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: i-node who wrote (618081)	7/2/2011 11:36:13 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1583507

France Bans Fracking; New York Set to Un-Ban It CONTROVERSIAL PROCESS EXTRACTS NATURAL GAS FROM GROUND By Kevin Spak, Newser Staff newser.com Posted Jul 1, 2011 2:15 PM CDT (NEWSER) – France became the first country to ban fracking yesterday—even as reports surfaced that New York was about to lift its de facto moratorium on the controversial practice of extracting natural gas from the earth. The French vote split along party lines, but the opposition largely came from the Socialist Party, which didn’t think the ban went far enough because it contains loopholes that allow the exploitation of oil shale deposits by other means, Scientific American reports. New York, meanwhile, has had an informal ban on the process since 2008, but in a surprise move is expected to lift it soon in most places, CNN reports. Fracking is a means of drilling for natural gas that involves shooting water and chemicals into the ground. New York’s new rules will ban the practice in state parks and watershed areas, but otherwise allow it. Andrew Cuomo’s office is thought to be onboard with the plan, but hasn’t said so publicly.

To: i-node who wrote (618081)	7/4/2011 12:58:35 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1583507

Not improving cafe standards was the decision of mgmt, not the unions. Yes, and it isn't clear at all that THAT had anything to do with the problem, although if you listen to the liberal media I can see how one could draw that conclusion. You should learn to listen to the liberal media......they usually get it right.....not always but most of the time. Why? Because they rely on facts. Not having a well rounded market offering.....SUVs AND gas efficient cars was a decision made by mgmt, not the unions. Same as above. Management made what was a clearly a horrible decision with the Volt. Who are you blaming THAT on? Pray tell, o wise one, why is the Volt a horrible decision? Now please try real hard to stick to the facts and not your ideological bent. Poor car design and quality is the responsibility of mgmt, not the unions. Design is a management issue, but where is the evidence of a design problem? The best selling GM vehicles were Cadillacs, which they made the most money on (or lost the least). Uh........forget the Cadillac, the major reasons touted for Detroit's loss of market share over the years were poor car quality and poor design. And frankly, car quality has improved but design still leaves a lot be desired. We see glimmers in the new Volt and Cadillacs and the mini Fiat Chrysler but for the most part, Detroit's designs continue to be....meh. That's especially true of Ford these days. The quality issues were a result of unions dictating to management what the workplace would look like. Really. Painting the factory walls pink hurt car quality. Who knew? > In fact, capitulating to union demands was the fault of mgmt, not the unions. It is hard to blame management when the UAW is holding a gun to their heads. So consistently losing market share and struggling with profitability were not big guns for mgmt in their negotiations with the UAW. BS. The truth is mgmt was weak and inept and so long as they could make the green stuff, they didn't care. > Interesting and positive metrics..... Right. That prove Arkansas is in fact a relatively "wealthy" state. It just makes better choices. >> and yet, Arkansas is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to per capita income and educational attainment: Education is a function of the demographic, not of the amount of money spent. We are a small, rural state, yet rank [by most rankings] somewhere in the middle overall -- often ahead of states like CA and OR. So, I don't think that's too bad under the circumstances. Thanks for answering my question in more ways than one. I suggest you reread your answer.......it provides significant insight into the problem. As to your remark on "per-capita" income, I just don't know how that is a meaningful metric at all. I can have a better standard of living where I live on HALF the money you can in Seattle. And LESS THAN HALF what I could in NYC or LA. Per-capita income is about as close as you can get to meaningless as a measure of a state's "wealth". You really have to take into account that a small house in CA cost 3-4x what the same house would cost in Central Arkansas. Yup. I foget that quality of life has different meanings in different places.