The suit alleges Nokia lied to investors. This is very serious. Corporations lying to investors is not taken likely. If Nokia knowingly over-stated performance, then yes the suit has merit. Nokia had an entire year to turn things around. As it turned out, they did not. A bad 2012 1Q and project bad 2Q means Nokia is failing and that the deal with Microsoft did not help Nokia.
Learn a thing or two about corporate financial reporting.
I'm not sure why you were modded down as flamebait, because what you state is exactly true and to the point except for your conclusion that Nokia did not lie. Nobody knows that for sure, which is why there is the lawsuit to get to the bottom of it.
Unless Nokia said "We 100% guarantee a positive return on the Windows Phone investment for our part of your portfolio!" then there is no case. The effort to use Windows Phone to climb in the market is ongoing, and I highly doubt Nokia would be stupid enough to issue an actual promise for return to its investors.
That's not true at all. If Nokia told investors that things were improving when in fact they knew they were not, that is illegal. Case in point from the class action suit, Nokia told investors that the new phones were doing better than expected, but withheld the information that there were high failure rates and they were forced to offer $100 customer satisfaction payments back to unhappy purchasers. All the way upto and through the release of the phones, Nokia was painting a rosy picture and immediately afterwards, they announced that they would not be able to meet their quarterly estimates.
Corporations have to be careful as to how they lead investors on. Put differently, they have to be careful as to how they try and manipulate the market with regards to their stock price. It has nothing to do with guaranteeing a positive return. It has everything to do SEC regulations. Marketing hype is fine when told to consumers. It is not when told to shareholders and investors, at least not without disclosing it as marketing hype.
And why would Nokia choose a path where they were sure to fail? The guy filing the suit is a moron indeed. There's a reason it's called investing and not saving; there is a risk you lose all your money. He was free to sell his Nokia shares at the time. There was a chance that Windows Mobile would score big in the corporate world. It didn't.
That's his point. He would have sold his shares if Nokia was forthright in telling investors what the real situation was. Corporations are liable for information and promises they tell investors. Whether or not Nokia was misleading or not will be for the courts to decide.
What the courts will not be deciding is whether or not it was a good decision to go with Windows Mobile, only whether or not Nokia mislead the investors. These suits happen all the time.
IANAL but unless they did a clean room conversion to C#, then Oracle's patent, if valid, would still apply. In otherwords, if Android is found to infringe on Oracle's IP and they programmers examined the infringing code and converted it to C#, the the C# implimentation still infringes.
I don't think it is a question of a good or bad idea. As the summary surmises, a unified architecture could make it easier to build in a common backdoor for spying. This is an issue of making surveillance easier and this should hardly come as a surprise because a Communist country is entirely dependent upon controlling its citizens through the use of surveillance. Ultimately, by putting in place a mandate and enforcing it, it places additional costs and burdens on the businesses that must abide by these new regulations.
Could also be that they are so paranoid that the West has backdoors into the existing technology that they want to design their own.
I should also point out, that I had a staff of approximately 70 programmers, broken into smaller teams responsible for different projects, so we had time to bring on board, train and otherwise get up to speed the people from the business units. Much of the business dealt with various tax laws in various jurisdictions. Trying to train "programmers" in taxation was much more difficult than training tax experts in programming.
However, not all of the projects were as complex as that. Regardless, though, with the exception of two in fifteen years, they all were on time and under budget. Those two had major design changes in the course of development.
You trained them to program? Could you perhaps elaborate on what this "programming" was?
Depending on how far back you go and in no particular order, it included COBOL, Java, VB,.Net, C/C++, some RPG and even some Fortran.
Granted individuals had to know the business end and have an aptitude for programming. However, we were regularly on time and under budget. Remember, though, we were developing end user business applications and database applications, not low level programming.
Don't blame the bean counters. In my experience, they were always questioning why IT wanted to keep hiring outside consultants instead of using existing staff? It is the IT management that makes the decisions on who to hire and fire, not the accounting staff.
Don't get me wrong. Bean counters may say that IT is spending too much. But it is IT management that decides the current crop of engineers can't cut it and isn't worth training on new technologies.
I think all of this depends on the industries. In certain industries, banking, government, etc. "old" programmers are very much in demand. Why, because these industries value consistency, tradition and the like. In new industries, that change overnight, it is out with the old and in with the new.
