get paid out their $40 billion so in effect it's free for Micro$oft to create software (other businesses have to pay loan interest - Micro$oft has this in its kitty). Then they sell it, their costs are a box, $0.50, seven CDs $5, a manual $3. This product (VStudio .NET) sells for $1400. They don't have to pay for tech support because after they get this payment they can use it to hire some temp staff at $10/hour if they sell 100 units. Micro$oft can actually pay off all their debt but they won't because they'd have to pay a lot of tax, same as completely paying off a mortgage leaves you poor if your state gives tax credits on mortgages.

So it costs Micro$oft risk (insignificant) with their $40 billion plus $10 per unit, and the revenue they get is $1400 per unit. Where does that money go? Same with starbucks, it goes into the corporate kitty, have you ever wondered how they can set up a new Starbucks shop in like 6 days? Sorry to say something pro-Micro$oft on /. but they don't usually dump their customers, their software can be buggy but they don't say "You want an update, get lost asshole" they do eventually roll out SP-1 and updates, whereas with linux a software goes alpha, you try it, it's buggy but it never gets coded up because the developer got bored, when you buy Micro$oft you buy the handholding (they treat you like a baby).

Look at McDonalds and Burger King. I was driving to some place like I do once a month, and I saw this yellow M sign. I thought "Hey this'll be a great place to have a McDonalds" and then I expect to see scaffolding and "Opening Soon". I drive past it and - it's FULLY OPEN. I turned my car around and had breakfast there. I mean the thing just popped up out of nowhere, one day it's a disused gas station, the next day it's a McDs! The actual cost to McDs of manufacturing a 2xbeef patty, 1xsesame bun, 2xcheese slice is very low. Where does the rest of that money go? Wherever they want it to, at the moment is building new McDs in China. Now how about those poor cattle ranchers who have to sell one beef patty for 1cent, does it seem fair? If they raise their prices McDs will go somewhere else OR set up their own ranches. In a free market system this meat would be sold at market price (>> 1cent) to another buyer BUT McDonalds bankrupts surrounding burger shops establishing itself as a regional monopoly, so the ranchers can't sell to anybody else (not a free market - one buyer only). If the ranchers want to participate in a free market they have to move their meat from Texas to Washington, a prohibitive cost so the wholesellers who move massive amounts of meat also have a monopsony.

The barrier to entry into a mass manufacturing market is so gigantic that almost nobody would risk it, reinforcing the megacorporations monopoly on demand side, and monopsony on supply side, just like a big bloated middleware that everybody's afraid to break.

In summary capitalism works if Governments act against distortions like monopolies and monopsonies, unfortunately looking at DoJ vs. Micro$oft, Bush is abolishing the free market system

In latin america any extra money will only go to the guys on the take... it won't be "redistributed". If it is, I rather doubt that it would be in a manner that you would approve of. Face it, societies are social constructs and some work better than others... they are not all created equal

Chicken and egg. It's true that the plantation owners will whip their employees and not give them further money due to the massive number of unemployed people that would kill for their jobs, but you've got to start somewhere. It'd be easy to look at the gold prospectors in the US many years ago and say "OK, market is saturated with gold, withdraw from America, give it back to the native American indians". These people "on the take" will eventually become elected officials, same as Washington. Popular revolt still works no matter what Government you have.

Re:Ilegal but

[kmellis]

Why otherwise rational people keep repeating this is beyond me.

Because it's true. Do a web search on "comparative advantage".

But I'm not sure if that's your point. Essentially, you seem to be saying that ultimately it's a zero-sum game and you can't fight thermodynamics. Well, you're right. But that's mostly irrelevant. The second law doesn't disallow localized decreases in entropy. That is, in fact, why life is able to exist.

One misconception that you seem to have is that "wealth" is necessarily something that inherently has value. That is to say, the value that is represented in that "wealth" has to come from somewhere, per the previous paragraph. But that's not true. Wealth only has to be perceived to be valuable to someone for it to be "wealth".[1]

Let's lock you in a room for a day. You have a pencil and a pad of paper. In one hypothetical universe, you doodle for 12 hours and then sleep. In another hypothetical universe, you make origami. And in a third, you write down your unexpected physical insight that allows for a true Theory of Everything.

In each case you consumed about the same amount of calories.

Now, is the "wealth", if it is wealth, found in that notebook equal in all three universes? No, it's not. The origami is arguably more valuable than the doodles, and the Theory of Everything is arguably more valuable than the origami. Somehow, putting the same into each of the three situations produces different outputs, each with different values. Poof! Wealth has been created.

Does this make sense? Yes, because wealth is not necessarily a physical attribute. To your dog, the ToE is no more valuable than the doodles, and the origami is probably more valuable than both. To a rock, none of them matter in the least.

Wealth can be, and is, often represented in a reduction of physical entropy. But even there, the "wealth" only exists as wealth because the stored energy is valuable to us in some way.

So, disabuse yourself of the idea that wealth can't "really" be "created". It can. The physical manifestation of it in a house (as opposed to a pile of wood); and the abstract manifestation of it in creative and organizing thought; and the abstract manifestation of it as it is temporarily stored in "money"....are all just variations on a theme. All are qualitatively (regarding the quality we are discussing here) the same.

But comparative advantage explains why some systems are able, as a matter of principle, to create more wealth than other systems. It has everything to do with trade and the division of labor.

Mind boggling amounts of human effort is represented and stored (and often discarded) in even the most trivial and common things familiar to people like ourselves. That fast-food paper cup, lid, and straw with the beverage in it in front of me is the result of an enormous amount of human effort. One person, even given millions of years, probably couldn't produce this. It's simply not achievable outside the context of divison of labor, which is most efficiently organized through the workings of markets. Now, I don't deny that this stupid beverage and cup and straw (and lid) seem like a terrific waste. Taken in isolation, it indisputably is. But I don't know, can't know, the full extent of the economic connections involved in making this beverage and its container. Somewhere in there may be something that saved a hundred-thousand lives, or even a marshland or species from extinction. There's things we can do with created wealth that almost all of us will agree are the very reason it makes any sense at all to go to the trouble in the first place. I'd love to get just those things without the shit. At the moment, people aren't smart enough--not even close--to design an economy which does so.

Your real motivation, as I think you already know that I recognize, is related to the wasting of natural resources and destruction of ecological systems. I think you're basically right in most anything you're likely to say about them. Except an assertion that market economics is somehow inherently inimical to these things. It's not. The only reason it works out this way in practice is because economic agents aren't nearly so rational and informed as economists, and myself, would like them to be. Ecological exploitation and despoilation occur because there's something not working in the market. Mostly, this has to do with human attention span and our difficulty thinking long-term.

[1] Only something obviously physical, like a localized decrease in entropy, are things that I can imagine could inherently represent wealth. But I'm pretty sure that that doesn't make sense, either. How could anything have value outside of the context of someone deciding that it has value? A massively engineered planetary system, organized around a constructed black hole, would seem to be an awesome display of tangible, physical wealth. But if there's no one to value decreased entropy over increased entropy, then how can any one thing be any different than another, really?

Re:Ilegal but

[Beliskner]

Unless you happen to be jewish and can post a few links verifying your $100 million trust cutoff, kindly shut up. Where exactly did you get that? And no, I'm not jewish, but this level of ignorance is maddening. What, if I were jewish I could make millions selling dog food online? Oh, wait, someone tried that one already... dammit, if only I could have been born Israeli I'd bet set.

I respect the anonymity of my contacts and thus I choose not to provide verifying information. I can drop a hint however, look at the jewellers, the people in the shadows. You're right in another way, I can't prove causal effect, perhaps this group of high-powered contacts happens to be Jewish by coinicidence, like there being two types of mafia, the aggressive mafia that does drug-dealing and the other mafias and other groups that chose not to do drug-dealing (and thus aren't on front page news but instead pull up at a Vegas club in a stretched $100,000 limousine and then disappear again into anonymity).

Hmmm very well I withdraw my statement that it's Jewish contacts only, it's any group of rich contacts that can trust each other e.g. mafia, yakuza. Only a very small part of their business is drugs, and these people are usually distanced from the main group. If you seriously want to find them, go to exclusive areas where the restaurants and clubs don't advertise, there are white rooms just like in the movies where you go past the outer restaurant and into the "secret restaurant that nobody knows about after a weapons search" just like the movie "Rush Hour" I'm not joking. I suggest you read some books on the inner workings of business tycoons and mafia groups on www.amazon.com it's very interesting reading, much better than the usual "top sellers" trash.

Only VCs invested in dot-coms, but here's a clue - where do the VCs get their money from? I suggest you read this and find out to get some clues about how business really works.

Re:Ilegal but

[Malcontent]

Let's take your example.

I sit in a room and do one of three possible things. Act one generates no wealth, act two generates some wealth, act three generates lots of wealth. My point is that the amount of wealth generated is irrelevant. No wealth could have been generated if I was not born, was fed, was clothed, sheltered and transported all my life. Trees were cut to make the room I am sitting in, to make the paper and pencil. Fuel was burned to process and transport all those things. Not only that but all the other people who are going to buy or sell the end result consumed immense amounts of natural resouces as well.

As long as the usage of those natural resources outstrips the rate of replenishment then the act of generating wealth harmed the environment. Yes some acts are more efficient (generate more wealth per resources consumed) but practically every single act of generating wealth consumes more resources then the earth can replenish.

It's indisputable. Wealth gets generated by consuming natural resources and no matter how hard people try to deny it it's a zero sum game. Eventually the resources will run out. Maybe by then we will move on to plunder another planet but that does not change the nature of the equation.

Re:Ilegal but

[kmellis]

"Wealth gets generated by consuming natural resources and no matter how hard people try to deny it it's a zero sum game. Eventually the resources will run out."

No.

One thing you might consider is that your general point about the input side of the equation is also true about the output side. It's not possible to create something from nothing, but it's also not possible to create nothing from something. Admittedly, it's really easy to convert something useful into something that's not useful.

The majority of our artifacts can be recycled. That includes the clothes you wear, your shelter, the vehicle you use for transport, writing materials, most everything else. So the amount of actual consumption of resources can be made to be quite a bit closer to zero than it currently is.

Much of this stuff, along with your food, is or can be a renewable resource.

Fossil fuels are not realistically renewable. But there's a large number of alternative energy sources that are renewable or effectively infinite.

Renewable resources, things we consume, are renewed because there's an enormous energy source powering a constant battle against local entropy: sunlight.

Just because the creation of wealth ultimately requires an energy input, doesn't mean that there's a real concern that that energy supply will run out. Every single "natural resource" that exists, exists because, against all odds, really complicated stuff was made from simpler stuff. That includes everything biological as a result of life; but it also includes almost every element above helium in the periodic table. A huge amount of energy went into creating this complexity out of simplicity, and it did so long before we came on the stage.

Our real problem at this point is that we are absolutely dependent upon this pre-existing machinery (the Earth's ecology) to support us. We can't do ourselves what life does for us. Not by a long shot.

As a matter of fact, because of the point I've been making above--that resources aren't really the problem--the real danger is that we'll break the biological machinery that we're dependent upon. I'll repeat that: using up resources is not the problem. Breaking the Earth's ecology is the problem. We could solve a large portion of the resource problem today if we had the will to do so. But we are not even remotely close to even starting to understand how we could do the many things that the Earth's ecology does that we rely upon. Worse, in my opinion, if there were a "resource countdown clock" and an "ecological breakdown clock" like there's a "nuclear risk clock", the ecological clock would be a lot closer to midnight than the resource clock would be.

You're stuck on an idea that probably made a big impression upon you years ago. But what you don't understand is that it's a lot harder to truly destroy (as in, nothing is recoverable) resources than you think that it is. Resources are a red herring. A failing Earth ecology is the real problem. Aside from everything else I've written, resources aren't as big a problem because market forces will solve it. But market forces can't fix what people don't understand--we could break our ecology without knowing it, and therefore never be aware of the price we are paying for doing so until it's too late to do anything about it.

Re:Ilegal but

[Malcontent]

" One thing you might consider is that your general point about the input side of the equation is also true about the output side. It's not possible to create something from nothing, but it's also not possible to create nothing from something. Admittedly, it's really easy to convert something useful into something that's not useful."

If you say so I guess. I have no Idea what point you are trying to make here.

" The majority of our artifacts can be recycled. That includes the clothes you wear, your shelter, the vehicle you use for transport, writing materials, most everything else. So the amount of actual consumption of resources can be made to be quite a bit closer to zero than it currently is."

Well it's hard to argue with that isn't it. Of course atrifacts can be recycled but they are not and there are economic mechanisms in place to discourage recycling. As for consumption being "quite a bit closer to zero" I think that's naive considering the amount of people on the planet and the rate of consumption of very slowly regenarating resources like trees, animals, plants, coal, oil etc.

" Just because the creation of wealth ultimately requires an energy input, doesn't mean that there's a real concern that that energy supply will run out. Every single "natural resource" that exists, exists because, against all odds, really complicated stuff was made from simpler stuff. That includes everything biological as a result of life; but it also includes almost every element above helium in the periodic table. A huge amount of energy went into creating this complexity out of simplicity, and it did so long before we came on the stage."

Not just energy also materials.

"that resources aren't really the problem--the real danger is that we'll break the biological machinery that we're dependent upon."

One leads to another. We need to destroy resources in order to generate wealth, destroying resources leads to ecological unstability, which will eventually lead to breakage of biological machinery. It will probably take some time but it's pretty much inevitable.

"we could break our ecology without knowing it, and therefore never be aware of the price we are paying for doing so until it's too late to do anything about it."

