Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Writes Off $6.2 Billion From aQuantive Acquisition

Posted by Soulskill on from the money-for-nothin' dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft had high hopes for aQuantive when it paid $6.3 billion to acquire the combo online marketing services vendor/advertising agency in 2007, evidently in response to Google's acquisition of DoubleClick. 'Microsoft is intensely committed to creating a thriving advertising business and to partnering closely with all key constituencies in this industry to help maximize the digital advertising opportunity for all,' declared CEO Steve Ballmer. Yesterday Microsoft wrote off $6.2 billion of its investment in aQuantive, as its online division continues to struggle. MS-watcher Mary Jo Foley points out this is one in a list of bad purchases from Microsoft. On the bright side, Microsoft managed to recover an estimated $500 million three years ago from the deal when it sold off the Razorfish ad agency (not sure why this amount wasn't subtracted from today's writedown)."

115 comments

  1. All these big companies write off everything! by rehabdoll · · Score: 4, Funny

    oblig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCZRqH7sRyA

    1. Re:All these big companies write off everything! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking more along the lines of this.

    2. Re:All these big companies write off everything! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and sometimes those big companies have losses in other areas they don't want you to see so they move money around so they can write off everything and not scare investors.

  2. Accounting terminology by Compaqt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Any accountant want to explain exactly what "wrote off" means?

    Granted a unit might not be making as much profit as desired, but does this mean they gutted the whole thing, sold the desks, and gave the chairs to Steve Ballmer?

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Accounting terminology by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Informative

      As I understand it, it means that MS effectively says they now have $6.2 billion less in assets. When they bought aQuantive, they spent $6.3 billion, but got an asset that they valued at the same level, meaning their assets stayed more or less the same. Now they recognize that it isn't worth that, so they "write it off" (most of it anyways) in recognition of that fact.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Accounting terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just means they don't expect it to make any money.

    3. Re:Accounting terminology by MikeMo · · Score: 1

      It means it moves to the bottom line as a loss, and is no longer an asset.

    4. Re:Accounting terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "writeoff" means to transfer a "receivable" (money/value you're expecting) to an "expense" (money/value you've spent).

      By "writing" it into the current fiscal period's expenses, you get it "off" the books so that it does not distort future reports.

    5. Re:Accounting terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means that they made aQuantive worth $0 in their books.

      Since we all love analogies, assume you inventoried the contents of your basement and valued your XBox 360 at $200. Then you got the Red Ring of Death, which caused the thing to become worthless. You'd open up your inventory and change the value to $0. That'd be a write off. (similar to MS here, if you subtract that write off from your income and not be taxed on it)

    6. Re:Accounting terminology by alexander_686 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have not read the article but

      If you look at the annual reports you will find “book value of assets” which is the cost of the asset minus any depreciation.

      Then take a look at MSFT’s “Goodwill”, which will be a subcatagory of book value. This is the difference between the book value of a company (ifor example aQuantive) being bought vs. the purchase price.

      However, sometimes the asset you have purchased is not worth anything, It’s been burnt to the ground or some such thing. You can’t hold onto this defunct asset at book cost if there is a “permanent material” event . So one makes a accounting judgment and write down the asset to correct level.

      Book and Goodwill are are “hard” numbers – in the sense that there is little accounting judgment involved. You can only write these down - Unlike financial institutions you can’t “mark to mark” these assets to a higher level during a bubble to generate fathom profits.

      Which answers the OP question about Razorfish. An accountant had made an accounting judgment that Razorfish was dead. It affects the balance sheet (assets / debits), is reported to the shareholders but does not trigger any tax questions. This year they were able to find a little value. It affects the Income (Revenue / Expenses) and triggers taxes.

    7. Re:Accounting terminology by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      It is an accounting term. It means to essentially zero the value of an investment or debt; a credit to assets (reducing the company's worth) and a debit to some sort of expense account (thus reducing the company's net income). A good example is customer debts you may be carrying (Accounts Receivable). At some point, particularly if the debts are small, or attempts at collection have failed, you're not going to want to keep that asset on the books (seeing as you never actually were able to convert the customer debt into cash, and have been paying income tax on it), so you write it off as a bad debt (a credit to Accounts Receivable and a debit to Bad Debts Expense).

      Now, obviously in the case of a very large corporation, where individual units may operate as autonomous or semi-autonomous interests in their own right, the accounting becomes much more complicated, but at the end of the day, a write off of an investment means to remove it from the books by reducing to zero whatever is left in the Balance Sheet.

      Any physical assets like buildings, equipment and so forth, would be another set of accounting operations, depending on their value. Either they'll be sold off, disposed of or absorbed by the larger operating unit.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    8. Re:Accounting terminology by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      When a company acquires another company, that acquisition becomes a part of the balance sheet of the acquirer. Essentially, the value of the assets they purchased are recorded as if they are worth what they paid for them.

      Much of this value, especially with software companies, is carried in the form of "goodwill" on the balance sheet. This is the excess payment over and above the book value of the acquired company (i.e. the value of its assets). If a company gets bought out for $6.3 billion dollars and had $100M in book value assets recorded on their own balance sheet (computers, chairs, buildings, machinery, etc.), then the acquirer records $6.2B in goodwill on their balance sheet,

      If the assets that were acquired generate fewer profits than expected, the company may have to record what's called a "goodwill impairment" - the stuff they bought has been demonstrated to be worth less than $6.2B, so they have to record a paper loss in their annual profit and loss statement, which comes out of the goodwill asset on their balance sheet. In theory, the accountants are supposed to look at the business unit every year to see if there is any impairment of value that would require the reporting of a loss associated with the goodwill impairment of that unit. In practice, these things often seem to just sit around for a few years then get pulled out of a hat when the CFO decides fuck it, we're losing money this year anyway, time to write off all that dumb shit we've been carrying on our books that we bought before the economy went kerplop.

