Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (124183)	9/18/2000 10:41:58 PM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571399

Ted, So smog, created in large part by auto pollutants, is not responsible at all for acid rain nor asthma. Thank you for that...I'll feel much on trips to LA. the coal burning power plants and car both contribute their share, I do not know which one contributes more pollutants. But the coal burning plants can be easily replaced with modern nuclear plants. Many European countries did it. Europe would probably be an environmental nightmare if they burned coal for energy. If you can come up with viable alternative for cars, go ahead. You will be a very rich man if you succeed. Unfortunatelly, nobody succeeded yet, after billions of dollars of research. The problem with nuclear energy is that its a dangerous source of power that scientists do not have total control over....and people in general feel threatened by it. The Chernoybal's of the world do not help matters. People felt threatened by horses, cars, trains, subway, airplanes. You always have some morons out there and many polititians claim them as their electorate. I don't know how the Chernobyl accident compares with slow and steady release of pollutants from coal burning plants. It would be a good subject for a study. Because companies and gov't work almost at cross purposes....gov'ts are supposed to benefit all the people whereas companies are only concerned about their owners/shareholders and their directors; hence the constant antgonism between gov't and the private sector. But the result is that no one benefits. We could have provided a lower bid and a higher quality service. And if CSCO made all the demands that gov't does, I bet your company would learn the rules behind those demands real fast. None of the customers asked us for anything like that. Actually, we didn't even keep the dates of birth of our employees, and we were only forced to do so in order to give our employees an option to enroll in 401k plan. I know...why should your company give a sht re the people in Burma or Ireland...there's no profit in that.* Suppose that we went ahead with the bid and stated that we deeply care about people of Ireland and Burma, how much good would it do? And what I mean by this question how much real good would it do? I don't mean the standard liberals use, that is how good I would feel about myself for saying so, and how good would the politicians who made me say so feel good about themselves. Joe

To: tejek who wrote (124183)	9/19/2000 10:20:51 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1571399

Providing services to government is an absolute nightmare as well. Our company was invited to submit a bid for a government contract, and after reading about all of the paperwork needed, about invading the privacy of our employees in order to satisfy all the racial / ethnic reporting that the idiots in the governmetn requires, we determined that the additional overhead was more that the value of the contract, and we did not bid. Because companies and gov't work almost at cross purposes....gov'ts are supposed to benefit all the people whereas companies are only concerned about their owners/shareholders and their directors; hence the constant antgonism between gov't and the private sector. Governments frequently act to benefit the government leaders or small special interests rather then "all of the people". In my opinion the paperwork and regulation that Joe encountered is an example of this. Tim