I think we will continue to break our ecology with the full knowledge that we are doing it. Just look around you and see how the proponents of "market forces" will fight vehemently any effort at saving the forests, endangered species, reducing carbon dioxide emissions, etc. Market forces demand short term profits and in fact demand that we destroy the planet as fast as possible. Faster the rate of ecological destruction, the faster the rate of economic growth, the faster the rate of capital gains. That's the way the world works.

Businesses can not be expected to act in an ethical manner and by and large they don't. Just like tobacco companies sell products they know will cause misery and suffering the rest of the economy will continue to extract whatever it can from the planet knowing full well their great grandchildren will suffer for it. They can't help it next quarters profits are on the line.

Re:It's all Unicode!

[on by]

redpus moocok yesbat
diksat bobcok jizass
runbum redtit dotboy
fukbob yumbye sattav
armbat kakman eatvid
manyum kakfag mansat
sustav suskak armeat
eatpus vidgor gormum
nobsat coksit sitnob
bobrun armcam fagyip
poocok kaksat nobbib
tavlik asscan wopmum
palbye bumrog figlot
vidtuk poocam mooyum
batpik redsus jonyip
cumtav suscan pusfag
tukjew bobcok yipbot
vidbum cumsit batboy
fixnob armdik byepus
denbib vidget figman
moodot wasbob poojon
vidfuk bobsus armvid
mooyip getpik cantot
coktit mumbut waspoo
redsit mansit eatfig
sitpis wozden pikmoo
fagred waspus tavpik
likcum moodik armgor
totnob totpis armpik
getcan tukcum ragboy
palcan tityum jonsus
yipeat bottit dottot
butrob tukfix pusmoo
cokrun titwop yumnob
likkak palarm getsus
dotfag jizget cokcam
asstit denwas denvid
bumsus eatgor tukgor
sitget tavpal yiptit
dotman yumbat satwoz
mumrob satkak gorbob
tavnob ragmoo redbob
rogbut gorcam susrob
gornob gorsus wasrun
jonarm tavfag lotbot
nobdot likbot getfuk
boyarm byebum campoo
poobum satarm satlot
poored fixwas bibbye
boyjew butrag runkak
assget mumcok batvid
rogpis butfig palden
tavjew rogdot yumlik
manred tukdik jizget
kakdot eatass botbot
campal byerag satyes
redcok runpik moored
redpik botkak tavfag
vidwas pusred nobpoo
assarm lotboy bumtuk
asspoo jonjiz bumarm
tavbat bumcum jiztuk
byelik fukrob cambum
gordik fagget cokyip
jewjon susvid armsus
bobbib jonarm rogbob
titbat densus eatyip
kakfig dotpoo fagpis
bobcum poobum nobvid
cumbat satfix eatcok
biblot vidbat lotsus
poorag piksit susrag
totpus getman batjon
bumcum fixass kakred
tavbye boyyip canrun
waswoz pooyum robred
piksat mansit coktit
redfix yipsit assnob
lotsat byepus mumbat
gorfag boyass mummum
goreat kaknob butpal
vidtit manred kakcok
redyip camtav suspik
satfag totcum mantuk
bumred yipboy robnob
asscan figboy nobcam
sitbot pikmum fukbum
pikden gorpis titass
dikfuk yescum butarm
assden cumsat gorden
fixman pisred yiptuk
diksat bobpus redlot
yipfig pisyip butcum
dikbot botwas pikeat
denwas kakmum mumfix
armfig satbye redbot
dikget cokmum gorcam
wopbum asstot robbye
yippus getcam likbum

A promise?

[ProofOfConcept]

A promise? I'm not statisfied with that. I hope they made microsoft pinky swear they wouldn't do it in the future. Or at least say their mom will step on a crack and break her back.

Holy crap

[Raul654]

I agree 100% with parent. Looking at those graphs, you should expect (hope) to see (A) a downgrade [red icon] at the peaks, and (B) upgrades [green icons] at the troughs. I counted exactly none that meet that description. Jesus, how shoddy is that?

Spelunk this!

[on by]

wopjiz assfix bumtav
dikass jewtav tittav
titsit vidlik butwas
butred mumbot mumdot
rogbot canyip wopbot
gorgor runbye yesbob
butfuk dotrob armmoo
pikman poored denbat
bumfuk redwoz fixeat
yumpoo redman armrob
fixlot totjon pikyes
eatpik eatwas tukbum
armrag ragwoz yumboy
dikwop totyum coktot
bibbat wozeat botpus
bibcok rogcum denkak
wozpal rogvid assjiz
kakwop tittit eatjon
palvid assyum assman
jizbat cokcok satpis
assget fixcum butjiz
assmoo jizbib tukfag
dikrun figrun poogor
batpal dencam bummoo
jewden likbat assdot
byeass butass vidcum
sitcok rogbut rogtot
jewtit fixsat titcan
gorgor wasred jonfuk
manbum battot tavass
pusrob cancan likred
jizcok nobjiz pisdik
botred boycam fukbut
sitbye cansat yumbat
assdik likred batrag
tukjon moosat eatget
camtot gormum redyum
armyes canden dikbut
likarm wopjiz redget
tavcum cokcum assmoo
wasman densus wozden
diktuk pikfig yesarm
tukyip lotlik rogget
sitboy cokbob dikjiz
figred faglot pusbob
camwoz getcok armass
titbye rogdik sityum
ragtuk moowoz poowop
dottot pusyip yespus
camfuk fagbot runmum
lotget fukbib botcum
bibpal wasarm jizpal
dotrob byebot totden
manbat eatyes byejew
boypal lotpoo redeat
jizboy getpoo yumred
jizwoz byefuk asswop
robyes figboy rogcok
ragvid yipass pallik
nobarm pisred jewyum
cumfix yumrob yesbot
bibred botpus suspis
lotrob wasboy fagbat
wozjew pikfig wozcam
satbib gortav piknob
armbye dottit likbye
armmum tavfuk boyass
diktav vidvid getpik
poobob totred tukwop
tukred fukget byebut
moocan byerag bumlot
totkak wasbot vidsat
satrun pikget wasfuk
poobot eatden raggor
fixred suscok pikpis
nobwas ragfix titlot
bobdot poofag jizcam
lotjiz dikvid pusvid
mantuk bumlot cumpik
yipass bibcum bibdik
pikbot pisjiz titcan
byesat yipyum gortot
titfix satvid figyip
asspis robbib pusfuk
bibvid bumrun butfig
byewoz armden dotbut
bobmoo pusman eatcum
dotcan jewsat puspus
eatpik manbib denyes
pooboy batyum bummoo
cumpal assrob titred
mumfuk totbum byejiz
figpoo getfuk redlot
fagdik wasmum waswas
poocam redgor ragbut
bobyum eatcum sitcok
tukcam boyred armrun
sitcum rogass dikarm
byered jonjon runrun

Re:Spelunk this!

[ScRipT KiDDiE L33T!!]

I W|5|-| t0 5|_|B5C|B3 t0 j00R |\|3\/\/5|_3TT3R!!

Re:Spelunk this!

[on by]

To subscribe, send an email to:

opt-in@gayteenbeastialityspam.com

hth, k thx bye

Re:Spelunk this!

[ScRipT KiDDiE L33T!!]

KEKEKEKEKEKKEKEKE!!! OMFG OMFG!! GOGOGOGO ITAM PLZ ITAM PLZ ITAM PLZ!!!!

J00r |\|3\/\/5|_3TT3R |5T F|_||\||<Y!!!

lmaelmaelmalmealmaealmealmealemalemaalmealmaleml ea mlfilter suck dokey's ass heheheeh kekekeke itam plz!

Re:Spelunk this!

[on by]

Hello! I have added you to my friends list because the only friends I have are on slashdot.

Will you be my friend? It sounds like you might know something about linux - maybe you could help me!

p.s. what does ITAM mean? is that in the AOL handbook? I can't seem to find it :(((((

tia k thx bye!

Re:Spelunk this!

[ScRipT KiDDiE L33T!!]

P|-|33R |\/|Y |_||\||_|>< s|<||_|_Z!!!

| |-|4\/3 4 F4|\|. W3333333333333333333333....

Karma Trolling for $500

[Indy1]

two good links on Microsoft's financial fraud.

http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulemaker/2000/ru le maker000217.htm

http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html

Re:Karma Trolling for $500

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on the Bill Parish link has holes you can drive a truck through. As an excersice in 3:00AM mental accuity I will attempt to debunk his claims using only his own source/link information.

"Earnings Management"

There is some fishy things going on, but then again the "whisper numbers" many rely on are bogus.

"Speculating on Their Own Stock"

Those put options are two things. Stock splits and stock in employee buy back/employee stock options. Look at his own charts and you will see two obvious things. Firstly more employees were hired and secondly more stock was needed to pay those hires. If MS had gone the other way and bet against their stock or cut hires, then maybe he would have a valid point.

"Convincing Employees to Take Less Real Wages"

Yes there is pork in the laws that allow US companies to run businesses and be traded on the stock markets. But really these laws and rules were passed by elected officials. It's a shame but there is nothing wrong with following the letter of the law.

Hell I was going to go to town on this guy but really he speaks of what should be done versus what is done. Unfortunately he also mistates what should be done instead of what they are obligated to do. Last I looked, an invester that bet on an index fund, was a lazy investor.

Anyways here is the debunking stuff from his own site...

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=9 72 6 There actions not reporting stock options as expense or loss is sleazy yet legal.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/24068.htm l
MS is using the tax system to its maximum advantage AND it is common practice amoung American companies AND many would be hurt by reporting changes AND McCain and others think they should be hurt to help the government and investors.

Oh man sorry it's too lat and I'm dead.

Re:Karma Trolling for $500

[Anonymous Coward]

MS is using the tax system to its maximum advantage AND it is common practice amoung American companies AND many would be hurt by reporting changes AND McCain and others think they should be hurt to help the government and investors.

So to sum up, your "debunking" consists of saying "we can't blow the whistle on this practise because other people are doing it and the bubble that has been built on this PURELY ILLUSIONALLY profits growth (done by selling their own stock to their employees, diluting the other shareholders and booking the price paid to profits) would be burst".
Nice.
And I assume you also hold the view that Enron have done nothing wrong (as they used precisely the same practices, and as you say everyone else was doing it). Talk about putting your head in the sand.

Re:Karma Trolling for $500

[Zeinfeld]

Those put options are two things. Stock splits and stock in employee buy back/employee stock options. Look at his own charts and you will see two obvious things.

The MSFT puts are neither of those things as you would know had you read their annual report. Stock splits have no effect on options, most employee stock plans eork from stock issued for that purpose.

The real purpose of the MSFT puts was as a means of fulfilling their promise to buy back MSFT shares. The way that MSFT did this was to sell in-the money puts for the shares in question. This is a highly efficient method of buying back company stock as it means that the purchase price of the stock is discounted by the option price.

This is the method used by almost all the companies that have done stock buy backs. The only time when it is a really bad idea is when a company is buying back stock using capital rather than income. RSA made a major blunder when it decided to use half its reserves to buy back stock at what turned out to be the peak of the market. Investment bankers tend not to like companies accumulating money, especially if there is a financial bubble, they would like to be the only ones left with cash at the trough so they can buy back stuff for cheap.

Re:Karma Trolling for $500

[Anonymous Coward]

"So to sum up, your "debunking" consists of saying "we can't blow the whistle on this practise because other people are doing it and the bubble that has been built on this PURELY ILLUSIONALLY profits growth (done by selling their own stock to their employees, diluting the other shareholders and booking the price paid to profits) would be burst".

Nice."

Not quite but good try.

"And I assume you also hold the view that Enron have done nothing wrong (as they used precisely the same practices, and as you say everyone else was doing it). Talk about putting your head in the sand."

Umm not quite again and this time I won't even call it a good try.

Enron had shell companies and dealings with those fake companies that they reported as income AND discounted all the liabilities. Are you willing to say Microsoft did the same? If not then your logic of comparing Microsoft to Enron could be just as valid if you said they both had doors to their buildings so were obviously the same.

Now did Enron employ some of the same tatics as Microsoft? Yes. So did many other companies and if you would like to see the market crash and burn, support those who wish to undo the crappy mess that got legislated in by your own elected officals. Think of it as bursting the bubble or selective slash and burn (as in forestry) or whatever works for you.

Unfortunately if that does happen all those lazy index fund based pention funds get screwed now just like all the other investors in what 60% of the whole index/market? That hosing comes the day that you fix this sorry mess versus possibly later. So there in lies the rub, who deserves to be hosed and when so we can wade out of this cesspool of legal accounting trickery?

what?

[AdamBa]

Although you could argue that the shareholders own the $40 billion (and Bill Gates works for them too), it's not like they can get their hands on it. If people sell the stock, they won't be selling it back to Microsoft, they will be selling it to other saps in the stock market.

In fact the $40 billion in cash puts a floor on how low the stock can go, since the stock shouldn't drop much below the breakup value of the company (what you would get if you bought the whole company, sold off the buildings, etc and took the $40 billion for yourself). Of course with a market cap of $275 billion the breakup value is a long way down.

- adam

yup!