      Even worse the a goodwill impairment, the entirety of that goodwill can be written off, creating a paper loss equal to almost the amount they originally spent on the company. Which is apparently what happened here.

      It's like Microsoft took $6.2B and lit it on fire. They just didn't realize it had all burned up until now, even though the actual cash was gone several years ago.

    9. Re:Accounting terminology by bman49er · · Score: 1

      Good analogy. But can they then sell it for a profit untaxed?

    10. Re:Accounting terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, you may recall RIM did this as well. It allows you to show what your business is actually doing more accurately (e.g., growing vs stagnating). No sense keeping losses on the books for no reason. For example, a 1% growth in a stock viewed before a writeoff vs after a writeoff is a much different picture (e.g., the 1% is a lot bigger gain before the writeoff than after) but after gives you a better idea of what the actual company is doing and is more open to investors and the like.

    11. Re:Accounting terminology by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Not legally. No.

    12. Re:Accounting terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It usually means they placed a value of $XXX on an asset (perhaps by purchasing it, sometimes by just making it up), and are now admitting that the asset isn't worth that much. During the dot com boom a lot of companies claimed an asset called "good will", which meant they thought the company's brand/reputation/customer base/whatever was worth something. After a while they quit kidding themselves (if no fool like Ballmer has purchased them) and write it off. My favorite was when AOL "lost" $99 Billion by writing it off. Even though they never made that much and were never worth that much. But it looked cool on their balance sheet for a while.

    13. Re:Accounting terminology by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      I am not sure what "profit untaxed" means.

      When they sell it they move it from a unrealized capital loss (a.k.a. write down) to a realized loss. They can use the realized loss to offset other profits (lots of exceptions) lowering their tax bill.

    14. Re:Accounting terminology by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      No. They can sell it but the revenue would be taxable income. Broadly similarly if you own a computer for your consulting business you can 'depreciate' it (mark down the value) a certain amount each year as its value in the real world declines, and take that amount off your income for the year. Then if you sell it, the income from selling it, minus the remaining un-depreciated value, is income that you have to pay taxes on. If you sell it for less than the depreciated value then you can take the difference off your income for tax purposes.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    15. Re:Accounting terminology by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Any accountant want to explain exactly what "wrote off" means?

      I'm not an accountant and I don't need to be to know that it means "recognized a loss".

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    16. Re:Accounting terminology by vlm · · Score: 2

      Any accountant want to explain exactly what "wrote off" means?

      As an experienced investor dude, not a licensed CPA, heres how writeoffs for purchased companies work. I'm taking a step back from the "what" answers to attempt to answer "why". As in why does it happen and why is it being posted today, as opposed to last week or next year.

      The traditional way to do R+D was to pay cash up front in salaries and parts, and maybe something cool and profitable fell out, or maybe not. See Bell Labs, HP in the glory days, etc.

      The modern way to do R+D is to let a startup do the real R+D on their own and get it started up, then the failed ideas die and the good ideas are bought for big money. Sometimes BIG companies are bought as "new wave R+D" instead of little startups. Maybe for as much as 6 billion bucks. The advantage for the big company is they invest later when its "more obvious" if a tech is any good, and if it bombs after purchase like this story, then the big corp gets to pick when to accept and post the losses, based on coordinating with other mysterious financial activities, etc. There is a certain limit to the BS allowed and eventually you have to report losses even if you don't want to. I have not been following MS enough to tell if this loss is being posted on their schedule or someone elses.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    17. Re:Accounting terminology by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

      It's like Microsoft took $6.2B and lit it on fire. They just didn't realize it had all burned up until now, even though the actual cash was gone several years ago.

      Of course they realized it. But it is always in the Microsoft nature to cheat, even to the extent of breaking the law, which they may well have done in this case. (Yes, GAAP is law in the sense that not following it is fraud.) Now it is fair to ask, what game are they playing by loading the entire loss into a single quarter?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    18. Re:Accounting terminology by the_humeister · · Score: 1

      Well, it's more like a wealth shift. There's always at least two sides to a transaction (exception being destruction of currency which can be a one side transaction). The other side got the $6.3 billion, and hopefully ran away with it and never looked back.

    19. Re:Accounting terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming MSFT incurred debts, the journal entry of this $6.2 billion that has not been paid by its customers would be:
      Bad Debt Expense 6.2b
                          Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts 6.2b

      Now because due to some event, usually after a certain period expires, the company decides that they would be not be able to collect that debt. Therefore, MSFT would remove that amount of books. Similarly, when credit companies do not have expect someone to pay back after a certain time elapsed, they would remove that amount.

      Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts 6.2b
                      Accounts Receivable 6.2b

      This effectively remove the amounts off their books. If the debt was later repaid after this removal, they would simply reverse these entries. Now the overall affect is a reduction in asset since the Accounts Receivable account has been reduced.

    20. Re:Accounting terminology by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

      No sense keeping losses on the books for no reason. For example, a 1% growth in a stock viewed before a writeoff vs after a writeoff is a much different picture (e.g., the 1% is a lot bigger gain before the writeoff than after)

      I believe you have that backwards.

      If you have a $200M balance sheet and earn $1M then your numbers look like 0.5% rate of return. Lets say the execs want to boost that rate of return (why is a whole nother topic). If the assets are really only worth maybe $100M then you write off the "fake" $100M and suddenly you're earning the same $1M on a $100M balance sheet which is double the previous rate, a stellar 1% rate of return.

      There are other reasons to write off. Lets say you're a small company (obviously not MS) trying to get acquired. For ego reasons or whatever your balance sheet is a little inflated. BigCorp and you want to make a deal but they aren't paying the inflated balance sheet amount. So you write off to "correct" your net worth to something BigCorp is willing to pay.

