Slashdot Mirror
Symantec Stock Tanks After Announcing An Internal Probe (cnet.com)
An anonymous reader quotes CNET:
Symantec shares plummeted roughly 20% on Thursday after the antivirus maker warned an internal investigation could delay its annual report. The plunge followed news that the audit committee of Symantec's board had launched an internal investigation into undescribed concerns raised by a former employee. The probe is being aided by independent counsel and other advisers, the company said in its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings report. Symantec said it had informed the US Securities and Exchange Commission of the probe and intends to share information collected during the investigation with the commission.
CRN reports that the investigation "is not tied to any security concern or breach around Symantec's products or systems, Cynthia Hiponia, vice president of investor relations, said during the company's earnings call Thursday."
CRN reports that the investigation "is not tied to any security concern or breach around Symantec's products or systems, Cynthia Hiponia, vice president of investor relations, said during the company's earnings call Thursday."
Symantec is still around? I remember the days in which if you wanted to fix a computer, the first thing was 'uninstall Norton antivirus' ðY
He said internal probe Heh, hehehe
Don't you just love it when the extreme abbreviation required for headlines makes it ambiguous and it takes you three or more reads to figure out what they meant? Or am I the only one who was confused by this one? In my defence, as a non-American, I'm not that used to "tank" as a verb. Verbing weirds language.
As an American I had no trouble with it. Here company names are treated as singular nouns. So if the headline were actually describing the fact that Symantec as a company was stocking tanks, it would be worded "Symantec stocks tanks". The fact that there was no "s" immediately signifies that it's referring to Symantec's stock, not the act of stocking. Also, the phrase "tanking stocks" and the many variations are commonly used here, almost exclusively, if not totally exclusively, in reference to stocks on the stock market.
As a Brit, my first thought was that they were getting military vehicles, perhaps because the probe might provoke violence.
Clearly that's silly, when you reflect on it. I'm sure there are whole websites devoted to ambiguous headlines, and I'm pretty certain some of them are deliberately written that way either for publicity or just 4 lulz.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You're embarrassing yourself, Shlomo
I think it might be a cultural/country thing. As a US citizen (but also as a person who is into finance) the headline made sense to me. When a stock goes down a noticeable amount, 'plummets' or 'tanks' are often the verbs used to describe it.
"There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
They are stocking tanks with internal probes on them, obviously.
...it is tied to a security concern and/or breach.
Symantec revoked our SSL cert last week. It didn't expire. They didn't ask. They just published a revocation and suddenly, unexpectedly, our web site could not be reached.
They can burn.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
To tank is a perfectly fine verb in English. I'm not a native speaker, but I've seen that verb countless times. I only realised the headline could be interpreted as 'stocking military tanks' after reading these comments. Maybe it's because Slashdot is anyhow mostly about finance/law/copyright/Apple?
My experience working at Symantec (damn near 20 years ago) was that the Gen-X'ers in management were taking 3 hour lunches at Olive Garden while spending the rest of their time in the office chatting about their personal lives rather than doing any actual work. The IT department was a room that the neckbeards tried to keep the door closed to, while the Gen-X'ers detested the obese ragged appearance of the techs (little has changed in that regards today.)
My experience in IT at a place that used the corporate edition of Symantec's anti-virus product was that it regularly failed to update itself and was very reliable at detecting virus infections, but only after the virus had finished dropping its payload. I championed removing Symantec and giving users 30% of the performance of their machines back, but management was living in fear of the Sarbanes-Oxley boogeyman. We always ended up using MalwareBytes to clean the machines which would have been a better investment.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!