When I was the DP manager for a large government agency, we found that taking employees who understood the business aspects of the agency and training them to program was much more effective than hiring programmers and teaching them the business. I haven't seen any data to suggest the same wouldn't be true in the private sector.
Turn off the email servers, network storage, databases, web services, and support infrastructure. There you go; you've excised the "IT kingdom" and returned to the 80's "Personal Computer" era when only the geeky managers might have a PC with Lotus to help them do their job. Congratulations.
And yet, somehow we put a man on the moon with even less than that.
Railways have been doing things that way because a generator and electric motors weigh less and are more efficient than a transmission and whatever gear boxes and trans-axles would be needed to shuffle torque from the diesel engines to the wheels.
And that would be different in a road vehicle how? If electric motors are to power our vehicles, a small gas powered generator with a small fuel tank is no heavier than the battery packs in use and the range is much further and does not require recharging (whether 30 minute quick charge or overnight full charge -- just 5 min gas station stop). There are still emissions, but they are greatly reduced since 2 gallons of fuel last 8 hours. Besides, producing the extra electricity at the power plant to recharge all of the rechargeable cars produces emissions, too (unless powered from nuclear or hydro-electric).
Genset is something we can start doing now without having to find some alternative energy source or some new battery technology or an unlimited supply of lithium for current technologies (if used on a mass scale) or how to upgrade the power grid to distribute the energy to recharge all of those batteries or even produce new power production to produce the energy.
Energy isn't free. Whether from gasoline or batteries, it has to come from somewhere. The advantage of using existing technologies to extend the range of vehicles such as genset, is it allows for new technologies to be developed.
I do agree that we need to go back to smaller lighter vehicles. There is a reason why a 1976 Honda got 40mpg. It weighed 1000lbs less than today's Honda. If inefficient engines of the 70s could produce decent gas mileage, think of what highly efficient engines of today could accomplish if they didn't have to be in such heavy vehicles.
But why this obsession with saving the species? Why not try to save the family or order?
We're humans. We consider ourselves more valuable than the rest of the Earth's creatures combined. If we do not survive then the rest of it doesn't matter because we won't be around to see it.
Of course, if the rest doesn't survive, we won't be around to see it, either. We really do have a symbiotic relationship with the rest of the planet.
No, you still aren't. In fact, it's the opposite. By showing that we can create DNA from scratch, we're showing that no supernatural intervention is necessary.
Actually, this has no bearing on supernatural intervention or not. It simply means that scientists were able to make organic molecules that replicate like DNA does. It speaks nothing to the actual process that took place for that to happen in nature.
It is just as valid to argue that since man was able to do it, there is not supernatural intervention required as it is to argue that since man is outside the parameters of the created environment, man acted as the supernatural intervention. In other words, the research and results have no bearing, whatsoever as to whether or not there was or is supernatural intervention.
Include an unfoldable solar panel in the car and a small pole to put a mini wind turbine on;)
Or, for those rare occasions when you're going to be driving 500 miles in a day, rent a small fifth-wheel add-on trailer with a fuel tank and generator set. The amount of power needed to maintain highway speeds is rather small, on the order of 10-15 horsepower. Several gallons of alcohol or a modest tank of compressed biogas can be refueled quickly during long trips. For the large majority of driving, though, you don't have to drag around the extra weight. Renting makes sense for people whose need is infrequent; if you're one of the people who have to make long-distance trips regularly, you can buy your own.
If you are going to go that route, then why not just put a small gas or diesel engine in the car to turn an alternator and power the electric motors that way. Railroads have been doing that for 90 years. A little honda generator runs 8 hours on two gallons of gas. At 60 mph, that equates to 240mpg. Even for city driving, say 20mph, that's still 80mpg.
Slashdot Mirror
Or an idiot - you - is born every minute.
The suit alleges Nokia lied to investors. This is very serious. Corporations lying to investors is not taken likely. If Nokia knowingly over-stated performance, then yes the suit has merit. Nokia had an entire year to turn things around. As it turned out, they did not. A bad 2012 1Q and project bad 2Q means Nokia is failing and that the deal with Microsoft did not help Nokia.
Learn a thing or two about corporate financial reporting.
I'm not sure why you were modded down as flamebait, because what you state is exactly true and to the point except for your conclusion that Nokia did not lie. Nobody knows that for sure, which is why there is the lawsuit to get to the bottom of it.