      Another strategy for writing off is that writing off $400M is not really more of a career or market issue than writing off $300M, its seen as a one time isolated "event" as long as you don't make a habit of it. So you write off more than its actually lost, so as to make every quarter for the next ten years look better than reality. Kick it down worse than it really is, let it float back up to reality slowly making it look like you're doing amazing management things rather than merely financial trickery. Usually you can see this strategy if they refuse to sell the "worthless" asset later... That becomes an interesting strategic issue because you might be brought up on criminal charges for false accounting if you sell the "worthless" asset next month for half price rather than zero, so the strategic issue is MS cannot get out of that business or sell the remains of the asset for ... awhile.

      Another write off strategy (probably not in this case) is to make it a very non-traditional poison pill. Suddenly your balance sheet looks ickier, making you less of a takeover target (not an issue for MS). But nothing has really changed in business operations. So you're not gonna get financially raided, probably, if you write down your balance sheet to an icky level. Not relevant for MS, but a reasonable strategy in a non-monopoly industry thats undergoing merger-fever.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    21. Re:Accounting terminology by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      In addition to what everyone else has said, a company will sometimes take an opportunity like this to write off a lot of other unproductive junk that's been sitting around on its balance sheets, along with the (former) asset that dominates the writeoff. I've seen this referred to as "taking the big bath."

      When a company writes off several billion dollars' worth of assets and their stock doesn't go straight to hell, that's because the market understands that it's just a periodic house-cleaning event, and that future quarters will look stronger as a result.

    22. Re:Accounting terminology by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Slashdot: News for accountants, stuff that doesn't matter.

    23. Re:Accounting terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding is when you buy a company, you take cash, factories, buildings, equipment, etc and add them to your balance sheet (basically, the balance sheet of the other company). Then you subtract the amount added from the amount you paid and create another entry for that called "Goodwill". Then you slowly shrink Goodwill as you make future profits. If you lose hope for making profits, then you write off your goodwill. This would imply that virtually all the purchase price went into goodwill or that the bulk of the rest were some assets that became worthless at the same time that the company was written off.

      It is not clear to me how legal this is if the employees are re-orged into a related line of business that includes substantially similar services.

    24. Re:Accounting terminology by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

      When a company writes off several billion dollars' worth of assets and their stock doesn't go straight to hell, that's because the market understands that it's just a periodic house-cleaning event, and that future quarters will look stronger as a result.

      Or it is because investors are asleep at the wheel. Of course that never happens so we must reject it as a possibility.

      Next question: how long before Ballmer drives Skype to zero?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    25. Re:Accounting terminology by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      I don't think MSFT is doing a "Big Bath" - just a normal sized one.

      Taking a "big bath” happens when new management is installed or some other type of structural change

      When new management is installed they will look for every dubious investment and declare it worthless. They want the biggest write offs and ascribe all of the loss & blame to the prior management. If any of junk comes back to life it is because of current management’s brilliance and they grab the credit.

      One could make the argument that MSFT is setting us up for next year. Nothing much happened this year but Windows 8 comes out next. Make this year look trashy so next year really pops?

    26. Re:Accounting terminology by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      What the hell are you talking about? It's expected to write the loss from a single event into a single quarter - hell I don't even think you can legally spread losses. The reality is exactly as they claim - they bought something with hope of making it successful, and it failed so they wrote the loss down. I don't see how you can see that as some sort of conspiracy (unless you're a tinfoil-hat wearing schizophrenic) since it makes them look bad. Very bad.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    27. Re:Accounting terminology by zlives · · Score: 1

      +1 insightful

    28. Re:Accounting terminology by ackthpt · · Score: 1

      Any accountant want to explain exactly what "wrote off" means?

      Granted a unit might not be making as much profit as desired, but does this mean they gutted the whole thing, sold the desks, and gave the chairs to Steve Ballmer?

      They're devaluing their initial investment .. as a result of, once again, not having a clue what they are doing.

      If Microsoft hadn't a near monopoly (at one time) their repeated failures would harbinge writing down their core business and eventually failing.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    29. Re:Accounting terminology by sander · · Score: 1

      No, they made it worth 100 million usd. Fail at simple math much?

    30. Re:Accounting terminology by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

      It wasn't a single event. Microsoft knew years ago that the value of Aquantative was seriously declining. But did Microsoft's shareholders?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    31. Re:Accounting terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, do losses like this also offset profits, and therefore affect taxes? Could expected losses be regarded as an investment in lower tax rates in the future? ;-)

    32. Re:Accounting terminology by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Bingo, they lost 6.2 BILLION on the deal. So can we ALL agree now that Forbes had it nailed when it called out Ballmer as being the worst CEO? i mean how many billions has he blown now on shit deals since he took over? 15 billion? 20? More? He makes the Pepsi guy at Apple look like Jobs for the love of pete!

      Hopefully the abortion that is Win 8 will be the final nail in Ballmer's coffin and the board will force him to "pursue other interests" and bring back someone like Ozzie or Allchin to right the ship because they only have two cash cows, Windows and Office, and Ballmer is gonna take a steaming dump on one in Oct just so he can yet again try to rip off Apple and pretend people want a WinTab like an iPad. I mean look at this video folks which is a typical reaction to windows 8 from what I've watched here at the shop with a Win 8 CP set up for anybody who walks in to play with. its not intuitive, its not discoverable, hell it doesn't even follow cell phone conventions, instead acting like some sort of bad hybrid of Windows and some Smartphone.

