Skip to Content
Btw it's 6.24 million not billion CNN focked up. http://www.intomobile.com/2008/03/17/correction-germany-asks-nokia-for-624-million-not-billion-for-research-subsidies.html#respond
Even ignoring that, how does ~€4 billion + €92 million = €6.2 billion?That's crappy maths however you look at it.
Ummm... Re-read the article: the $92 Million was USD and the $6.4 billion was U.S. too.
6.2 sorry
Sorry, you're right, I mis-typed.But my point still stands, the maths used in the article before it was corrected was awful.
Name
E-mail
E-mail:
Password
Remember Me
E-Mail me when someone replies to this comment
Add your comments:
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.
Please note that gratuitous links to your site are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments. And yes, comments are moderated.
Other Weblogs Inc. Network blogs you might be interested in:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Pdexter @ Mar 17th 2008 8:27AM
Btw it's 6.24 million not billion CNN focked up.
http://www.intomobile.com/2008/03/17/correction-germany-asks-nokia-for-624-million-not-billion-for-research-subsidies.html#respond
Iain @ Mar 17th 2008 8:30AM
Even ignoring that, how does ~€4 billion + €92 million = €6.2 billion?
That's crappy maths however you look at it.
sirsilencedogood @ Mar 17th 2008 8:33AM
Ummm... Re-read the article: the $92 Million was USD and the $6.4 billion was U.S. too.
sirsilencedogood @ Mar 17th 2008 8:34AM
6.2 sorry
Iain @ Mar 17th 2008 9:39AM
Sorry, you're right, I mis-typed.
But my point still stands, the maths used in the article before it was corrected was awful.