[on by]

bobpis manass camred nobbat hotfix
manlot sussit yipcam bobdot yumdot
redbob redfig armbib asspis jizdot
ragfag batwas eattot dikyip assget
dikfix canarm runbat wasjon susfix
butlik fixpis fuksit cokboy dikass
dotpus yumgor tukpik jizlik washot
manget camlik bothot byevid bobyum
jizred bobfuk susvid ragrag jewcan
kakget satget assarm jewass susyum
asssus canfig fukbut fagyes satbib
cannob likred mooass fixlot eatred
boteat likwop pikpis camfig rogcok
asscam nobbot figpik botsus diksit
pisyes mumwop batpoo runfuk ragsat
wozcok redgor poopoo bobnob jizbut
bibbut bibbib reddik yeswas gorpis
wozrag paleat jewvid butass assfuk
poorun totass getass bibjew redvid
runcan cumbum botbob armpis armrob
lotyip nobyip cokgor assman sattuk
bibsus satcan tuksit lotpis pooram
assram tukmoo moogor cancum eatrun
tittuk tukfig hotcam totvid figrob
butyes botred susman runbob sitcum
runfix bibfig noblik botfag palpoo
mooyip assfig yiplik fixpis fixfig
moojon bibsit figvid mumvid boyjew
redbob figtot jizwop totnob kakboy
satpoo manfag fixwoz bibbum pookak
redyes likbye camfag redbut yipyip
kakmoo dikred gormum likman batjiz
kakhot diksus canyip vidpal satyes
nobjon suspik pooeat rogjew pusvid
pikeat rogwop videat pooman robjon
fukbob sitass cumcam fukbye dotboy
botkak coktuk paltot bibtuk bibyum
satmum vidram canass ramram yipboy
fagman eatlot likbib kakred hotfix
fagyum campus titbut fagpus gorred
gorbob yestuk titeat getbum hotcok
figkak fixeat redlik palfig cokwoz
yumwas cokbye lotcok satrob puscan
camred moorog mooyes titcok ragdot
cokpis byebot satfig lotrag assdik
biblot likjiz redman rogdot dikbut
nobeat fukcum manwas fixrag getpal
figjiz titmum pookak pootuk manbut
moobye fukhot getnob byeboy poocan
canarm bobtuk yesboy boytit titjon
ragass rogbye dotbat byeboy sitcam
poowop ramtit rogcan fagboy batvid
pisarm bibass wozcam fixarm jizyip
pikjon botyum pooass sitass manyip
jondik yumpis dotdot pooyip likpik
cokrag palvid satjew asssit eatvid
susbob jizpik jewlot pikwoz lotred
bibdik bobpis bumred lotman getboy
likmoo figyum susyes yesrog ragpal
wasred paljew dikman bumram yumbye
asssus kaktuk butbib manpal fukyes
hotbib figman bibvid assmoo gorbye
assjiz bibpik titpis satdot gorbot
likram bibcam figrob ragyum wasbut
gortit tittuk totbut bobfag coktot
cokpal botsat runfuk nobjiz pikrog
lotbut getjon fixbum sitmum totfag
joncam mumbum jeweat redpoo hothot
poobum getbob likass woplik nobtuk
wozhot sitpus fixgor jonlot jewcam
robred mancan coksus runass robcam
botbut bibbat armboy wopfig sitpal
susrog candik cumtuk fixrob yumbum
ragbot gorfix figram canred getfix
likbye poojon byebot yumsat bumvid
jizbib wopbat fagyes robget vidred
robbib fagsit nobwop eatsit lotbib
gorboy tuktuk runman totsat joncum
byepal figpal lotmum cumbut redhot
canfuk wopred redyes pusfig yumrag
satpis botyes sitrag woplik asstuk
bumyum ramjew yesnob assrob mooboy
rogbum byebye cumwas pusjew sitcan
ragyip wasjon jonbob viddik assbum
assmum likbat jizass jonsit armget
fagtuk figred nobkak jewgor armyip
nobmum gorvid jewman kakjiz poobot
pikrog likfag rogkak cokdot jizjiz
wozarm fixrog totfix totrun palpus
byeyum byepal wozman battit pooyes
mumyip moocum jeweat cokbib poofuk
canvid jonrog palpal likfuk moorag
eatram piswoz piksit piksus nobcam
vidboy cumbib armrun yiplik vidpus
robpis poosus butmum lotjon mooget
piskak pusred getram cumman vidwas
yumass puspus botmoo vidbat bibass
rampus satrun joncam dotrag fuktot
canjiz rungor cangor totpus pikbye

Sorry, you lose!

[on by]

I'll get sick of this soon, honest!
pisboy dikman totcan wasfag camwas
butgor boyred cokjiz armfuk gorcam
palarm robpus satass robfuk vidass
sitarm washot yesrun goryip poosit
hotrog assred palrun yipman cumpoo
jizred dotfag yumgor cumbat hotarm
eateat vidbat ragrob cokjew canjon
piskak suspal dotfix mumkak jewpoo
gorget dottot armbob pusbob bobsit
tuknob susarm jonwas sitpus kakhot
bibwop robsus fuknob dikpis totass
sityes totcum cumhot bobnob robbye
dikarm camboy bibboy armboy bibcam
camfig asspal jewrob coktuk nobpal
titsat gorbib cumgor fagarm lotfuk
bobtit figsus goryip fagrog dotlik
vidbib boybot reddik wassat gorcok
nobsit tuknob tukcok jizcam dotass
lotcam sitrun boyfix asssat rogboy
likeat dikred ramcan satrob jewpik
tuklik armbut butyum runcok armjiz
canbum tukpis jewbob batnob cokeat
bibred poonob titrag byebut kakarm
getpoo cumrog botyum totsus manass
dotman cokdik mumvid bibbib sateat
pisjew mumsat mumpal pisrob poohot
likwas asscum botbat redfag cancam
palman yesmoo jewfig nobbut suscum
gorvid robbob cumpal diksit yeswop
rogjew yipyes rogarm byebot tuksat
wozrog dotdot wopkak asssat mumpik
cokass redgor nobass robbib botfig
cumfag jonvid getsus palyes armred
fixpis robfix wopget rogsat yipdik
jewdot eatjon raglik satred canrun
canman figpal totfag pusbut jonhot
jonfig jizred boypus likrag totpal
bobpus raggor tityum cokjew redrob
suspoo redrog botpus boypis mansus
rogred armtit moojiz cokass palpis
nobass dotbye gorlik manbot cumboy
pikmum boytit rampoo asssat redeat
pishot satpoo totram likyip butwop
manfuk fuknob totmum wozsus yipsat
suseat diktuk jewbib fuknob titjew
dikjon batkak fixnob ragman boywas
poobut botwop bibyes titmoo likpus
titpis fixcam robgor redrog fagvid
kakarm fagbob getgor butfag dotram
jonrob botpal manman redwas cokwop
bibbat vidass bibram wozpik fuklot
lotass manlik vidred canrob wozsit
batbob nobgor rogtit palrun fukwoz
camfix eatbot lotget ragtot assarm
runfuk redmoo redbot canrag kakfig
redbat dotsit titpis armrag botrag
redfix pikbum palass wopbum bobcan
dotcum assjew manpus totrog botass
pisfix wopbib pallik fixpal titmum
jizred palram mumcum yesred asscum
bibsus totget gettit rogred tukbum
sitass byegor titass moogor puspal
cokyum mumram satyip bibgor yipget
ragkak batlot moopik cumfix palfix
dotboy tukgor redpoo yipvid woprun
pustot redwop kakarm yesbut figcok
dotsit jizass pislot yipbot yipfag
mankak ramtit bumgor canlot canboy
dotfix manarm dotjon palwop susbye
armpis byedot pikman jizjew satdik
yipfig lotwas bumass jizbye eatkak
titrun dotwop gorbum runyum wozwas
palfuk fukcum asswas cokbye fixcum
dotboy redsit dikbum wozbob figfag
titjon wozred suseat kakbot susnob
lotjon boycok palred mumyum bobtuk
figpus totbum buttot camrog dotarm
jizkak cokkak pispal tukman bottit
batdik hotbob palred fagpal fuktot
totass rednob dikcok pisrob tukvid
rogbye getred dotsat fagcan runlot
kakfig byedot kakcok vidwoz asscam
lotsus ragfag dikvid asstit fukfuk
rogbat cokfag yipcum sitrog redbib
titlot lotmum susrog lotbye wozjew
jewcam dottuk totwop assjiz satbut
getvid pisboy roglik butsat armwoz
robjon mumpik fuklik titpoo dottuk
dotvid satpik yespis gortot batyum
pisdik cambat robmum pikvid runvid
batsit figyum jewmum tuknob robrob
yipgor jizpal rambum nobeat jewmoo
bobfag diksat paltuk figwop cumbat
palpus butcam jewram wasbib bibbut
figman vidcum rednob bobrun wasbye
fixtit jewpoo redeat poorun jonbum
cumbat moorog jonbot camgor poocok
pustit nobtot armfig bobmoo kakrag
yestot byesit kaktuk jizyum canbat

Re:Sorry, you lose!

[Serial Troller]

I'm VERY horny right now.
Just thought you'd like to know.

|-|4|-|4!!!

[ScRipT KiDDiE L33T!!]

L0l j00 R F|_||\||\|Y!!!

Re:Justice is served? Maybe on a plate.

[Anonymous Coward]

You also jack off mooses. Point?

Cl1ck 7|-|15 l1|\|k plz!

[on by]

boyfuk redpus robarm dikpik robbum
bobgor batwoz satdik robyip pikpis
assmum wasvid getjiz jewwas rogbat
hotarm lotjon dikhot sityip dikrob
totnob sitass pusfag jewjew pikyip
titget yesrag dikrun woprag yipfuk
boyeat byered bumwoz jewbot wozhot
jontuk hotyes redkak suspus poohot
kakman canbut redrun rogrob robmoo
fixcok ramsit fukass mumget dikwop
raghot byemoo rogpus mancan redsit
cokfuk fixjon likjew armlik mumrun
jewfag bumcam cameat moowop boyget
coklik yumrag redbye jizrob wozpus
robpis vidyip butkak redbot gorrun
titboy wozbum yesbum bibrog nobbot
vidget moobob pusjew kakarm manarm
ramlot pikcum boyfuk pikpal nobjiz
rogass mumcan redpus fukwop susfix
batgor palarm armyip robfag yumwop
kakgor yumbot canrog botyum piktot
likeat vidmoo hotdik wozrob moosit
pusrob lotred sitdot vidsit cokbot
jizcam jizsit lotbut batdik rammoo
fukred pissit figpik bobwoz canrag
cumcan jizpal satgor eatarm ramrob
titsit pikpus fixman camcok pislik
fukbib fagjew batass assman eatass
paldot poocok canlik likpal butsat
camrun sitlik canfig ragfag armkak
pikmum assdot redfag rampik butgor
bobtit pusman jonass dikrag poopal
ragmoo rampoo assboy botsit vidcum
jewhot kakbot wasfix wozcok boybye
moomoo wopfix bumcok gorsat satyes
canman dotrob ragtuk byejiz assfix
yumlot cancum yeslik vidass rogpis
fixcok pisdot tuktuk cumsat rampis
getcan hotyes totman runred yumpal
wasass assmoo bobcam botass byecam
redarm sitfix bothot coktot bibtit
yipgor yumlot wozhot vidyum byeass
redbat botarm susarm redcam wasrob
nobfag susbum sitbut getred figjon
wozpus getlik mumpus boynob kakcok
vidvid jizbum boydik bibcan tittuk
fukarm geteat fixpus cancam butpis
figkak armarm assyes manbum dikfuk
dotlot sitpis gorarm getred tukrob
jonrob sitrob nobjiz likkak likgor
gorfuk mumsus jewmoo redcam fagcam
pisman gordot kaknob bateat bumdik
robred jonbob puswoz pikfuk butbum
butcum yipbut boyrog jewbye tittot
wasjiz palwop woplot diktuk wascam
figcam bibyum fixbut jizred byeram
hotget hotman wozyum byebib yipboy
fixmum redwop ragpal woptuk roghot
robfag assbot bobyum pissit asscum
dikwas yesvid asswop manpoo yesfuk
jewyip dikbob hotbut cokjiz batpis
joncan fagrob goryip bibtit nobeat
boyrun redbib rogget canpis armlot
cumred fagcok jizbye bobmoo ramass
dikyip cumjew puskak cokjon dotyes
wasfig manlik nobpoo hotrun cokboy
bumjon robbum assyum eatred yessit
getcum hotred getrog jizget getlot
bumram figjew wasrob yumsit botkak
bumget armbut cumrag camwop dikfag
fagcok yumdik asssit fixsat manjiz
byesat robjew bibkak tittit fagmum
lotfig ramjiz vidpoo armkak ragpal
pisnob figtot mumass battot kakget
jewcam redboy nobsat bibvid assdik
runlik wopcam fixbob butgor runbut
armbut jonyip piscok tukred hotdik
redyum tukjon manbat rogman lotlik
vidrag asspik liksit camsit dikfix
robfag pisjiz piktit susred cumlik
coksat hotbib fixred manpis tottot
figrob byefix suswop byehot bumbum
bobjon wozwas wozrob jonhot pussit
pisman byetot fukred cokass fuktuk
wasjiz assram yumwas pisrob ragwas
robjon ragfuk jonmum figboy mumhot
lotarm botkak yumnob butlot ragjon
batyum paldot canfag getrob yipjew
likget bumsus cumcum bobred mootot
likfag moolik hotwoz likbib byesat
fixbye bumtot moosat eatsus cokmum
butfix puskak wasjon figwop satcum
satcum getrog pusyes bobred cokwoz
botpik sitram satwop batkak byejiz
sitwas fuknob dikjon wozrob pisyum
dotpis redass wozwas canjiz lotjew
jonpal butyes figdik jewjiz vidtit
tukram tukrun yumsus coktuk fagkak
satrog eatgor pikyip getcok jizwas

Re:Cl1ck 7|-|15 l1|\|k plz!

[ScRipT KiDDiE L33T!!]