      I agree with Foley, this is just one of a loooong line of bad moves made since Ballmer became CEO. His "strategy" seems to be 1.-Buy or build a half assed product based on something Apple or Google already does better, 2.-Fail miserably. Yeah, great corporate direction you got there Steve, really setting the world on fire with THAT one.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    33. Re:Accounting terminology by PedroDeAlvarado · · Score: 1

      In double-entry accounting (which is the only proper way to do accounting), one entry reduces assets, and the other increases expenses. So they simultaneously "write off" the asset, and "take a hit" to earnings.

    34. Re:Accounting terminology by Raenex · · Score: 1

      +1 Depressing, and an example of why I don't invest in stocks.

    35. Re:Accounting terminology by drkstr1 · · Score: 2

      That was almost identicall to my mums experience. I'm no MSFT hater, but bad design is bad design. Had one of my designers presented something this unintuitive, I would have sent them out on their ass.

      --
      Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
    36. Re:Accounting terminology by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      So, is it analogous to writing $6.2B purchase price, $100K sale price on your Schedule D?

      (That would take a long time at $3K/year maximum writeoff!)

    37. Re:Accounting terminology by breeze95 · · Score: 1

      In addition to what everyone else has said, a company will sometimes take an opportunity like this to write off a lot of other unproductive junk that's been sitting around on its balance sheets, along with the (former) asset that dominates the writeoff. I've seen this referred to as "taking the big bath."

      When a company writes off several billion dollars' worth of assets and their stock doesn't go straight to hell, that's because the market understands that it's just a periodic house-cleaning event, and that future quarters will look stronger as a result.

      Or the market expected it and the stock price is already reflecting that fact.

    38. Re:Accounting terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that MSFT shares went up today after hearing the news yesterday, the evidence is that shareholders either knew or didn't care to know.

    39. Re:Accounting terminology by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      They spent $6.3 billion, but claim that what they got was only worth $100 million (which is probably the book value of the desks and chairs and such). So when tax day rolls around, they'll pay taxes on $100 million instead of the full $6.3 billion.

    40. Re:Accounting terminology by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it was a single event. They bought it. That's the value of the company, and they only just realised that purchase was a gigantic unrecoverable fuckup (as opposed to a recoverable one, where you might refrain from writing it down because you think it might actually gain the value you attributed to it eventually).

      Of course, this is a complete waste of time - you will refuse to believe anything about Microsoft that doesn't involve them being evil (as opposed to fiscally irresponsible, which is this case).

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
    41. Re:Accounting terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The secret plan behind Win8 is to make it look bad enough that people will rush to upgrade from XP to 7 now while it's still available, so that they can keep using it for years to come.

    42. Re:Accounting terminology by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      When a company writes off several billion dollars' worth of assets and their stock doesn't go straight to hell, that's because the market understands that it's just a periodic house-cleaning event, and that future quarters will look stronger as a result.

      Or it is because investors are asleep at the wheel. Of course that never happens so we must reject it as a possibility.

      Next question: how long before Ballmer drives Skype to zero?

      What, some driveby Microsoft astromod found that question uncomfortable? Face it, as long as you people are like you are, you will get criticism like this. Why don't you just do the right thing and slit your wrists.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    43. Re:Accounting terminology by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

      I love the way you Microsofties do your creative accounting. Too bad it isn't GAAP. Looking forward to seeing at least a few of you in jail when the reckoning finally comes.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    44. Re:Accounting terminology by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      That is what just blows my damned mind, if I didn't know better I would SWEAR it was somebody at MSFT trolling. I mean didn't they do ANY focus groups? Hell even take it to an average mall and let some of the people there try it?

      I'd say I have to be at over 400 people now that have tried it at the shop, everything from little old ladies to kids, small business owners to working stiff and NOBODY has liked it or even been able to figure out WTF to do with the damned thing. It is the most unintuitive design I have ever seen, hell a bottom of the line Android phone is easier to use than the flagship OS of the largest desktop company on the planet! Seriously WTF MSFT?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    45. Re:Accounting terminology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And bloody useful when you're about to release a product (for example Win8) that you're expecting to fail abysmally!

    46. Re:Accounting terminology by ryzvonusef · · Score: 3, Informative

      I am an ACCA student, and I will try to explain this in simple, ELI5 terms.

      *Disclaimer*; I am merely an ACCA *student*, NOT a professional qualified accountant, and especially not yours. Do NOT use my explanation as a basis for anything.

      First to answer your question:

      1-"Write off" means decreasing the value of an asset, and charging that decrease as an expense/loss to your profit.

      2-The reason why aQuantive was worth more than number of the chairs it had for Steve to throw, is down to a magical term called "Goodwill"

      ----
      Now the explanation (Warning, explanations maybe exceedingly simple and *not* strictly following accounting principles) :

      1-To explain it, an asset is simply anything that helps you to earn revenue. ANYTHING. Not only the widget that your factory churns out by the millions, but also the chair you are sitting on at work, and the swipe to unlock patent your company has.

      Assets often suffer a decrease in value, often due to things like wear and tear, but also, such accounting concepts as impairment (which is account-ese for "come down to earth"). So if its value decreases, you "write it off" and take "written-off" part away from your hard-earned profit as yet another darn expense.

      2- How much do you think a company is worth? How do measure it anyway?

      There are two-fold problems when valuing a company: How much each *individual* asset is worth, and how much are they worth, when put *together*.

      For the first, it slightly simpler; call in the Valuer! He goes around valuing stuff, like how much would this creaky chair with a crack in the back left leg cost, if I were to tell the buyer it's an authentic "Thrown by Steve".

      Problem comes for intangible stuff, like Google's search engine setup; now obviously it worth A LOT, since it earns them all the revenue they can fill up their caskets with, but...just how much, exactly?

      If you can get a market value (Steve would buy it for *this* much, even if just to burn it up in spite) that's okay, other wise you get in a bit of a fix. But never despair, valuers are professionals, they can guesstimate pretty good.