Unless Nokia said "We 100% guarantee a positive return on the Windows Phone investment for our part of your portfolio!" then there is no case. The effort to use Windows Phone to climb in the market is ongoing, and I highly doubt Nokia would be stupid enough to issue an actual promise for return to its investors.
That's not true at all. If Nokia told investors that things were improving when in fact they knew they were not, that is illegal. Case in point from the class action suit, Nokia told investors that the new phones were doing better than expected, but withheld the information that there were high failure rates and they were forced to offer $100 customer satisfaction payments back to unhappy purchasers. All the way upto and through the release of the phones, Nokia was painting a rosy picture and immediately afterwards, they announced that they would not be able to meet their quarterly estimates.
Corporations have to be careful as to how they lead investors on. Put differently, they have to be careful as to how they try and manipulate the market with regards to their stock price. It has nothing to do with guaranteeing a positive return. It has everything to do SEC regulations. Marketing hype is fine when told to consumers. It is not when told to shareholders and investors, at least not without disclosing it as marketing hype.
Shouldn't that read: Syrian Government Uses Microsoft Products To Push Malware To Activists since Microsoft owns Skype?
Maybe it's time to drop the free as in beer when talking about opensource and use free as in speech.
And why would Nokia choose a path where they were sure to fail? The guy filing the suit is a moron indeed. There's a reason it's called investing and not saving; there is a risk you lose all your money. He was free to sell his Nokia shares at the time. There was a chance that Windows Mobile would score big in the corporate world. It didn't.
That's his point. He would have sold his shares if Nokia was forthright in telling investors what the real situation was. Corporations are liable for information and promises they tell investors. Whether or not Nokia was misleading or not will be for the courts to decide.
What the courts will not be deciding is whether or not it was a good decision to go with Windows Mobile, only whether or not Nokia mislead the investors. These suits happen all the time.
I would mod you up if I had mod points to give out today.
Was this before or after Microsoft signed a multi-billion dollar deal with B&N?
That of course was a typo and should have read multi-million, but doesn't change the implication.
Was this before or after Microsoft signed a multi-billion dollar deal with B&N?
IANAL but unless they did a clean room conversion to C#, then Oracle's patent, if valid, would still apply. In otherwords, if Android is found to infringe on Oracle's IP and they programmers examined the infringing code and converted it to C#, the the C# implimentation still infringes.
I don't think it is a question of a good or bad idea. As the summary surmises, a unified architecture could make it easier to build in a common backdoor for spying. This is an issue of making surveillance easier and this should hardly come as a surprise because a Communist country is entirely dependent upon controlling its citizens through the use of surveillance. Ultimately, by putting in place a mandate and enforcing it, it places additional costs and burdens on the businesses that must abide by these new regulations.
Could also be that they are so paranoid that the West has backdoors into the existing technology that they want to design their own.
Without automatic cleanup, it was only a matter of time before C/C++ rose to the top of the heap.
I should also point out, that I had a staff of approximately 70 programmers, broken into smaller teams responsible for different projects, so we had time to bring on board, train and otherwise get up to speed the people from the business units. Much of the business dealt with various tax laws in various jurisdictions. Trying to train "programmers" in taxation was much more difficult than training tax experts in programming.
However, not all of the projects were as complex as that. Regardless, though, with the exception of two in fifteen years, they all were on time and under budget. Those two had major design changes in the course of development.
You trained them to program? Could you perhaps elaborate on what this "programming" was?
Depending on how far back you go and in no particular order, it included COBOL, Java, VB, .Net, C/C++, some RPG and even some Fortran.
Granted individuals had to know the business end and have an aptitude for programming. However, we were regularly on time and under budget. Remember, though, we were developing end user business applications and database applications, not low level programming.
TFA points out that it takes *longer* for the older programmer to find the job. This has nothing to do with how many older guys are out there.
It takes longer for most older people to find jobs. It has nothing to do with being a programmer or not.
From TFA:
Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook has blurted out that young programmers are superior
And his great achievement as a programmer, that gives him the right to judge programming abilities, is ...?
Maybe he is just admitting that he is beyond his 7 years of superiority and now it's time for Facebook to cut him loose.
Don't blame the bean counters. In my experience, they were always questioning why IT wanted to keep hiring outside consultants instead of using existing staff? It is the IT management that makes the decisions on who to hire and fire, not the accounting staff.