\/\/0\/\/!!! L33t. ||\|\/|G0R4T||\|G!!!

|\|0!! |-|3 |_|535 B305! C|_|Z |T5 L33t!.[n/t]

[ScRipT KiDDiE L33T!!]

|\/|00!

beos r0x0rz my b0x0rz!@@!$!@

[on by]

jewred bumfix dikbib yesass hotyes
armsus yipwas dotsus nobfuk robwoz
wozbob eatram robtit poodot boybib
pikcum butgor kakmum ramarm butbye
fagjew bumcok gorhot mumsat fixyum
nobbat palrog campik poocok rogtit
batmoo nobtit jewtuk fagrun robhot
ragbib getsus redarm rognob totcan
coksus ragyes ragfag cumrob fuksat
bobfag figjew boyvid botass pisrob
puscan jizpis pisyip byerog batred
lotnob likhot wascok armcam jizsit
yesmum botass fukrun ragpik robjew
robyes satsat figarm bibbum ragpus
fagyum sitwoz manpoo bobmum getcan
assjon diktuk hotyip wasmoo yumcam
satlik campal kaksat yipred robpik
eateat palfig ramkak fukpis gorboy
manbot redbum butjew mankak moocan
butdik eatget dikbib bibpus fixjon
jizwop coktit yessat bibbib butsus
nobrun yumfag likbye redred fagcam
asscan wozrag pooass wopvid titwas
runyum ramyip lottot byelik hotjew
lotyes yipwas boyfag bibpoo botcum
getbat gorfix ragred batcok botboy
yipass bumkak jewwop bobsit getwop
boyred butbot boblik sithot wascan
pikjiz jizhot assrag hotsus canpik
bumcam assyum kakdot pisbob batdot
satsit cokyip figman mooyum getsat
fignob camrag butman moofix wascan
gettuk puspoo hottuk sitpoo palred
yesbib pikcok runlik tuksus sustit
byewoz redfuk bobjiz runwas figbob
yesrob puswas rundik puscan dotcum
lotfuk wasjiz botred jonnob pusget
wozbum gorvid yumbye mooram yesfix
dotpik palwop boyvid nobyum bibrag
jizeat hotgor jiztot bumass pisrag
assram botram cumpal jizbut bibwas
pikvid suspis jizbut cumbum ramarm
batvid jizbum armbib armbum pooboy
bibhot dikfuk cumred raghot jewbum
cokrob jonget titeat hotlot rednob
wopbut likass bibfuk pusdik dotfuk
hotfuk tukjew sussit butbye runpal
woppik redlik yescam fagman armdot
titfuk likyum nobsit ragass bibsus
satman yumrog ramcok ramtuk yumlot
robarm batbum assrag runlik fixpis
canrob camdot hotrag tukfig pispoo
pishot tukass ramwoz vidlot pooass
nobboy dikkak dikpoo bibass jonboy
nobfig yumwop titdot eatcan getvid
hotdik yumass dotram kakmum wasvid
wasdik pushot vidyes manarm bobpal
jonbib byefuk redget pisbum bobnob
botwoz palsat nobsat boybat bibass
rogpis fagkak fagass totpis hotyes
pusrun armyes sitsus jizbut cumpus
runlot pikfix rogfix kakbob runcam
cokrun cokgor redget moocok satbob
butpis piscok fukbib assget jizbat
satsat yumsat likfig ramyum byefig
ramvid cumlik cokjew joncum ragrun
kaktot cumjon vidcan canpal liktot
bobpal boyyip nobeat tukfag asstuk
kakpis yipcok satdot moopis yumdik
boyrob vidpik bibfag getbob palrag
yumrag eatass butwoz dikman cumgor
palfuk buthot bummum assnob rambot
fagyes cumbob ramred eatass campal
lotsit armsit fagmoo redrag bobfuk
assbum robmoo hotfix kakcam yiptot
redpal jonrag armbot bobfig woztuk
camass jewtit byeyip satman yestit
pisass satpoo palcam yesfag byedik
lothot wasbat mumram tukbat susmum
botbob butboy poobat fagget assjon
boywop eatram vidbye fixyes pisrog
runwop butpis redjon bumwoz jizjew
pikjon mumpal sitdik lotarm rogeat
nobred robsus mumwoz yipget cambot
ragjiz nobpis runkak redsus fuksit
tukwoz fixcam bumarm wasfix butsus
yeslot ramwas ragjon hotgor tukboy
eatdot yipjiz kakwop bobtuk fixwoz
fuktuk jonnob yumtuk yesram palbum
palgor robbum lotred fukdik ragbum
figbye nobbot satdot vidram moofuk
jizmum dotfag fukgor yipvid tukfix
satbob camrob getwas canwop pisjon
bumjiz mumred vidfix armcum jewrun
wopcan gorcan jewbye redeat figfuk
botbib eatfig wasjon nobsus sitfuk
bibbot fagkak cumlot lotrun wasram
robcum hotrog assgor yiptot mooarm
vidtuk totyum kaktit fukass mootuk

same old story

[frovingslosh]

Nothing new here, just another case of Microsoft doing something wrong and the resolution to the problem is that nothing happens to them. And when they get caught doing it again, nothing will happen then either. Funny it doesn't work that way if I get caught.

Re:same old story

[ObviousGuy]

1) Any crime you commit is likely to result in physical damage. Not so with Microsoft.
2) It is likely that a crime you commit will be violent. Not so with Microsoft.
3) It is difficult to avoid leaving fingerprints behind. Not so with Microsoft.
4) If you are caught red-handed, it is obvious that you have broken the law. Microsoft is only "caught" after someone thinks they have done something wrong, so A) they are never caught red-handed and B) they are investigated on the basis of rumors, not hard facts

Which all leads us to the point where Microsoft can get away with doing seemingly anything while your sorry ass will get thrown in jail at the drop of a hat.

mee tooo!

[on by]

let's install linux and recompile out kernels in our underwear in my mums basement!

w00t w00t!

Forrect Gump...

[on by]

...wasn't he meant to be the stereotypical american?

I guess i read it wrong...

ah well

Wouldn't it be nice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gates realized a long time ago that regardless of actual performance, if you "beat estimates" people will buy your stock. So, he's arranging it so that no matter what the actual performance is, Microsoft always "beats estimates".

In order to do this, you would have to REALLY beat estimates one quater, say by $0.03 $/share so that you could save some it for later quaters, but if you didn't beat expectations, you wouldn't have money to save.

Re:Justice is served? Maybe on a plate.

[ObviousGuy]

The plural of moose is meese. Go back to grade school.

40billion is nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

what is the annual budget of the u.s. gov. ?
2trillian which is 50 times more than 40billion, think of the possibilities of what you can do with that, and look at our world

M$ at it again huh?

[on by]

cowbum ramtit manass fagboy luvboy
puswop woppis momboy paljiz wadwad
manpoo boydik jewkak hotjiz manman
eathot boyjew luvpal asspoo boycok
titwad jizyum cumjew puswad jewmom
poonob eatwad jewsuk yumram boyass
palpoo butluv cokdik boypis pisfag
jewass rameat palwop kaksuk hotjiz
bumcok sukfag paljiz bumass luvcok
fagpal poofag titpoo boyram cokkak
cumpal boycum assyum coknob butram
wopcum sukjiz jizram cokkak jewcow
manwop nobhot piseat momboy dikcok
titman poobum wadcum momdik luvcok
cowyum jizyum butpal pissuk rammom
assboy piswop kakyum pusjiz piseat
titfag wadyum palhot noblik coklik
asssuk hotsuk asswad butcok sukcok
jiznob jewpal assman liksuk hotpal
dikpus eatcow ramluv paldik hotlik
wopluv boyluv hothot diksuk jewpal
wadwad boyhot likram eatcow titwop
boyboy kaklik cowyum titboy fagmom
sukfag eatdik sukass bumluv bumpus
likass titpus kakhot asshot mansuk
pusmom mompoo butram puskak jizman
pusluv nobeat jizfag bumpoo titmom
eatkak yumpal wopcok coknob jewpus
cumwad wadboy hotboy hotbut pishot
rampis rampal pusmom butram rampoo
wopwop assluv dikpis wadcok likeat
kakpus boyfag jizman nobcum fagcow
manwad cokcow nobnob likeat sukdik
paltit yumfag puseat momram wadwad
pissuk boytit butsuk luvwop likwad
fagman jizjiz assyum yumwad butpus
butbum boykak cokwad jewyum luvass
sukdik assjiz cumeat boywop butwad
titnob cowjew luvfag cowcok fagboy
asstit boyboy fagpus eatman wadkak
woppoo bumpus momjiz jizbum pispis
manbut boylik sukpus sukjiz boybum
eatman wopkak mansuk palcok cowluv
piscow hotnob yumpis cumpus ramcok
hotpal cokhot jewcow pookak nobluv
luvcum cokcok fagsuk wadnob bumpal
pussuk luvwad butdik luvcow luvkak
boypus yumtit kakluv poocum jewpis
nobman dikcok wopeat fagwad butyum
wopyum pusbum ramluv poolik dikcow
bumram nobcow jewhot assman wadhot
palluv luvpis boyyum hotpoo eathot
wadbum poodik mompus cokpis kakman
fagluv woppus likdik cowbum puspal
woppal butwop butcum cokass puscok
wopluv nobram cowtit boywad pushot
wopass sukmom yumpoo eatpis kakwad
wadass asspus bumjiz assbum yummom
bumpis luvdik poopus cumpus momdik
boyyum butboy manhot yumsuk momjew
jizcow sukcow yumram fagsuk nobman
butbut hotpus wadmom momjew jizwop
jizsuk sukman jizdik pusluv assram
jizjiz eatcok yumpoo poolik momluv
mommom rampoo cokram cokkak puspal
cowbut likyum cokwop pispis hotluv
jewjiz eathot mommom titpus cowpoo
assnob assmom likfag rampus manhot
titlik butcow pisjiz jizpus bumhot
luvdik hotyum momdik yumfag hotluv
likyum mancum manlik bumboy sukman
luvpus nobfag hottit dikyum dikass
cumkak bumbut butbum puspoo wadeat
kakmom cokdik titkak boydik titpal
wadhot pooeat likboy nobman likpus
poobut butboy luvpus asspoo momcow
jewbum cokpis ramram likeat yumkak
cowram sukjew momkak cokbum manwop
manfag cokluv wadjew cowpus pisjiz
boywop yumkak yumbum poopoo cowsuk
likcow dikboy hotkak yumboy waddik
jizpus coksuk poosuk bumjew titram
poobut pispoo cowpoo pooluv pooram
poofag rammom cumpoo puspus bumpus
titsuk rampal jizkak paleat rameat
bumcum hotcow yumcow puscow boyass
boycok momyum dikfag titkak jewass
pislik sukwop buttit fageat asscow
dikyum cokpis cokmom cowpus boywop
kakhot woppus jizboy palcum fagpis
ramcow poomom paljew pusjew pisman
wadjiz fagbum asstit jizluv mancok
wadhot kaknob fagboy cowpis poowad
ramdik kakass cokbut butfag assman
nobram yumbut titeat jewfag likpoo
paleat wopboy boycok butsuk jewpus
rammom bumhot wopjiz pallik poofag
butdik fagman bumpus diklik titkak
yummom mompoo boypoo momcok cumdik

Can I do that too?

[Bobzibub]

Can I lie to my bank or the taxman and pay no penalty if I promise (when caught) not to do it again in future? Pleeeeeeeeease???? Just this once!!!!!!

Life must be sweet.
-b

Re:Can I do that too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anarchy for the elite, fscism for the masses.

Re:Can I do that too?

[jsse]

Can I lie to my bank or the taxman and pay no penalty if I promise (when caught) not to do it again in future? Pleeeeeeeeease???? Just this once!!!!!!

Not before you sign this agreement like little Bill did.

(OK, I'm just KIDDING, don't click I AGREE before you really read the content for GOD's Sake)

Re:Can I do that too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering you probably only carry a couple hundred $$$ a month, I'd say your bank doesn't give two shits about you. Get a couple billion in the bank, and maybe they'll talk when you threaten to take your business elsewhere.

Whiny Shits

[caspper69]

Listen, M$ is in *NO* way like Enron. It's amazing how you zealots place blame. Enron was involved in price fixing and an artificial energy crisis. If I even hear someone say "That's just like MS," then you're too young to remember when an OS used to cost $300. Most people don't even "pay" for Windows.

I'm not here to argue the merits of M$ software, but I am here to point out that they *DO* create shareholder value, and as a company they perform very admirably. Compared to the stock market and the inflated .COM bust of the past few years, M$ is a blue-chip stock. Forget OSS, forget all M$'s shit... If you were sending you kids to college on their stock, you'd be a happy person...

Let's put things in perspective here folks..

Re:Whiny Shits

[red flavor]

Well, here in Canada, WinXP personal is $300, and WinXP pro is $500.

So I guess I'm not too young, then.

Re:Whiny Shits

[caspper69]

OK smart ass.

I can hop over to Windsor and get $1.47 Canadian per U.S. dollar.

Why be contentious, when you know the exchange rates are shit on your part?

Which makes your XP personal $208 and XP Pro $347. A bit overpriced yes, but the North American version can be easily had from a U.S. vendor for half the price. Troll.

Re:Whiny Shits

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not here to argue the merits of M$ software, but I am here to point out that they *DO* create shareholder value, and as a company they perform very admirably. Compared to the stock market and the inflated .COM bust of the past few years, M$ is a blue-chip stock. Forget OSS, forget all M$'s shit... If you were sending you kids to college on their stock, you'd be a happy person...

And guess where that money's come from?

Everybody who wants to use a computer that works with most off-the-shelf software has had to pay the Microsoft toll for the last 20 years.

