Any proof of this or is this your "opinion"?
"Clinton, on the other hand, is a sexist with an agenda. She'd be "bringing gender balance to the government" by replacing men with women on key positions - even with a shortage of adequately competent female candidates. Skill be damned, gender matters - she'd actively discriminate against male candidates, with disregard for actual qualification levels. She'd allow female supremacists to push their laws through, and obstruct their opponents"
Very melodramatic. People buy what they want and what they like. This is a classic example of "oh, this doesn't work for me so it must be crap" syndrome.
Nope. Andersen Consulting and Arthur Andersen were sister partnerships under the Andersen Worldwide umbrella. There was a growing tension between the two organizations as AC had to pay an annual fee to the AA (audit) partners. In the 90's, the consulting business was growing very rapidly compared to the audit and tax business, and the annual fee got to be very large. At the same time AA starting building up their consulting practice, so AC was in essense subsidising its own competition.
In 1999, AA took AC to court and charged that AC owed them $11 billion in damages. When the dust had cleared, AC paid AA a breakup fee (far less than the $11B) and agreed to reliquish the Andersen name. AC then rebranded as Accenture and went public and AA became "Andersen".
Accenture wasn't involved with the Enron scandal. While Andersen took the impact and disintegrated, not everyone lost their jobs. Parts of Andersen were sold off to other consulting companies or were spun off on their own.
Slashdot Mirror
Any proof of this or is this your "opinion"? "Clinton, on the other hand, is a sexist with an agenda. She'd be "bringing gender balance to the government" by replacing men with women on key positions - even with a shortage of adequately competent female candidates. Skill be damned, gender matters - she'd actively discriminate against male candidates, with disregard for actual qualification levels. She'd allow female supremacists to push their laws through, and obstruct their opponents"
Very melodramatic. People buy what they want and what they like. This is a classic example of "oh, this doesn't work for me so it must be crap" syndrome.
It's not just about cost any more. The *capability* to churn out 10's of millions of complex devices a month now resides in those countries.
The article shows nothing about hardware...so he is right.
This is nonsense - Microsoft doesn't "lose" any money. Matket cap changes but there is no loss on the income statement.
Speculation has always driven some aspect of the price. It's got nothing to do with "today's market".
Not sure I understand your comment - I suspect the "venture capitalist company" *wanted* to sell to Google. A 10x ROI is always good...
The VC's and founders take a larger percent of the total than the rest of the employees. So the $25MM you mention is way off base.
Thanks.
In 1999, AA took AC to court and charged that AC owed them $11 billion in damages. When the dust had cleared, AC paid AA a breakup fee (far less than the $11B) and agreed to reliquish the Andersen name. AC then rebranded as Accenture and went public and AA became "Andersen".
Accenture wasn't involved with the Enron scandal. While Andersen took the impact and disintegrated, not everyone lost their jobs. Parts of Andersen were sold off to other consulting companies or were spun off on their own.