Don't get me wrong. Bean counters may say that IT is spending too much. But it is IT management that decides the current crop of engineers can't cut it and isn't worth training on new technologies.
I think all of this depends on the industries. In certain industries, banking, government, etc. "old" programmers are very much in demand. Why, because these industries value consistency, tradition and the like. In new industries, that change overnight, it is out with the old and in with the new.
When I was the DP manager for a large government agency, we found that taking employees who understood the business aspects of the agency and training them to program was much more effective than hiring programmers and teaching them the business. I haven't seen any data to suggest the same wouldn't be true in the private sector.
Turn off the email servers, network storage, databases, web services, and support infrastructure. There you go; you've excised the "IT kingdom" and returned to the 80's "Personal Computer" era when only the geeky managers might have a PC with Lotus to help them do their job. Congratulations.
And yet, somehow we put a man on the moon with even less than that.
Railways have been doing things that way because a generator and electric motors weigh less and are more efficient than a transmission and whatever gear boxes and trans-axles would be needed to shuffle torque from the diesel engines to the wheels.
And that would be different in a road vehicle how? If electric motors are to power our vehicles, a small gas powered generator with a small fuel tank is no heavier than the battery packs in use and the range is much further and does not require recharging (whether 30 minute quick charge or overnight full charge -- just 5 min gas station stop). There are still emissions, but they are greatly reduced since 2 gallons of fuel last 8 hours. Besides, producing the extra electricity at the power plant to recharge all of the rechargeable cars produces emissions, too (unless powered from nuclear or hydro-electric).
Genset is something we can start doing now without having to find some alternative energy source or some new battery technology or an unlimited supply of lithium for current technologies (if used on a mass scale) or how to upgrade the power grid to distribute the energy to recharge all of those batteries or even produce new power production to produce the energy.
Energy isn't free. Whether from gasoline or batteries, it has to come from somewhere. The advantage of using existing technologies to extend the range of vehicles such as genset, is it allows for new technologies to be developed.
I do agree that we need to go back to smaller lighter vehicles. There is a reason why a 1976 Honda got 40mpg. It weighed 1000lbs less than today's Honda. If inefficient engines of the 70s could produce decent gas mileage, think of what highly efficient engines of today could accomplish if they didn't have to be in such heavy vehicles.
But why this obsession with saving the species? Why not try to save the family or order?
We're humans. We consider ourselves more valuable than the rest of the Earth's creatures combined. If we do not survive then the rest of it doesn't matter because we won't be around to see it.
Of course, if the rest doesn't survive, we won't be around to see it, either. We really do have a symbiotic relationship with the rest of the planet.
No, you still aren't. In fact, it's the opposite. By showing that we can create DNA from scratch, we're showing that no supernatural intervention is necessary.
Actually, this has no bearing on supernatural intervention or not. It simply means that scientists were able to make organic molecules that replicate like DNA does. It speaks nothing to the actual process that took place for that to happen in nature.
It is just as valid to argue that since man was able to do it, there is not supernatural intervention required as it is to argue that since man is outside the parameters of the created environment, man acted as the supernatural intervention. In other words, the research and results have no bearing, whatsoever as to whether or not there was or is supernatural intervention.
You don't want too much oxygen, especially since it's flammable.
and corrosive.
Big Oil will eventually run out of oil and have no choice but to turn to batteries for cars.
Just as in the future Big Lithium will eventually run out of lithium and have no choice but to turn to ??? for cars.
Like oil, lIthium is not an unlimited resource.
Or,
for those rare occasions when you're going to be driving 500 miles in a day,
rent a small fifth-wheel add-on trailer with a fuel tank and generator set.
The amount of power needed to maintain highway speeds is rather small,
on the order of 10-15 horsepower.
Several gallons of alcohol or a modest tank of compressed biogas
can be refueled quickly during long trips.
For the large majority of driving, though,
you don't have to drag around the extra weight.
Renting makes sense for people whose need is infrequent;
if you're one of the people who have to make long-distance trips regularly,
you can buy your own.
If you are going to go that route, then why not just put a small gas or diesel engine in the car to turn an alternator and power the electric motors that way. Railroads have been doing that for 90 years. A little honda generator runs 8 hours on two gallons of gas. At 60 mph, that equates to 240mpg. Even for city driving, say 20mph, that's still 80mpg.