Is bug-ridden, clunky, closed-source software whose only merit is it's "inertia" - the fact that microsoft ONCE happened to get in first, and make a good deal with IBM, really worth $100s of Billions in revenue?

I don't think so...

Re:Whiny Shits

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were sending you kids to college on their stock, you'd be a happy person...

Ahhhh! the sound of self-satisfaction.

Truth, Justice, ....Oh nevermind....

Re:Whiny Shits

[Anonymous Coward]

Is bug-ridden, clunky, closed-source software whose only merit is it's "inertia" - the fact that microsoft ONCE happened to get in first, and make a good deal with IBM, really worth $100s of Billions in revenue?

I don't think so...

That is why you fail.

Re:Whiny Shits

[red flavor]

I'm not being a smart ass, or contentious.

I live in Canada. For me, the Canadian dollar is 1:1 the Canadian Dollar.

Therefore, the prices are as I quoted: $300 for personal, $500 for professional.

Re:Whiny Shits

[red flavor]

Also:

Which makes your XP personal $208 and XP Pro $347. A bit overpriced yes, but the North American version can be easily had from a U.S. vendor for half the price. Troll.

This is pretty funny. I'm not being a troll. I'm stating plain facts. And as for 'A bit overpriced...' wtf? I can buy RedHat for CDN $90 (which is like US $5), or $1.50 from CheapBytes. How can you call US $347 a little overpriced? And aren't you contradicting your own first message?

Re:Whiny Shits

[msaavedra]

If you were sending you kids to college on their stock, you'd be a happy person.

Well, seeing as how their stock is now worth about half what it was a few years ago, I would definitely not be happy. Over that same period, I'd much rather have invested in IBM. Even a savings account down at the local bank would be better, for that matter.

Re:Whiny Shits

[Ibag]

If I even hear someone say "That's just like MS," then you're too young to remember when an OS used to cost $300. Most people don't even "pay" for Windows.


If I'm not mistaken, if you buy a full version of a MS OS (instead of an upgrade version) they still charge about $300.

I think some of the stuff they have done (charging OEMs even for computers where windows isnt't installed, charging OEMs more if they choose to allow alternate operating systems on their computers) is just as bad, if not worse then some of what Enron did.

Still, what microsoft is doing is using shady accounting to artificially inflate their stock price. You might say its creating shareholder value, but that shareholder value comes from more people buying more stock because they are riding a speculative bubble. If the company is leaking money, the investors should know it.

If you are planning on sending your kids to college on someone's stock, shouldn't you have a clear indication of how the company is actually doing?

Should being a monopoly and having lots of cash in the bank negate your respobsibilities to keep your shareholders informed of your finances?

Re:Whiny Shits

[ewhac]

If I even hear someone say "That's just like MS," then you're too young to remember when an OS used to cost $300. Most people don't even "pay" for Windows.

What in the name of Ubizmo are you talking about? No OS, other than an enterprise-level UNIX, has ever cost $300.

It's difficult to make a comparison, since marketing of operating systems per se was never considered a major revenue source for anyone making one. Even Digital Research, makers of CP/M (the OS Gates ripped off, badly), didn't charge anywhere near the figure you quote for a copy of their system. Concurrent CP/M was also affordable. Oh, and DR gave you source code to many crucial modules, too. Not many other OSes show up on the radar as OSes per se, since they were more or less hard-wired into the machines they came with (AppleDOS for Apple ][, Atari DOS for Atari systems, and Commodore BASIC for C-64s).

Schwab

Re:Whiny Shits

[mrbuttboy]

That makes sense: Take a small snapshot of a companies stock price and say,"Seee how bad it has done!"

If I could go back and invest just $1,000 dollars in Microsoft in 1986 I would never have to work again.

Unlike Cisco or any number of other compaines that grew up during the .com days in the last 3 years, Microsoft has be profitable for YEARS and will remain so. They have done fantastic by thier sharholders (who I reget to say am not one of) and the reason is the same they so many on /. are qiuck to point out: MS will do whatever it takes to make money.

Which is EXCATLY what ANY company is supposed to do. WITHIN THE LAW. Thats where MS has some probelms. MS can't quite understand why there are any rules about how to play and that THEY, MS, have to follow the rules......

Re:Whiny Shits

[Anonymous Coward]

CP/M (the OS Gates ripped off, badly), Hey mind your words, gates licenced Q-dos, (the quick and dirty os), which was a "hobby" cp/m clone. When you say he ripped cp/m you make it sound like he actually worked on dos while the only original code to come from ms was in fact the basic interpreter (and ofcourse edlin) ;-)

Re:Whiny Shits

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on...

Can you really compare what Enron did to people with what MS charged OEMs back then with their tricks?

In the MS case - it's couple hundred bucks MAX. In Enron case - lots of people lost their jobs...

Re:Whiny Shits

[HeUnique]

Well, too bad for DR president that when IBM contact him back then to license his OS, he wasn't at home (he was on a plane) and his wife didn't agree to sign the NDA IBM asked for, so they went with Bill Gate's offer.

Guess who's eating his heart...

Re:Whiny Shits

[NineNine]

Are you actually a moron, or are you lying on purpose?

IBM and MSFT's past two year performance nearly identical

Now go the fuck away and buy some RHAT stock you fucking idiot.

Re:Whiny Shits

[Anonymous Coward]

excuse me... you NEVER have been able to buy a computer and then buy the OS. the os has always came with the computer. Gates made sure of that back in the DOS days.. You CANT count mainfraimes or older house sized computers...

and let's add to the fact that before hard drives you got your OS in EPROM or ROM on the motherboard.

stuff it wannabe... you dont know squat.

Re:Whiny Shits

[DustMagnet]

Most people don't even "pay" for Windows.

And I didn't "pay" for the engine in my car. Get real. See this article.

It says, "Microsoft Windows operating system [is] the second most expensive component after the hard disk."

Of course some people illegally copy windows, but not most.

Re:Whiny Shits

[jdaily]

"No OS, other than an enterprise-level UNIX, has ever cost $300."

From bestbuy.com:

Microsoft Windows XP Professional: $299.99

Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition: $199.99

Every now and again, I contemplate buying Windows for occasional home use, but sanity always sets in when I see the up-front cost, not to mention how much I'd pay for Office or just about any other major commercial software.

Re:Whiny Shits

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, dude, I think you've been trolled. IBM stock has tanked the last few months largely because of (you guessed it) accounting irregularities.

sorry you're wrong

[crayz]

48% for both. though Gore had a few more votes in total, it was nothing like a 60/40 break. it would be theoretically possible to win w/ those numbers against you, but very unlikely in the real world

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.p re sident.html

Re:Justice is served? Maybe on a plate.

[Anonymous Coward]

who gives a shit, fucken spelling nazi.

I understood him, you must be aliterate :-P

Bubble!

[doorbot.com]

However, if I don't actually do anything but make it look like I'm perpetually increasing the profits of my company, I'm duping society. You end up with one person getting rich by selling high valued stock, while another person (who buys that stock) gets poor. Nothing is produced. Money is simply changed from one hand to another: the zero sum gain.

You mean a stock bubble... that never ends. Wow... just think about that for a moment. What if the dot com bubble never ended. How many dot com companies were just get rich quick schemes or other scams?

I would suggest that your example actually is a negative sum gain... someone is gaining money through slight of hand; it's a con, theft, robbery, whatever.

On a slightly different note, I hear tulip bulbs are all the rage.

lies, damned lies and accounting.

[Performer Guy]

1) There's nothing wrong with a consistently conservative estimate.

2) If you underreport earnings you are actually undervalued. You may iron out the noise but you have sandbagged real money on the books for a quarter.

Re:lies, damned lies and accounting.

[gerardrj]

Do you get to under-report YOUR ernings to smooth out your tax liability from year to year? Could you just hide a $10,000 from the IRS each year until your tax rate goes down after retirement and then start claiming the income? (yes there are mechanisms to do this like IRA and 401k, but were're not talking about 'light of day' transactions in this story).

No. You'd be fined, charged interest, and perhaps put in federal prison for under-reporting your earnings (lying).

Why should any company be allowed to do this?

Re:lies, damned lies and accounting.

[Performer Guy]

Where did I say they should be allowed to do this? By all accounts they aren't being allowed to do this.

Re:lies, damned lies and accounting.

[hagardtroll]

Actually there is Income averaging that the IRS allows. This is beneficial for people with a lump sum cash infusion, like lottery winnings, etc.

Then there is the 401K, IRA you already mentioned.

You also forgot the shareholders...

[Anonymous Coward]

...also get the quarterly reports and portfolio accounting for everything MS has done, and plans to do. Analysts work from this information.

Re:You also forgot the shareholders...

[ObviousGuy]

True. Stockholders also get quarterly reports, quite often in flashy magazine-like format with pictures of the CEO and other random people scattered amongst the numbers and future projections.

Within the past 3 or so years there was a law passed that prohibits analysts from working too closely with companies and screwing individual investors out of inside information. If someone could provide a link, that would be cool.

Good

[MisterBlister]

Microsoft has enough things to worry about without having to deal with this too.

I'm glad this investigation was dropped.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez, Al Capone had too many other things to worry about too. They should've dropped the tax evasion charges against him. Doh!!!

I think...

[Anonymous Coward]

>think of the possibilities of what you can do with that, and look at our world

... that the taxpayers and companies (small ones, not the ones that manage to get out of paying corporate taxes, e.g. enron, MS) of the US would want it spent on _them_, seeing as they pay the taxes to begin with.

Friends in high places.

[Anonymous Coward]

Must be nice to own a president. I hope that this cost microsoft at least a couple of million dollars to buy off the bush administration yet again. This is the second time that MS had to buy off the politians in two years.

Re:Friends in high places.

[ObviousGuy]

Yeah, nothing quite like it.

Bill made a hack

[forgoil]

He, and others, are simply hacking the economic structure. They insert an extra NOP to better the timing, they tweak their routines. Is it any surprise? Finance is a game, with a huge set of rules, and a very bugger compiler (see if you get my anology). They are not being evil, they are playing the game. As others have pointed out, this is no fault of Microsoft that they are good at it.

Re:Bill made a hack

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not being evil, they are playing the game. As others have pointed out, this is no fault of Microsoft that they are good at it.

If everyone had the same insight as you, we'd be reliving the 1920's all over again. The rules of the market are there to keep the economy from coming apart at the seams. Companies who cheat damage society. Try looking at things from a perspective other than your own, if you can. If you are over twenty, and cannot, assume your intellectual development has stalled at some point. Perhaps someday you'll experience empathy, and understand why you were wrong to have been cheating at Quake all these years.

Re:Bill made a hack

[d2ksla]

this is no fault of Microsoft that they are good at it

Not as long as someone fixes the compiler to generate an Illegal instruction, execution aborted error in this case :-)

Re:Bill made a hack

[forgoil]

Who said I liked the rules to begin with? I sure didn't. I don't like the way business is conducted in the world today, it hurts human beings. I don't like the way the major countries are run, they hurt their people. I dislike the legal systems of all major countries, they are corrupt and doesn't protect the individual from the superior force of large companies and goverments.

I am over 20, yes. Could you ever have a clue about who I am, what kind of capacity I have for empathy or not? I do know how to look at things from other perspectives, but I tend to write from just one at a time, as I would be percived as having split personalities otherwise.

Why would I ever cheat while playing networked games? I'm sorry, but you trying to make a funny point failed.

To say it again, don't blame Microsoft for acting like many other companies does today. Feel free to blame the whole thing, but don't single one company out. They are not NSDAP.

I have no solution I'm afraid.

Re:Bill made a hack

[Beliskner]

I don't like the way business is conducted in the world today, it hurts human beings. I don't like the way the major countries are run, they hurt their people. I dislike the legal systems of all major countries, they are corrupt and doesn't protect the individual from the superior force of large companies and goverments

So you believe you are God with high morals and the ability to pass judgement on all world legal systems. Mullah Mohammed Omar is just as convinced as you that he's got the high morals what with massive crimes in the US who protects the victims? Chop off their hands, on Jenny Jones transvestites get sex changes and have lesbian bisexual sex with dogs and cats. Mullah Mohammed Omar sees this as evil and enacts laws to prevent this and other things women seem prone to. You are a Mullah Mohammed Omar, you also believe you have higher morals than anybody else. I'd love to lock you in a room with him and hear you indoctrinate each other, each of you constantly believing that you alone are right.

Now if companies are small like you want, what happens if someone nukes the US and all telephone and electricity get knocked out, what centralised mechanism will restore order and repair the damamged systems? Small companies will just go "Bzzzzzzt, that's not part of our business model, we're declaring chapter 11".

I have no solution I'm afraid.

Cute. I bet you said that as an afterthought to conform to the expression "The first step to knowledge is knowing what you don't know" to make yourself look benevolent. Well done, but your $10 ethics don't wash with me I'm afraid.

Re:Justice is served? Maybe on a plate.

[Erbo]

Somebody from the SEC ought to have asked the people who got the consent decree out of Microsoft in its first antitrust case just how reliable Microsoft is at keeping its promises. Expect another SEC investigation in a couple of years or so.

Daddy Warbucks?

[Anonymous Coward]

SEC: Microsoft, did you use illegal accounting practices to cook your books? :-/

MICROSOFT: No sir. Never! ;-|

SEC: Ok. Well, don't do it again. :-|

MICROSOFT: Thank you daddy Warbucks! ;-)

My censored comments...

[NeuroManson]

See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=33571&cid=3629 298 , to see the point of the post, because some people are too godd@mned stupid to use their moderation scores properly...