      But let's get to the other problem: How much is a company worth, *all* together? Basically, a company's worth is greater than the sum of its individual parts (you may have heard of this phrase before; ever heard of the word synergy?)

      Basically, Microsoft's worth is not just the sum of Windows, Office, Hotmail, Xbox and Steve's authentic thrown chairs put together. Together, they earn A LOT more revenue, than if the code and the chairs were auctioned off. This extra bit is called Goodwill.

      And since this "Goodwill" helps to earn that previously unexplainable extra revenue, it can now be categorised as an asset.

      How do you measure this goodwill? Well, we call in the Valuer's big brother; Company Valuer. Again, using science and magic (everything from share price movement to dividend growth history to reading chicken entrails), he comes up with a value for this goodwill.

      And all was well.

      Or was it?
      -----

      So now back to our scenario:

      Microsoft wanted to buy aQuantive and called in the valuers. They did their magic and came up with a value: This much for the chairs, this much for the uber-secret advertisement formula, this much for the goodwill that makes aQuantive tick. Total: around 6 billion.

      Steve wrote a check for 6 billion and that was that.

      Note however the the last two items in the list were most likely heavily guesstimated. And now it turns out, the valuers were BAD guessers. Very bad guesser. 6 billion worth of bad guessing.

      aQuantive is not worth the 6 billion that was spent on it, since it's not earning revenue like it would have, were that 6 billion had been spent to buy more chairs for steve to thrown and sell off.

      So it's value has decreased. And when an asset's value decreases, we write off that decrease as a expense/loss against our profit.

      And now you know.

      ----

      If there is anything I could explain further, or any misconception, please let me know.

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
    47. Re:Accounting terminology by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Thanks for sharing. You're the bookeeping version of that guy with the sig that says "Ask me about biology."

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    48. Re:Accounting terminology by ryzvonusef · · Score: 1

      She is gal and she is kick ass. I am just a lame student.
      But nevertheless, you are welcome :)

      --
      I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
  3. Kill advertising! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I really wish these software companies would focus on making software products, and forget about advertising. Advertising is killing privacy. A company that focuses on enterprise applications should do just that, and kill the advertising business.

    1. Re:Kill advertising! by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      With all the free software around, advertising is one of the few remaining ways to make money.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    2. Re:Kill advertising! by camperslo · · Score: 2

      How would the potential customers know about those enterprise apps?

      An advertising model that is effective sticks around, even if offensive in various ways. Part of the measure of effectiveness is the cost. Traditional non-net advertising is generally expensive to distribute.

      You can avoid looking at ads and filter them, but using search engines to find things you'll buy is also part of the picture. Although largely free services like craigslist have eaten into classified ads, there doesn't seem to be any popular non-commercial alternative for search engines. Perhaps some would be willing to contribute code or operating costs to such an effort? I'm not sure how many would work very hard to produce that for free (to users). Alternatives to Facebook and other services would also need to be built, but even they they'd be data mined externally.

      If MS has focused on what USERS wanted, not the paid-ad exploitation side of things, they might have been able to offer a search product that made their OSes or hardware significantly more appealing because it DIDN'T do nasty things to users. That, along with domains that banned external ads and scripts from sites, could make the net experience much different.

  4. Salute to Steve by MikeMo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    :Hoist: "May Steve Ballmer be the CEO for as long as it takes!" /drinks hearty ale

  5. A Reduction of Taxable Income by eldavojohn · · Score: 2
    I'm not an accountant but from the wikipedia page:

    In income tax statements, it refers to a reduction of taxable income as recognition of certain expenses required to produce the income.

    I'm guessing that on Microsoft's assets and liabilities balance sheets, they have finally realized (meaning evaluated currently) that the "investment" of $6.3 billion dollars is no longer worth more than a hundred thousand. So perhaps they knew this for a while but have now finally acknowledged it as an opportune time. Say they expect to bring in huge revenue this year and now this loss will counteract that. When you hear "it's a tax write off" it is usually referring to you reducing your taxes by counterbalancing your incoming revenue with a realized loss. Examples: You give a car away, you are paying off pure interest on your home, etc. In Microsoft's case, they made a bad investment and now their books are reflecting that. I'd imagine SEC regulates this kind of thing pretty tightly to stop manipulation of stocks and whatnot but I don't know those regulations.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  6. I've got a better deal by Quirkz · · Score: 1

    I would gladly sell my services to Microsoft for a mere million. Even if I fail badly they'd only be out a small fraction of the losses they keep racking up buying large failures. Most likely I'd fail a lot less and get them a much better return on their investment.

    --
    The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
    1. Re:I've got a better deal by drooling-dog · · Score: 2

      Indeed. The numbers that these companies deal with are mind-boggling, and the valuations so seldom seem justifiable. Maybe part of it boils down to strategic panic, but the egos of everyone involved play a part, too, I think. None of these executives want to be messing around with smaller deals than their peers, even if they're on the paying end.

    2. Re:I've got a better deal by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I would gladly sell my services to Microsoft for a mere million. Even if I fail badly they'd only be out a small fraction of the losses they keep racking up buying large failures. Most likely I'd fail a lot less and get them a much better return on their investment.

      Dear Quirkz, Thank you for your interest in joining the Microsoft family. We have decided that there is a position in Redmond that will be perfect for you and we feel that your monetary requirements meet our needs. We offer excellent benefits, including medical and long term disability. Please report first thing Monday for the "Sr. Moving Target" position in the Chair Toss division. Sincerely, S. Ballmer.

    3. Re:I've got a better deal by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's arrogance as well. There guys continuously see themselves as the "smartest people in the room" and wanking each other off as Randian "productive people" and even a multi-million or billion dollar mistake can't budge that delusional behavior.

    4. Re:I've got a better deal by muon-catalyzed · · Score: 1

      You need to golf with MS executives, then your bad business will be worth billions not millions.

