Nikesh Arora named CEO of Palo Alto Networks
San Francisco, June 3: Former Chief Business Officer at Google, Nikesh Arora has been named the CEO and Chairman of the US-based security firm Palo Alto Networks.
After leaving Google in mid-2014, the high-profile executive became president of SoftBank and was heir apparent to its charismatic founder Masayoshi Son. But Arora left two years later amid some controversy, recode.net reported on Friday.
Arora has replaced Mark McLaughlin, who will now serve the cybersecurity company as Vice Chairman.
Arora said that while he had long wanted to become a CEO, he would be working closely with McLaughlin and also co-founder and CTO Nir Zuk, the report said.
"I may not have a background in security, but with my background as an engineer, I can sit down with Zuk to help guide the next generation of products we can offer," recode.net quoted Arora as saying.
McLaughlin said that the decade-old Palo Alto Networks now serves 50,000 companies globally and has 5,000 employees.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
LS passes bill to open up nuclear sector for private participation
New Delhi (PTI): Lok Sabha on Wednesday passed the nuclear energy bill with Union minister Jitendra Singh asserting that it would help India achieve its target of 100 GW atomic energy generation by 2047.
The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Bill, which seeks to open the tightly-controlled civil nuclear sector for private participation, was passed by voice vote amid a walkout by the opposition.
Singh termed the bill a "milestone legislation" that will give a new direction to the country's developmental journey.
"India's role in geopolitics is increasing. If we have to be a global player, we have to follow global benchmarks and global strategies. The world is moving towards clean energy. We too have set a target of 100 GW of nuclear energy capacity by 2047," he said.
The opposition contended that the bill diluted provisions of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 that passed on the liability for a nuclear incident on to the suppliers of nuclear equipment.