Re:My censored comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

Properly = mod you up, never mod you down?

Perhaps they didn't get the memo.

Re:My censored comments...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not censorship. It's moderation: You take an idiotic post and mod it down because it is a waste of everyones time.

IDIOT.

It's zero sum GAME, not gain!

[Simon]

For the love of god, the term is "Zero Sum Game", not gain. It comes from a section of maths known as game theory, go look it up if want more info.

--
Simon

Re:It's zero sum GAME, not gain!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but if it's 'zero sum', how can ti be a 'gain' at the same time?

What the...?

[Rogerborg]

• The SEC called off its investigation in exchange for Microsoft's promise that it will not break the rules in the future, though the company is not admitting that it broke rules in the past

Sorry, but what the fuck? They're "agreeing" to what exactly? To obey the law? To continue doing exactly what they're doing right now (whatever that is)? What kind of "agreement" is this?

Quo custodiet ipsos custodes? I'd be very interested in knowing how many of the SEC people involved in this "investigation" have suddenly found themselves able to pay off their mortgages, or fund their kids through college. And no, I am not joking. When you're dealing with a company with $40 billion in the bank and bad accounting practices, squirreling a couple of million in a slush fund is trivial. I mean, how many people at Microsoft actually believe that they know exactly how much money Microsoft has - and how many different figures would you get if you asked all of these "authoratative" figures?

This "nothing to see here, move along" investigation is a farce. They are either innocent, in which case there's no "agreement", or they are guilty, in which case they should get reamed. This stinks.

Re:What the...?

[Salsaman]

Yes, and we all know how good Microsoft are at keeping their promises (remember the Win95/IE trial)...

Re:What the...?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Translation: SEC can't prove anything, but they know Microsoft did something naughty. And they can make life difficult for MS, but can't ultimately do anything about it. So, they agree to call off the dogs, and Microsoft publicly (and legally) states that they'll be EXTRA careful in the future. Mistakes are made, after all. But, in the future, the SEC will be able to come down extra hard, with this as a precident.

Re:Justice is served? Maybe on a plate.

[Qrlx]

See, in the country I live in [www.gc.ca], we usually prosecute entities (people, companies) when they break the law.

You have discovered one of the fundamental truths of America. It's the same reason we bailed on Kyoto accords et. al. Big Business calls the shots. As such, the Evil Doers of the Board Rooms, out of Professional Courtesy, tend to let each other get away with it. And thus, one hand washes the other.

I'm not saying that's good or bad, but I do notice that Canadian currency is worth about a half penny less (in USD) each year. A bit of a paradox, really. If the US won't institue the Corporate Death Penalty, we have an unfair economic advantage over countries with stronger ethics. This tends to make other countries lower the bar in order to compete. Those that don't aren't as economically powerful as USA. But, it's also nice to live in a country where your health care isn't tied to your employment status.

To paraphrase Vince Lombardi: In America, money isn't everything. It's the only thing.

The power of money!

[Kindaian]

If you commite a crime, you are nailed, and may get away with suspended prison time... If you commite two crimes, you go to the slammer...

If you are M$ you get a pat at your back... and a public admonition for you "don't do that again... please."

And i thought that justice worked in the US... How wrong i was...

Cheers...

and all the Hookers and Blow

[Anonymous Coward]

you can eat. It's Microsoft! GWB is sure taking his job seriously.

Loosing money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my god! They're loosing money? They better tighten it!!

That's it..

[Anonymous Coward]

I am going to go out and break every fricking law I can unti I get caught, and then plead to the court that they have to let me off if I promise not to do THAT again... as the microsoft cases have set precedent that you dont get in trouble for anything the first time you are caught.

The United States Government... the best government money can buy!

See Bill Parson's Report on which the SEC investig

[linuxislandsucks]

Go to my weblog and click on the Bill Parson's link on right hand side menu..

Than click on the analyst link and read it..

MS has been using fraudalent accounting wrose than Enron for about 10 years..

Now let me ask you why Enron's accounting practies got all the press and SEC focus and not MS?

Can we saw MR Bush got bought?

You think I am kidding ..Companies with similar Lobbying efforts with same SEC result of slap on wrist:

CISCO..

SEC Stupid or Corrupt?

[Bob9113]

The settlement does not involve any fine, with Microsoft agreeing to accept a cease and desist order.

This means it will not engage in unspecified accounting practices that the SEC had been investigating. The agreement does not involve an admission of wrongdoing by Microsoft.

Microsoft has repeatedly settled with the DoJ by agreeing to cease and desist it's anticompetitive practices, and subsequently continued to engage in the exact practices identified in past trials. Is the SEC stupid or corrupt?

Re:SEC Stupid or Corrupt?

[Bob9113]

If the SEC had no case, would Microsoft have accepted the cease and desist? Don't you think Microsoft sees a lot of value right now in being granted carte blanche in a federal case? Wouldn't that provide Microsoft with some much needed ammunition for use in their "we're being oppressed" campaign?

I would submit that what actually occured is closer to your reason number 2, though tainted with reason number 3: Corruption (surely you don't deny that corruption does exist, at least in theory if not in this specific case). To wit:

The SEC sees that Microsoft will invest an enormous amount of money into it's defense. Therefore, the SEC will have to invest comparable resources to make the case. Instead they succumb to the siren song from the Bush administration: "Drop this thing, it's a no-win situation, the DoJ is already putting Microsoft in their place." The SEC weighs it's options: 1. Pursue the case at huge expense and disappoint the President - potentially winning nothing more than a cease and desist. 2. Put on the blinders and issue the cease and desist - keep repeating, "this time they'll play by the rules" to yourself until you believe it - or at least until you can get to sleep.

Bear in mind I'm not talking about corruption in the snidely whiplash twisting his mustache and handing over a satchel with a dollar sign on the side sense. That sort of corruption is far more rare than some /.ers would have us believe. I am talking about corruption of the type I just mentioned. The "what will George's reaction be next time if I don't do what he wants this time?" kind of corruption - the "if Microsoft isn't here to support me next time, will I have any friends at all?" kind of corruption. Bending with the wind so that you can save your strength for the next battle (and never reaching the battle that is worth fighting). Maybe this isn't even corruption so much as it is weakness, but it is clearly born of friendships and knowing which side your bread is buttered on, and it is surely not in the public interest.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

So this is what justice is reduced to?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, justice is reduced to:

Gov't: We'll let you go if your *promise* not to commit any more crimes.
MS: Uh, okay.
Gov't: Cross your heart and hope to die?
MS: Yup.
Gov't: Stick a needle in your eye?
MS: Yup.
Gov't: Eat a horse manure pie?
MS: Uhhhhh...yup.

Collaborate or Cooperate?

[gi-tux]

"We always collaborate fully with the SEC and take our accounting very seriously,"

I like this statement made by Microsoft. I believe they really meant what they said also. They thought that most folks wouldn't pick up on the slight difference between collaborate and cooperate. Just goes to show you what you can do when you are a monopoly that the government fears. What we need is a good trust-busting president. Someone not afraid to stand up to Bill Gates and crew and let them know that it is time to quite walking on the American people.

Re:REAL support and promotion?

[Doug Loss]

What makes you thinnk it's an either/or situation?

Another Blue Chip Joke

[delafrontera]

The real news in this is not so much that MicroSoft did something bad, but that yet again another big American blue chip is caught playing with its stock price. It seems that stock manipulation is all that CEOs are good for these days. The 90s were so damn good to some people that it really went to their heads, and I think it will take a few years for it all to shake out. Its not just the MicroSofts and Enrons or the entire energy industry, but also the little players like Critical Path or XO Communications (2 stocks that I am sucker enough to own).

I look at the stock market these days like its a leper. I mean, should we trust the research analysts? the company execs? Jeez what crap. Maybe next year.

America had it so good for so long (the 90s was the longest ever economic expansion) that many fell victim to the age old weakness - hubris. Amazing how repetitive we humans are. Its all documented perfectly in any child's collection of greek myths.

Of course the sweet part is that if you are a CEO you just tell the SEC - "hey, sorry" - and you turn around and lay off 10% of your workforce to help cut costs and keep that stock looking good.

Man, can't be so bad being on top.

eh

[AA0]

I'm surprised they just didn't blame it on excel rounding errors.

Re:Analysts are not entitled to correct informatio

[kadehje]

If your analyst estimate is low 61 out of 63 times, either A) you need a new analyst or B) someone is feeding the analyst bad numbers. In this case, probably both.

I think this is the key statement in the story post. There is corruption EVERYWHERE in the finance industry. This includes the government, corporate management bodies, and the people (both in the media and the private finance industry) that make money off of reporting on companies and the government.

Enron is by far not the only company with a corrupt management that artificially inflated their numbers throughout the late '90s and early 2000's. It just happens to be the first company to get caught by the national media red-handed. Nearly every failed dot-com with a successful IPO did the same things Enron did, such as under-reporting liabilities by giving much of their compensation in stock options and B.S.-ing about projected billions of future revenues from customers that would never exist. Other more traditional companies like Xerox and Polaroid have also been caught doing the same sort book-cooking. If it had turned out that Microsoft was not engaging in such accounting tricks, Microsoft's board would clearly be in the small minority of the Fortune 500 in that regard.

The government, both under the Clinton and Bush administrations, did virtually nothing to reform regulations that were being exploited legally but unethically by corporations around the U.S. and also virtually nothing to punish those executives engaging in insider trading and other practices that have been illegal for decades. Had the government stepped in and set some reasonable rules, the boom of the late 90's would have been much more reasonable in scope (Dow 11K and Nasdaq 5K would never have happened, but the gains in stock prices would have still been substantial and, most importantly, justified) and we'd still be in very good economic situation now. Unfortunately, the watchdogs were either sleeping or put to bed (by some well-placed "bones" if you get my drift), and did not attack the biggest ripoffs since the late 1920's that the U.S. stock market has seen.

And the media and the analysts glorified everything that was going on. Back in 1998 and 1999, I was shocked at how many companies' stocks had been given "strong buy" upgrades AFTER A RISE of 20, 30, even 50 percent in the previous month or two. WTF? Any person with a modicum of experience in the market would take such a dramatic increase as an opportunity to cash in a portion of his/her holding in that stock for short-term gain or to stand pat if the holding was for a long term investment. To do as these analysts were suggesting would be essentially refusing to pay $10 for something because it's overpriced, but to buy two of that thing when its manufacture raises the prices to $20. In fact, it has been alleged that some analysts were in fact trading against their recommendations, upgrading stocks that they wanted to take profits on and downgrading stocks that they themselves had wished to accumulate.

As the saying goes, "you can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but not all of the people all of the time." The "some" time in the first part of that statement began to end in the spring of 2000, and many more woke up following the Enron debacle. Only now are we beginning to understand how broken the regulatory structure necessary for a successful, mostly capitalist (but obviously not pure capitalism) was in the U.S. in the 1990's. Just like it wasn't until after 1900 Americans didn't understand why having an economy dominated by a few "Robber Barons" was bad, or not until the 1930's was it known why having a market based on uninsured banks and buying stocks on margin was bad. Many of the flaws in the U.S. financial system WILL be fixed. At some point, the American people will not accept anything but a good-faith effort to correct these problems. At first, the existing government will be given a year or two to make the required changes. After that, people will begin to demand a "New Deal" and clean house on Capitol Hill. If things don't change significantly by early 2004, the voters will bust out the brooms in November of that year.

However, it is likely that we will endure another period of economic ugliness like we did in the 70s before things brighten signficantly. It took nine years (1973-82) for the U.S. to determine a successful course of action after the end of the Vietnam War required the nation to turn away from a largely military-industrial economy to one better suited for a peacetime environment. My guess is that it will take until at least 2006 or 2007 for the U.S. economy to rationally handle the changes effected by the so-called Information Revolution and prosper again. Things won't be horrible between now and then (barring any further Sept. 11-scale or greater terrorist attacks), but they probably won't be peachy either.

People have rightly questioned the integrity of the entire financial system and are waiting for things to improve before increasing their commitments to it. As a matter of fact, the U.S. is the last major market in the world that has been challenged by investors: while Japan, Europe, and later Latin American and southeast Asia floundered, people flocked to the U.S. believing that our system was infallible. It was not, and never will be infallible, though it has been and will become much more sound than it is today. As the next couple of years unfold, people will gradually learn what the biggest reasons for the unsustainable bubble and subsequent bust were and proceed to try to correct them. After that, people will begin to regain faith in the market, they will begin to realize that current valuations of stocks are by-and-large reasonable again, and the U.S. economy will begin to poke its head out of the clouds.

The stench of corruption right now is everywhere. We're just going to have to give ourselves a while for it to subside.

MS income

[Orangedog_on_crack]

If M$ really does have $40 billion in cash on hand, think about how that sontributes to their bottom line. Assuming that this is all in cash and not stocks or bonds, the annual interest income on $40 billion even at 2% in a standard savings account is about $800 million. If it's in higher yield securities (T-Bills, or other US Treasury backsed securities, this could very well generate over $1 billion annually.

Re:MS Money Market Fund

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you are saying is that Microsoft is like a money market fund that DOES NOT PAY A DISTRIBUTION??? Is this what you meant?

MICROSOFT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A GROWTH STOCK!!! Why any investor would buy such crap at current prices is beyond me. Microsoft in its glory days was allegedly making a return on equity of ~40%! Now you are bosting that they make ~2%! Did you think about this before you wrote?

Except...

[Lord Kenja]

You are only 'good' at at game if you can win it without breaking the rules. And the whole point of the SEC inventigation was to see if they did. Now they have agreed to not break the rules they didn't break in the first place if the referee won't look at what they are doing.