    5. Re:I've got a better deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about the numbers at the end of the day. Funny that you're making fun of those who see themselves as the "smartest people in the room" and you don't even understand what this "failure" looks like at the end of the day. They made good cash and got to slip out of paying some taxes doing it. It's fairly certain that they made more money in this transaction than what every visitor to Slashdot will make in their lives.
       
      But it makes me wonder... why is it when some companies claim a loss the Slashtards are run out screaming that it's creative accounting but other times you guy try to make it sound like a real failure? I guess you need to twist the opinion to make it suit your need to somehow be the "smartest people in the room" by claiming you know all the failures and all the lies but at the same time most of you are lucky to ever get to be a systems admin at a large company let alone the owner of your own profitable business.
       
      Slashdot has more sour grapes than just about any other place I've ever seen. Come back and lecture to me where MS, Apple or Oracle went wrong when you have a soapbox made of solid gold to shout from.

    6. Re:I've got a better deal by Surt · · Score: 1

      Before: 6B in cash and stock banked. No advertising platform.
      After: $0 cash and stock, tax benefit of a few hundred million, no advertising platform.

      A clear win for shareholders.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    7. Re:I've got a better deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to John Carmack. He's a member here.

    8. Re:I've got a better deal by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      Heh you're too far down and no one will see this, but thanks for the funny reply.

      What we're struggling with in this article is that for something like an ad agency, not a military hardware division, how can you possibly lose that much money? That's like saying that you have 100,000 people working for 60k each and you got zilch from it. It's like saying how can you possibly have 100,000 people working on something and have nothing at all (write off) to show for it?

      That's why these stories are a mess.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    9. Re:I've got a better deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Listen to yourself. Microsoft just admitted a loss of 6.2 billion US dollars and you see the failure not in Microsoft but in "slashtards"?

  7. Microsoft is like Ford Motor Company... by __aavqan3009 · · Score: 2

    Sure, they invented a mass production method that brought automobiles to the masses, but they eventually spent most of their time doing the opposite of General Motors. Microsoft is playing the same game, countering everyone else in the tech field for no good reason.

    1. Re:Microsoft is like Ford Motor Company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... should they get wasted, throw away money, then get the federal government to come in and give them a sweet-heart deal?

    2. Re:Microsoft is like Ford Motor Company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ford didn't get bailed out, but thanks for playing.

    3. Re:Microsoft is like Ford Motor Company... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Aside from Ford not doing that, it sounds better than MS current strategy.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Microsoft is like Ford Motor Company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, if more companies were like Ford (I'm looking at you, GM, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and Bank of America), I, and a great deal many other people in the US would be much happier.

    5. Re:Microsoft is like Ford Motor Company... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Ford did get money from the initial bailout pool given by the Bush admin. but unlike the other companies they saw how much people disapproved so they only used a fraction of the money and returned the rest, and unlike GM they actually did pay all the money back. (GM used fancy accounting tricks like using round 2 money to pay off the initial loan and claimed they payed it back but when you look more carefully they only paid back the orig. load, not the others)

      They did however not taking any further bailout money when the Obama admin was in charge of rounds 2+.

      Ford also actually attempted to re-brand themselves and took a look at the RD depts. and designs they basically went though the same processes as ch. 11 bankruptcy but without actually going though bankruptcy. (cut costs, better efficiency, re-shuffles etc...)

  8. Re:I do (+ malware, botnets & more) by Trashcan+Romeo · · Score: 2

    Doesn't your Time Cube take care of all that?

  9. Reminds me of the lion who adopted the antelope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and would not let it out of its site so it eventually starved to death.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSJYIEk5n6o

  10. Re:I do (+ malware, botnets & more) by Patch86 · · Score: 1

    Does a Time Cube come with MyCleanPC?

  11. Ah yes, another OFF-TOPIC TROLL, lol! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The day you disprove this point-by-point -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2955165&cid=40532317 , is the day you've actually made any "headway" against me. Until then? Get this straight: I AM LMAO @ U!

    Why? Nobody here ever has disproven a single point to date from that writeup...

    * Yes, it's THAT simple... & thus, good luck disproving my points in the link above - you'll NEED it!

    APK

    P.S.=> You off-topic /. trolls TRULY do make me laugh - is the "Best You've Got" vs. my post (link above) only trolling? Please...

    ... apk

  12. "Rinse, Lather, & Repeat", off-topic troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2955165&cid=40532477

    APK

    P.S.=> I love you trolling off-topic worms... why? Well, easy:

    b>You make me LOOK GOOD, everytime, running from a challenge I put to you (because when I challenge you to disprove the points in my posts on hosts files?? LOL, not a SINGLE ONE of you ever has)... I love it!

    ... apk

  13. $Six billion here, $six billion there by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    $Six billion here, $six billion there, soon you'll be talking real money.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:$Six billion here, $six billion there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lose a little on each one, make it back in volume...:-)

    2. Re:$Six billion here, $six billion there by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      For comparison, $6B is roughly what Microsoft makes in one quarter.

    3. Re:$Six billion here, $six billion there by Tough+Love · · Score: 1, Funny

      And tell me what stockholder in their right mind would be happy with losing a quarter's profit? Oh right, a Microsoft shareholder because by definition they are lobotomized and don't care about anything.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:$Six billion here, $six billion there by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, as a Microsoft shareholder, I'm not happy about it in the slightest. Hopefully this gets brought up in the annual shareholder meeting (but then of course everyone will already forget by November).

  14. Closing Shop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder if someone in management is being asked to close shop for new management?

  15. Automated headline generator by PPH · · Score: 1

    "Microsoft Writes Off ${amount} From {businessVenture}."