Or perhaps they don't make money at all..

[Lord Kenja]

Heh. Just thourght it was a good time to bring up good old Bill Parish who spend some time a couple of years ago looking into MS accounting pratices and claimed they don't really make money at all... Haven't been updated since November 1999 tho.

http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html

MSFT not alone here - by a long shot

[walterbyrd]

INTC, CSCO, and other big cap computer related companies have been pulling this stunt for years.

I hope the SEC is successfull in changing reporting rules.

Re:Justice is served? Maybe on a plate.

[tswinzig]

See, in the country I live in [www.gc.ca], we usually prosecute entities (people, companies) when they break the law. We don't just say, "well, don't do it again."

So do we. The thing is, Microsoft didn't break any laws here. But they may have broken some regulations enforced by the SEC.

price of OS

[catfood]

What in the name of Ubizmo are you talking about? No OS, other than an enterprise-level UNIX, has ever cost $300.

Windows 2000 Professional is going for $271.88 at the first reseller I looked up.

That's close enough to $300.00 that the other guy is basically right.

Re:price of OS

[jjoyce]

$290 at Amazon.

Procto-compiling

[GungaDan]

"a very bugger compiler"

Small wonder gcc's such a pain in the arse.

Re:Analysts are not entitled to correct informatio

[Beliskner]

Agreed. To evade the IRS they hide money in tax havens like Cayman islands. Same place binLaden put his money. A small island having $36 billion, hmmmm. All the big companies do it, as far as the IRS is concerned teh money's gone into a big black hole.

Another popular one is a boss ordering a $100 product from India and paying $10,000 for it. The supplier gives his client the product PLUS $9,900 as a present to his own personal account in Cayman islands or whatever. If the Indian IRS tries to investigate, in that part of the world you just give the tax inspector $100 and he'll say, "Nothing to see here, move along now". As IRS controls become tightened, we're going to see more corruption to get around it, Bill Gates meeting the CEO of Sun in dark alleys, whilst a Bill Gates lookalike is at a product launch on TV or something, so that's Billy's alibi.

People won't try to fix the US banking system after Enron, they'll just blow hot air until everybody's forgotten about it just like BCCI... Ooooooh, jogged some memories did I? Forgotten about that hadn't you? The collapse of BCCI was supposed to trigger this big change, destroy corruption and make everything transparent, but it didn't - why exactly?

Read my lips - the banking system changes for nobody, you might get some token changes because the banks want to look liek they're doing something. After WTC everyone's gonna cut the banks some slack and they'll have us by the balls again after Enron blows over.

Many of the flaws in the U.S. financial system WILL be fixed. At some point, the American people will not accept anything but a good-faith effort to correct these problems. At first, the existing government will be given a year or two to make the required changes. After that, people will begin to demand a "New Deal" and clean house on Capitol Hill. If things don't change significantly by early 2004, the voters will bust out the brooms in November of that year.

Nope. In the war against terrorism, everybody's supporting the President, nobody will care about Enron in a few months.

Re:Analysts are not entitled to correct informatio

[Ravensfire]

Very interesting comment - it hit several issues that exist in the financial markets, but are starting to be noticed by larger audiences.

You did miss a critical point, though.

First, to be totally up front my family has been involved in the financial planning market for over three decades. My grandfather and father are principals of a private investment planning firm in Missouri. I do not work there, nor am I a broker in any way. I have grown up around this industry.

The stock market of today is used by many people as a wealth-generation tool. People think that the stock market is around to help people make money.

As part of this, investors crave information. Lots of it. Thus the analyst industry was spawned. This area is rapdily turning into a "buddy" network, and getting more corrupt all the time.

You see, quite a few analysts work for large brokerage firms, and their income is based on the activity in the stocks they analyze. Good, bad, doesn't matter - just get the performance.

See a problem there? It's starting to get noticed by the SEC, but that's just a start.

Companies will do anything to get a good recommendation from an analyst, and blackball ones that give bad recs.

Moral - don't trust an analyst. Do your own research. And hope you don't get screwed anyway in the end.

makes me wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

How much money is Microsoft actually making? The prise rises they are doing are actually hurting their marketshare.

A free market does not work

[tchdab1]

Stop it. Please stop deluding all of us.
The great depression, the SEC, the Federal Reserve Bank, Congress, the House and Senate, the Executive Branch, the farm subsidies, the steel subsidies, the income tax exemption for mortgages, the local police, the FBI, the CIA, and the military, (and endless more examples) these are all either evidence of or organizations put in place to deal with the fact that the free market results in people with power that use that power to take advantage of people with less power.
That's what a free market leads to. This country can't handle a free market, and everyone holding strings to pull knows it.

:tirade off
Sorry. Thank you.

Re:A free market does not work

[Anonymous Coward]

This country can't handle a free market, and everyone holding strings to pull knows it.

That must be why this country has the best healthcare in the world and the highest standard of living. This country is the one that Billions of people in other countries want to come to. We do have the most freedom of any country in the world and our markets are the freest. We produce more per person than any other country in the world. These two things are related.

Free markets are not lawless. Capitolism requires the rule of law to work. The USA is not perfect but we come the closest to having free markets and the rule of law than any other country. Thus we have the highest productivity, and the most freedom. Take the freedom away and we would become like the USSR was. Rich in resources but poor nonetheless. Look at Africa. Africa is full of resources, but there is no freedom and no rule of law so the people are poor. Poorer now than when they were run as colonies when there was a rule of law and some market freedoms.

You are attack a straw man when you say free markets because you are attacking a market that is enslaved because there is no rule of law to it.

Re:A free market does not work

[Arandir]

There are two categories of items in your list of evidences and organizations. Government institutions or policies to enforce a managed economy, and government itself.

SEC, FRB, farm subsidies, etc, are examples of a managed economy. In a free market the government has no role except to provide a uniform system of law. In a managed economy government attempts to use what would otherwise be a free market economy to mold and implement policy. Farm subsidies are one classic example. The government policy is that milk should have a particular price. Farm subsidies guarantee that price by paying farmers to produce more milk when the market price indicates that they should be producing less. Then when the farmers produce too much milk the government pays them to dump it down the drain.

Your other category is the government itself (congress, CIA, military). I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Are you trying to tell me that government itself was instituted to deal with free markets? How ludicrous! Certainly some policies of government have been implemented in an attempt to "fix" the market, but that's not the purpose of government.

Let's look at the military. The purpose of the military is to conduct war. Some wars have religious causes, but most are political (too many landless knights so let's start a crusade and ship them all off). But I no of no war that was started because both sides had free market economies. Not one. Wars between nations occur because one nations wants to plunder or punish another nation.

We didn't do it--no one saw anything!

[Guru2Newbie]

The SEC called off its investigation in exchange for Microsoft's promise that it will not break the rules in the future, though the company is not admitting that it broke rules in the past.

Microsoft Testimony (a' la Bart Simpson):
1. We didn't do it. You can't prove a thing. No one saw anything.
2. We double-cross (heh) our hearts-hope-to-die-promise won't do it again.

D'OH! Did we say again? Since we never did it, how could we not do it again?
Yeah! Huh? What? Uh, wait, Your Honor, that's not what we meant either...motion to strike our ignorance from the record!

conspiracy theory

[terrymr]

This may just be me but something isn't right here:

Last week the wall street journal quoted a source at the SEC as saying that MS would face charges for misrepresenting its revenues.

Now the matter is settled in return for "A promise not to do it again" essentially the same terms that the Antitrust case was settled on.

If I didn't know better I'd think somebody in the higher levels of governement was pulling some strings here. (sarcasm mode off)

Microsoft Not Out of the Woods Yet.

[Anonymous Coward]

The response by the SEC to Microsoft's funny accounting methods couldn't even be described as a slap on the wrist. But apparently, Microsoft was speculating on its own stock knowing what the numbers were going to be. Some people believe there are going to be lots of lawsuits from those who lost money speculating as a result of the 'cookie jar' accounting methods that Microsoft used. I have no idea whether their lawsuits stand any chance however.

dot-com vs the real world

[Reziac]

Try this instead:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=c IOW hard goods, and I picked 'em cuz they were the first such company that came into my head)

Re:dot-com vs the real world

[Reziac]

Slashdot mangled the URL, but I meant to have folk compare IBM with BWA (Borg-Warner, who make aftermarket automobile parts and the like). Substitute BWA for MSFT in the original poster's link, and you'll get where I intended you to be. Geesh.

(I hate it when /. makes me talk to myself..)

Re:The $40 billion fallacy - wrong wrong wrong

[kurokaze]

When a company is liquidized, the creditors
(i.e. banks) get paid first BEFORE any
shareholder sees a dime.

So, the CREDITORS own everything, the shareholders get whatever is left over.

Do you believe in lying?

[3seas]

It's a simple question that really has a simple yes or no answer. Anything else is just an deceptive excuse.

Re:The $40 billion fallacy - wrong wrong wrong

[keefebert]

Not really, since the shareholders own the company, and the company owes the creditors, the share holders owe the creditors. Creditors get paid what they are owed, everything else goes to the owners.

It is not illegal and all software companies do it

[Anonymous Coward]

All software and services companies vary the way they recognize revenue.

They can recognize the revenues as the contract is sold, Amortize it over the life of the contract, or recognize it when the contract is completed. or recognize the full value anywhere inbetween when sold and when completed.

The laws give Microsoft the leeway to "reserve revenue."

It is also in the best interest of the company to hold back revenues and earnings if possible as taxes will tend to eat up additional earnings and prove to be no benefit to the company.

The problems occur when companies tend to recognize all sales when the contract is sold and do nothing if the full vlaue of the contract fails to materialze.

Microsoft has always had very conservative accounting practices, that is why the analysts love the company, not because Microsoft always beat the analysts. Microsoft beating the analysts will piss them off almost as much as not meeting expectations. Analysts liek to the 100% right, if they are 100% right, then their value as an analyst increases because it is more difficult to be 100% right. But the analysts know one thing, a conservative company like Microsoft is a mainstay of a portfolio and over time will always increase in value relative to the market over time.

Re:Analysts are not entitled to correct informatio

[Anonymous Coward]

However, it is likely that we will endure another period of economic ugliness like we did in the 70s before things brighten signficantly. It took nine years (1973-82) for the U.S. to determine a successful course of action after the end of the Vietnam War required the nation to turn away from a largely military-industrial economy to one better suited for a peacetime environment.

umm in the early 80s we just shifted to nuclear stockpiling and a cold-war economy with a much larger defense budget than what we had during or directly after the Vietnam War. Essentially, 73-82 was just the period between war-time economies, though the 80s didn't involve a lot of heavy military involvement.

And your better system is....?

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism? Socialism? Mercantilism? Anarchy?

The free market and capitalism is certainly not the perfect system; but it's the best one we've yet come up with given human nature and our current capabilities. It's naturally evolving, of course, and will probably evolve into a better system that we haven't yet discovered.

And if you think things like the police or military (never mind the other branches of government) are necessary solely due to the free market, you're a crackpot... ;)

why not the stock market too??

[Anonymous Coward]

shoot
If I got away with murder, (unproven non allegation just a phrase) if I got away with unfair and illegal business practices, AND then got away with all this other crap (ie putting programs integral to the o/s even after being told not to), and then continuing to force companies who want to sell my product to sell it with every computer they sell, AND then ...
well you get the picture, why not?

Re:Analysts are not entitled to correct informatio

[electroniceric]

The stock market of today is used by many people as a wealth-generation tool. People think that the stock market is around to help people make money.

I think is an incredibly insightful comment, and I encourage you to follow up on it more.

For my part I see a couple deep problems here:
The market is meta-capitalism - that is, it's not making money through doing anything, it's more or less making money through a loan. Risky loans, as they involve to trying to put a dollar value on a very complex operation (a sizable business) involving personal and economic dynamics of negotations between entities. One don't have any problem with the captains of Solomon Bros, etc losing their silk shirts, but I don't think people really understand the risk - particularly not working-class 401k contributors who are led into bad loans by well-connected shysters (Enron), or people who invest in mutual funds who rely on shyster analysts.

Another problem is:
Making money for money's sake is fundamentally incompatible with another function of the economy, which is to deliver services to people (I'd rather not use the word consumer, because I think it doesn't leave room for economic transactions that improve quality of life - e.g. working on your neighborhood' park cleanup effort, or working on another neighboorhood's park cleanup effort). Is there any way to reestablish the ethic of doing work for its own sake?

Another thing y'all may be able to fill in is a comment a friend made to me. He said:
The market is really driven by the big investment houses: Solomon Bros, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, etc. Index prices mostly react to the movements of huge amounts of money in these kinds of institutional transactions. Do you think this is true?
To me it reflects on a situation I think is unfortunate: the government is current afraid to assert its authority over big business because big business basically threatens to put a lot of people out of work (political death) if they don't get what they want.

Go take a poli sci class

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know why, but it seems like most Americans have this notion in their heads that when they vote, it has an impact on which president gets elected. In about half the states, this may be true. However, in the other half of the states, the electoral college (That body of people whose votes actually decide which president is elected) is not required to comply with their state's popular vote.

This is not news, popular votes and actual election results have differed several times in the US's history.

It's all there in black and white.

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/elector al _college/electoral_college.html

Different Interpretation

[OaITw]

The slashdot blurb focuses on Microsoft's delaying earnings to smooth out earnings reports and make sure they keep better expectations. Here is an article that explores the hypothesis that Microsoft is hiding earnings because as a monopoly they want to control the impression of success. "Well, when you're a
monopoly, churning out what some anti-capitalists believe are obscene
earnings year after year, you just might find it in your best
interests to hold back a bit, this analyst says." I think that this hypothesis is more severe than the smoothing hypothesis. Smoothing earnings is somwhat benign, your just covering up volatility. Hiding earnings over the long term to descrease the bad taste of being a monopoly is more corrupting.