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  16. All the trolls have is a bogus downmod vs. apk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trolls challenged to disprove his points on hosts files ran here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2955165&cid=40532477 and here when challenged to disprove those points of his on hosts files yet again here http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2955165&cid=40532523 and I expect he's just laughing all the more at them. APK wins again since my post will drag his back into view.

  17. MONEY IS YOUR GOD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You lose. Men with tiny penises require it or they get none. You have a tiny one.

  18. will even one MS VP lose their job? by Surt · · Score: 1

    I doubt it. MS seems to have decided that they should be a failure incubator.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    1. Re:will even one MS VP lose their job? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that their business model? Kill a company one way or another.

      I guess a $6 billion write-off dead company is better than a healthy company continuing to operate without MS hands on them.

  19. Hope I played some small part in that by PingXao · · Score: 1

    Too lazy to do any research on it right now, but if this was an online advertiser whose ads I blocked with Adblock Plus and said ad blocking hurt them.... Good! Glad I could help.

    1. Re:Hope I played some small part in that by Kalriath · · Score: 1

      Ad companies are paid CPM. Content publishers are paid CPC. You had statistically zero impact on this company.

      --
      For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
  20. Must be nice. by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

    I wish I could f**k up $6.2 billion worth, and still keep my job.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    1. Re:Must be nice. by Swampash · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Hell,that's nothing. Ballmer has sat twiddling his thumbs and ignored online search, online advertising, social networking, the digitisation of the music industry, portable music players, mobile telephony, and the tablet market. Now I ain't no computar genious, but I hear some companies have filled those gaps and are making good money.

    2. Re:Must be nice. by Swampash · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Xbox, which by my calculations has cost Microsoft's shareholders a round THIRTY BILLION for no return.

  21. Wow, 6.2 Billion... by NalosLayor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wow, 6.2 Billion. That's a damn big chunk of change to spend and get nothing to show for it. I'm pretty sure Elon Musk could build a permanent manned moon base for 6.2 billion, and Microsoft, apparently can't even sell an ad. Of course, this is emblematic of Microsoft's lost decade (the years since Bill became a philanthropist): Microsoft decides a field is going to be hot, buys a reasonable player, mangles it, and then six months later shuts it down as a "failure". They have become like a child with ADHD -- abandoning things as soon as the next shiny object passes into view. It's sad, because they seem to be unable to learn from their experiences.

    1. Re:Wow, 6.2 Billion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they're the last people aware of what's shiny, then they buy a mediocre player, brand it, and hype it up as Shiny 2.0, then wonder why it doesn't sell.

  22. Re:I do (+ malware, botnets, & more) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Advertisers, botnet herders, malware makers, n' webmasters fear apk and downmod his post on hosts for no reasons and ran from his challenges to disprove his points on them point by point as he put them out. They ought to! How else would they make any money to buy women with, and you know they're in that sad situation in this life stuck with 2" penises.

  23. It's a tax trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bought for six billion = business cost = add asset and pay income taxes
    Write off to zero = six billion loss = save income taxes on the six billion you made this year

    nuff said
    Dave_Matthews

  24. Re:The flipside by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    You would be surprised what a good marketing and advertising campaign can do to your business.

    We all hate them as they take money away from IT or salespeople make unreasonable expectations and gets bonuses for screwing you over and having you work overtime for free, but you would not be there without them. Psychological manipulation to have people remember your product or company is the only thing that helps a startup. The sales team bring in a shitload of money to pay for your salary.

    Economic wise I agree as 1/3 of a price of a car is just advertising according to my college economics book. But in reality if your employer doesn't use it a competitor will and take your job away. If your ad is not on Google Ad-sense in 2012 you are frankly dead.

    What Microsoft needs though is not more advertising but better marketing. They need to make products more in tuned with the wants of corporate users who refuse to leave XP (think there is a reason there), and consumers. When Metro bombs next year they will surely regret not doing more market research. It seems to me they are trying to get more advertisers for BING with this acquisition, but meanwhile 85% of its users prefer Google and they need to focus on why to fix Bing. I try Bing all the time and it just is not as good as Google when you search or ask technical questions. It is 6 years behind.

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
  25. Re:Metro by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Damn, this is a complicated world.

    Thing about Metro is, I'm sure they *did* do research. The question is, "what kind?"

    Rumbles are emerging that the old school MS crowd using desktops are going to be in for a ride. MS is apparently betting the farm on some kind of ethereal Mobile-esque strategy.

    What I don't get is that the tablets won't run the desktop versions of Apps, so what "Windows" value lies there?

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  26. Too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft is too little, too late to even make a dent in the online ad biz. Google saw the writing on the wall and ran with it, and, as a consequence, they are the current 800 lb. gorilla in the ad space.

    Google will not dominate forever, No one can, Look at Apple. Love them or hate them, they have come out of nowhere to be the most successul hardware company on the planet. They, too, will not hold this title forever.

    I think what becomes the downfall of too many companies is they want to have a hand in everything. I firmly believe in do one or two things and do them well. Google does search and ads very well with little competition. Apple, however, short of bought judges, will lose the hardware game to what I believe is the better products from Samsung and others.

    Microsoft needs to focus on moving it's core competencies to the "cloud", not messing with things it will never dominate in like mobile, search, advertising. Windows 8 looks to be a major albatross for them. I've been running it now for a few weeks and it is not intutitive -- and I'm an IT guy with almost 15 years experience in Windows, Mac, and Linux desktops.

    Do one or two things well like so many successful companies do. Look at In and Out Burger. They rock the hamburgers better than any other chain restaurant. They do hamburgers and fries only and they do them better, IMHO, than anyone else short of homemade custom burgers.

  27. Re:Metro by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Lets look at Apple in comparison? Their applets are more research driven for UI. On the IPAD I can use tabs on safari, the icons are pretty, everything is polished and detailed to the very way the icons move when I turn the device. Metro is very raw and not market research driven. Sure the R&D said tablets are the future, but Metro was not tested like IOS was.

    Apple did the opposite approach with its applets running in MacOSX. It is just implemented terrible as a rush similiar to Vista .. just get the damn thing out already. The result is XP is still strong and wont damn die from that mistake.

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
  28. Uh Oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1993 was the year the internet went public.

    19 years later and M$ still does not understand what to make of it.

    LoL

  29. Basic Marketing 101 rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't sell people what they don't want (metro + ribbons vs. the Win9x shell + menus we're used to for decades now).

  30. Too bad they didn't also acquire Yahoo at the time by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    the bill would have counted one more digit...

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  31. MSFT is dying, Ballmer to blame. by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

    Balmer instituted a stack review process which is better suited for a sales organization rather than a software development company. That process is killing morale and innovation. Everyone there is afraid to work on side projects for fear of being reviewed as mediocre or at the bottom.

    See:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-was-destroyed-by-its-stack-review-process-according-to-new-vanity-fair-expose-2012-7

    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  32. No one's mentioned Facebook? by DomHawken · · Score: 1

    Strange no one has mentioned the fabled IPO in any of these comments. Strikes me as a very similar analogy.

  33. I do (+ malware, botnets, & more) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use hosts files for "HBO Internet" here - no ads (see my 'p.s.' below, in detail, for your reference) to COMPLIMENT & OVERCOME PROBLEMS IN DNS & OTHER MECHANISMS LARGELY!

    Custom hosts files gain me the following benefits (A short summary of where custom hosts files can be extremely useful):

    ---

    1.) Blocking out malware/malscripted sites
    2.) Blocking out Known sites-servers/hosts-domains that are known to serve up malware
    3.) Blocking out Bogus DNS servers malware makers use
    4.) Blocking out Botnet C&C servers
    5.) Blocking out Bogus adbanners that are full of malicious script content
    6.) Getting you back speed/bandwidth you paid for by blocking out adbanners + hardcoding in your favorite sites (faster than remote DNS server resolution)
    7.) Added reliability (vs. downed or misdirect/poisoned DNS servers).
    8.) Added "anonymity" (to an extent, vs. DNS request logs)
    9.) The ability to bypass DNSBL's (DNS block lists you may not agree with).
    10.) More screen "real estate" (since no more adbanners appear onscreen eating up CPU, Memory, & other forms of I/O too - bonus!)
    11.) Truly UNIVERSAL PROTECTION (since any OS, even on smartphones, usually has a BSD drived IP stack).
    12.) Faster & MORE EFFICIENT operation vs. browser plugins (which "layer on" ontop of Ring 3/RPL 3/usermode browsers - whereas the hosts file operates @ the Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode of operation (far faster) as a filter for the IP stack itself...)
    13.) Blocking out TRACKERS
    14.) Custom hosts files work on ANY & ALL webbound apps (browser plugins do not).
    15.) Custom hosts files offer a better, faster, more efficient way, & safer way to surf the web & are COMPLETELY controlled by the end-user of them.

    ---

    * & FAR more... read on below IF you are interested (for detail).

    AND, for those of you that run Microsoft Windows 32 or 64 bit? An automated hosts file creation & mgt. program:

    http://securemecca.com/public/APKHostsFileInstaller/2012_06_01/APKHostsFileEngineInstaller32_64bit.exe.zip

    (You simply extract its files to ANY folder you like (usually one you create for it, doesn't matter where, but you MUST run it as administrator (simple & the "read me" tab shows how easy THAT is to do))

    What's it do for you?

    It's a custom hosts file mgt. program that does the following for end users (Calling it "APK Hosts File Engine 5.0++") after it obtains custom hosts file data from 12 of the reputable & reliable sources listed below:

    ---

    1.) Offers massively noticeable increased speed for websurfing via blocking adbanners

    2.) Offers increased speed for users fav. sites by hardcoding them into the hosts file for faster IP address-to-host/domain name resolutions (which sites RARELY change their hosting providers, e.g.-> of 250 I do, only 6 have changed since 2006 - & when sites do because they found a less costly hosting provider? Then, they either email notify members, put up warnings on their pages, & do IP warnings & redirectors onto the former IP address range to protect vs. the unscrupulous criminal bidding on that range to buy it to steal from users of say, online banking or shopping sites).

    3.) Better "Layered-Security"/"Defense-In-Depth" via blocking host-domain based attacks by KNOWN bad sites-servers that are known to do so (which IS, by far, the majority of what's used by both users (hence the existence of the faulty but for most part working DNS system), AND even by malware makers (since host-domain names are recyclable by they, & the RBN (Russian Business Network & others)) were doing it like mad with "less than scrupulous", or uncaring, hosting providers)

    4.) Better 'anonymity' to an extent vs. DNS request logs (not vs. DPI ("deep packet inspection"))

    5.) The ability to circumvent unjust DNSBL (DNS Block Lists) if un

  34. Keep blowing modpoints, trolls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll run out of them (but I won't in my ability to post as much as I like here), so...

    "No, no trolls" - I'm not going to ALLOW that, & I'll just post it again!

    See - Until you dorks can disprove every single point I made in my posts, your computer technically unjustified downmods are worth squat...

    * Not a SINGLE ONE of you has disproven those points to date either after YEARS... which only makes me laugh @ the little weasel(s) downmodding the truth of them!

    APK

    P.S.=> Go on - keep BLOWING YOUR MODPOINTS, I can post it all again, in seconds (with NO post limits)... apk

  35. Fighting the forces of evil by empoweru · · Score: 1

    http://commissionloophole.empower-network-1.com/

  36. Re:Write Off? by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

    If Slashdot had an edit feature, I could delete this after noticing the previous identical post.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people