Re:Different Interpretation

[OaITw]

I forgot to paste in the link:
http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/30/commentary/ bottoml ine/lashinsky/index.htm

Re:Analysts are not entitled to correct informatio

[ronfar]

Is there any way to reestablish the ethic of doing work for its own sake?

That's an odd question, because there are many reasons why people do work, but whether any of these are "work for it's own sake" is open to debate. For example, if a person builds model ships because he enjoys doing it, that might be "work for its own sake," depending on your definition. A significant amount of free software is developed under this ethic. There is an important point, though, I'm not going to build my model ships and give them away to people who want them unless those people are my friends (or maybe occaisionally on a whim). If I were to start a small business where I made such ships and sold them at a small profit, it would likely be more hassle than it is worth. So, I might make a ship to give to my cousin's son, but I wouldn't give it to you, and I also won't sell it to you. (Like I said, the minute it becomes the hassle of running a business, hiring accountants , complying with regulations, it stops being fun.)

I don't really consider altruism as "work for it's own sake," but perhaps this is what you meant. I might do altruistic work for people I know, or for the local Buddhist Temple where the monks are always nice to me, but I won't do it for people I don't like. The trouble with this is that people usually don't agree on valid reasons for disliking people. Honestly, altruism works better in tightly knit societies. It's doomed to failure as a way of getting things done in diverse societies. (People might also do work for religious reasons, such as to make merit to do "well" in their next life. However, if you do altruism to gain "treasure in heaven," then isn't that a kind of selfishness? There is a "gain" involved.)

Now, you might also mean taking pride in the work you do, even if it is for a profit. That's another matter altogether. For example, I think the thing that makes people sick about doing work for money is that so many people act like it is more valid to scam someone, and do crummy substandard work and get paid through the roof for it than it is to do good, productive work and make money on that. What do you expect? If you scam people, you do better than if you are honest. You won't pay as much in taxes if you are a huckster than if you are an honest man, you won't have to comply with as many government regulations, and you won't have any politicians in your back pocket who can regulate the economy such that you become a monopoly or part of a cartel while your competitors who won't or can't afford to play ball are crushed underfoot. I've watched crummy, corrupt businesses crush decent businesses (Bleem!) under foot using the courts. I've watched the media cartels pay the government to try to force computer manufacturers to sell screwed up, crummy, substandard computers and the issue is being sold as an aid to help consumers get broadband.

So I don't have any confidence in government fixing these types of problems. How can the government which brings us the DMCA bring us regulation to end corruption in finance?

hold the phone...

[morgajel]

we crucified enron but we're letting microsoft go?!
W T F?!
they're a known criminal who uses underhanded business tactics.

I'm a bit out of the loop, but with wallstreet looking into everyone who looks fishy, shouldn't microsoft be on top of the heap?

Re:Justice is served? Maybe on a plate.

[pitcrew]

Oh contraire - "regulations" are in fact so close to law that mere mortals can't tell the difference. Regulations correctly issued by government agencies have "the force and effect of law" until overturned by a court of legislated out existence by Congress. There are lots of people in jail today because they broke IRS "regulations". So for all practical purposes regulations issued by governmental agencies are law unless you can get a judge or congress to agree that they are unreasonable. This has happened but not too often and the risks are generally great!

MS's promise that it won't break the rules

[AntiNorm]

The SEC called off its investigation in exchange for Microsoft's promise that it will not break the rules in the future

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Microsoft is already a convicted criminal; calling off an investigation of them like this is no different than calling off all charges against a wanted criminal in exchange for their promise that they won't commit any more crimes in the future.

Marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

For the most part I agree with what you are saying, however, it seems to me that many people leave out marketing when talking about economics. I would argue that marketing and advertising play a substantially greater role than many free market supporters will admit. Increasingly, consumers are making decisions based on marketing and advertising strategies aimed at them rather than on a rational evaluation of a product. The problem with this is that "superior marketing" does not guarantee a "superior product" so no real productivity gains are made and, therefore, no new wealth is produced.

I really think that increasingly sophisticated and effective marketing strategies are a greater danger to working markets than most any other issue.

A great deal!

[erc]

Where can I get a deal like that? I go out, commit a bunch of crimes, and when I get caught, I cut a deal to get off the hook in exchange for my promise that "I won't ever do it again."

What kind of idiots do the SEC have investigating this stuff, anyway? Criminals don't respect the law - that's why we call them criminals. Why should anyone believe a liar, someone who has already committed crimes?

If they didn't have a reason to lie...

[jethro200]

Part of the problem is that many people looking to buy stock won't buy it if the earnings for that company aren't spectacular. The companies found this out, and therefore did everything they could to jack their earnings, or earning reports, up. If the people weren't so stupid, and bought stocks that were "just decent" in the first place, we wouldn't be in this situation now. People just pay so much undeserved attention to these people who make virtually baseless predictions on these "whispers" that they will buy up anything they say is good. Just what these corporate giants want. It is no surprise that MS is using questionable accounting techniques, that can almost be expcected from any "giant". The bigger issue is that the people aren't smart enough to decide which ones are good companies on their own. I do not mean to say that the companies should do these things, or that they aren't responsible for them, I simply mean to say that the people should expect them.

Re:Analysts are not entitled to correct informatio

[Beliskner]

I think the thing that makes people sick about doing work for money is that so many people act like it is more valid to scam someone, and do crummy substandard work and get paid through the roof for it than it is to do good, productive work and make money on that.

Strongly agreed. However capitalism doesn't force money-oriented gain to be the only acceptable type of gain. Remember the construction of the Empire State Building, expansion capacity for 10 more floors both structurally and electrically, and the electric generators have been running non-stop since 1920. I remember long ago when consumer goods like washing machine became widepsread that there was great concern that once every home had a washing machine, only maintenance would be required. All the washing machine factories would be shut. They were correct, those washing machines were built to perfection by a few large companies and were prohibitively expensive. The parts broke down almost like clockwork. 5 years for the control system, 15 years for the drum friction surfaces, 5 years for the drainage pump. If these parts were replaced an infinite number of times, the washing machine was made to last forever. It was constructed like a military device, everything was over spec, a geek's dream, the motor would have windings 20% thicker than necessary, engineers would carry spare carbon brushes as this was the only component subject to wear in the motor. A worn motor bearing would be replaced by removing the rotor from the motor housing and replacing the slip ring. Nowadays we just bin it when it gets old.

When the market approached saturation, the American product-style system came to Britain where washing machines are designed to break down after five years ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H to not last longer than five years. I remember there being digust at the low reliability and build quality, the units weren't constructed by hand. The burden of disposing this number of machines was considered prohibitive. The Americans argued that as time progressed the design and efficiency of new washing machines improved, but these improvements couldn't propogate unless the old products were disposed of, thus the American system allowed technological progress. Of course the Americans won the day, my washing machine will die in 3 years. US culture ingrains into its citizen that cash is king, you are what you have, a man with a ferrari is a better man than one with a 15-year odl Lincoln towncar. However surely changing this would be killing the American dream?

Re:Justice is served? Maybe on a plate.

[Anonymous Coward]

They were found guilty of breaking a federal law in court and that verdict was upheld on appeal. Why do you think they are in court now? To determine the penalty for breaking the law.

Re:Justice is served? Maybe on a plate.

[tswinzig]

They were found guilty of breaking a federal law in court and that verdict was upheld on appeal. Why do you think they are in court now? To determine the penalty for breaking the law.

Uhhh... you are talking about the anti-trust case, whereas I and the rest of the people on this thread are talking about the SEC investigation.

Re:Justice is served? Maybe on a plate.

[tswinzig]

Oh contraire - "regulations" are in fact so close to law that mere mortals can't tell the difference.

Who said I'm a mere mortal? ;)

Regulations correctly issued by government agencies have "the force and effect of law" until overturned by a court of legislated out existence by Congress.

The SEC is a government body that REGULATES the exchange of stock. They can fine you or your company for breaking the SEC regulations. They can do things to your public stock. They can cause you or your company to be criminally investigated, but they themselves are not able to put people in jail.

From their site:

"While the SEC has civil enforcement authority only, it works closely with various criminal law enforcement agencies throughout the country to develop and bring criminal cases when the misconduct warrants more severe action. "

There are lots of people in jail today because they broke IRS "regulations".

Can you give me some examples of broken IRS regulations that landed people in jail? Not paying your taxes doesn't count -- you must pay federal income tax, that is a law, not a regulation. So hopefully you are talking about something else?

Re:Analysts are not entitled to correct informatio

[Malcontent]

"Moral - don't trust an analyst. Do your own research. And hope you don't get screwed anyway in the end."

A sincere question for you.

What if I don't have the five hours per day it will take to thoroughly understand the very complex financial system of stocks and bonds? What is I am unable to understand it even if I do have the time? It takes a lifetime of study to understand just bonds for example.

What is your advice to the average Joe on the street. It sounds like you are saying "stay out unless you understand fully" knowing full well that the average Joe can't ever understand and do their own research. Are we headed for a future in which the individual investor should stay out of the market altogether?

Re:Justice is served? Maybe on a plate.

[Malcontent]

In our country we almost never prosecute rich people let alone corporations.

Cooking the books Enron-style

[SgtChaireBourne]

This would explain some of Microsoft's actions in regards to their new licensing and their BSA extortion-like activities. Perhaps it is not unmitigated greed, but greed plus the panic that they won't be able to find a new cash flow before the world finds out that their company is in the red.

According to an article in the Economist from August 5, 1999 entitled " Share and share unalike."

" For instance, Microsoft, the world's most valuable company, declared a profit of $4.5 billion in 1998; when the cost of options awarded that year, plus the change in the value of outstanding options, is deducted, the firm made a loss of $18 billion, according to Smithers."

Microsoft Financial Pyramid covers some of the issues up to Nov 1999. I can only assume that these practices have continued and that MS probably would tank if subjected to a proper audit. That's just the book keeping.

Also keep in mind that not only are OpenSource/Free Software breathing down their neck with increasingly viable desktop alternatives, but Oracle, Sun, IBM as well. Plus an increasing number of governments, lately Peru, China and Germany, are getting tired of their busness practices.

Now think about the software situation. Linux, QNX and others have them beat in the embedded OS market. Windows as a server OS is beat by Solaris, Linux, *BSD. Windows as middleware is becoming decreasingly competetive with Gnome and KDE. Aqua has it beat hands down, you can even run legacy apps like Ms-Word, which is about the only thing currently holding GNU/Linux back from the general desktop. However, OpenOffice and others are filling the gaps left by Lotus-123, Borland's Quattro, WordPerfect.

Then there are indications that there is no improvment on the horizon. For example the shift from software, to marketing to legislation. The way MS is working the punishment phase of the antitrust trial it looks that their products are unable to compete in a free market. Even die-hard MS fans cannot refute EWeek's report that "[Allchin] later acknowledged that some Microsoft code was so flawed it could not be safely disclosed." Maybe coincidentally, Bill has been shifting investment money out of Microsoft. If the rest of the top execs are offloading also, (this is speculation and it would be nice to see some real figures, but where can that type of info be looked up) then it would indicate no confidence.

So with out a cash flow or at least investor confidence, all Microsoft's troubles would bite them hard. Death by a thousand small bites, plus a few medium sized ones. Perhaps the SEC backed off to avoid popping Microsoft's baloon like just another overratted dot-com.

Or would it turn out to be a collapse more like Enron's.

Re:Analysts are not entitled to correct informatio

[Ravensfire]

What is my advice - work with a financial planner.

Seems simple, yes? Consider this - when your health is at risk, most people go to a doctor. Why isn't your financial health just as important?

During most of the 90's, you could throw darts and make obscene returns. Welcome to the current market, where the market moves in odd ways. It's harder to invest successfully in this market.

I do not advocate that Joe Average stay out of the market. Approached intelligently, the stock market is an excellent way to develop a solid plan for the future - large purchases, kids, retirement, etc.

My investment tool of choice is not a stock, but a mutual fund. I research the various funds, including their long-term history, markets they invest in and the history of the mutual fund family (VERY important!). I also look at the managers of the mutual fund - are they new? Where did they come from, etc. Here is an excellent resource for that. There are other sites as well.

I really like the mutual fund as an investment tool. They are managed by professionals who are capable of performing the research needed, and can respond quickly to market movement. Mutual funds also help to spread some risk out by investing in a variety of companies. This doesn't always help if an entire sector collapses, but it can mitigate losses.

Another option is to get a good stockbroker who will recommend stocks to you. Even there, a good rule of thumb is to stick with stocks you know something about - even if you just know what the company does. You can get into trouble investing in companies you've never heard of. At the very least, know the companies industry and have a rough idea of how well that industry is doing.

The best thing Joe Average can do is invest now. Immediately. Even if it's just a bit - it adds up. Try this - take two people. Adam invests $2,000 a year for seven years. He spends the next 25 years or so spending that money. Bob does the opposite - spends 2K a year for seven years, then saves it for 25 years. Assume a 10% interest rate - see how much they each have at the end. Pretty interesting.

Investing is complicated - establish a good working relationship with a professional and let him help you. Find someone that YOU feel comfortable dealing with. Trust your gut. Make sure you understand what they are saying, make the broker explain things to you. Ask why he likes certain investments, and not others. Make him answer the tough questions - a good broker will take the time to explain things to you.

I'm biased, but you are in the St. Louis area - try this company. Yeah - it's my dad's firm - I'm biased, remember?