by 
MONT SAINT GUIBERT, BELGIUM — Cissoid, the leader in high-temperature semiconductor solutions and Future Electronics, the world-class distributor of semiconductors and electronic components announced today the signing of a global distribution agreement, which will enable Future to address the growing market of high-temperature and high-reliability electronics with Cissoid products. Future will distribute Cissoid integrated circuits and discrete components in EMEA, the Americas, and in some selected Far-East countries like India.
Lucy Pinho, Director of Product Marketing at Future Electronics declared: “We are seeing a growing demand for higher temperature and higher reliability semiconductors in a number of key markets such as industrial and automotive, where the traditional components no longer meet the technical requirements of our customers. Cissoid portfolio of products, their roadmap and vision, and their recognition in the field as the leader for ultimate reliability and extreme environment solutions make Cissoid a partner and supplier of choice for Future.”
“As the pioneer of the high-temperature semiconductor market since 2000, we are seeing now an explosion of the demand in a number of segments that required us to change gear with a world-class distributor and strengthen our presence and our supply-chain fulfilment channels. We are delighted to see Future sharing our vision and now supporting our products, and are expecting their in-depth market and sales expertise to accelerate our growth” said Tony Denayer, CEO at Cissoid.
Think the real problem is the decline of the nation state in relation to big business. In lots of ways this is a good thing as generally the private sector can do a better job than the public sector in delivering goods and services.
Trouble is things can get out of balance if there are not regulations putting a break on the worst excesses of business.
The way it used to work is people would elect the government and pay the taxes along with companies and there was some kind of balance. The situation now is companies can base themselves anywhere and if a national government upsets them they can move their manufacturing elsewhere or just pay tax anywhere it seems.
The supply chain is so much more international and flexible. The rise of the internet has just increased this with some companies having little physical presence anyway.
Over in the UK it has lead to the tax authorities having to negotiate with the big companies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16253205 we are now begging them to pay tax.
And trying to compete with tax havens.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/sep/20/tory-treasurer-make-uk-tax-haven
Some companies are so huge they have more power and funds than some national governments anyway.
Same with rich individuals they can base themselves anywhere as well, which is why the new French taxes will not work and will be a disaster for France.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-02/pigeon-entrepreneurs-take-hollande-french-tax-protest-to-web
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19626188
I always vote for right of centre parties and have no time for socialism but it is time there was a sensible debate somewhere over what is happening.
Trouble is what governments really want to discuss how they are often powerless in the face of economic realities and what international companies want to discuss how regulations can be brought in to rein them in.
Can just see Obama explaining how he is pushed around by big business and Romney explaining how big business often calls the shots and if you do not like it tough!
P.s i am not Michael Moore honest!
Okay, for some reason I can't post a comment, but I can post a reply. So I will.
I suggest that anyone wishing to inform himself about fracking read the Wikipedia article “Hydraulic Fracturing.” It explains the process, the materials, the motives and the dangers in accessible language.
First, fracking is not a new process. Explosive fracturing goes back to the 1860s when nitroglycerin was used in Pennsylvania oil wells. Acid etching to stimulate wells began in the 1930s. Hydraulic fracturing was experimented with in 1947 and a patent was granted in 1949, at which time Halliburton was granted an exclusive license. Since then, a million (more or less) oil and gas wells have been fracked. (I might note that I remember reading about fracking operations when I had a summer internship with Shell Oil in 1965.) Yet the controversy over fracking arose only when it threatened to make natural gas so cheap that the wind- and solar-electricity campaigns would be undermined.
The cry is that fracking should be stopped while all the ramifications are carefully considered by the Federal government. A million wells have already been fracked since 1947. What ramifications are going to show up now, with the million-and-first? Presumably Texas has already seen most of the problems, since the Permian Shale underlies a big chunk of Texas. What regulations have the Texas Railroad Commission imposed on fracking? (No kidding, the Texas Railroad Commission oversees gas and oil drilling — but not railroads. Go figure.) They've been in existence since 1891 and have been regulating oil and gas production since 1919. How do they deal with wastewater, groundwater contamination, drilling fluid additives, methane emissions, and so forth? What is happening now that the Texas Railroad Commission hasn't seen — and dealt with — in its ninety-three years of existence?
The cry is “The science isn't in”. Really? Or is this just a move to study fracking to death, so it doesn't derail the green agenda? The EPA is past masters at this, employing science from mass spectroscopy to analysis of goat entrails to determine (for instance) that carbon dioxide, which we all emit, is a toxic gas, and taking a leisurely eight or ten years to do it.
Most of the objections are easily dealt with. Direct groundwater contamination isn't very likely, since fracking is typically carried out more than a mile down, far, far below any accessible groundwater. Contamination by leaks at the level of groundwater is also unlikely, since oil and gas wells are cased — lined with steel pipe, four or five layers thick at ground level. This is inserted as the well is drilled to keep the bore from collapsing. The size becomes smaller as the well goes deeper, and some of the intermediate sizes are used to tap oil and gas from intermediate levels. Leaks aren't ignored — they mean loss of product, and hence profit.
Fracking fluid is 98% water and silica sand. Immense amounts of water are used, true, but only while the well is being treated. Most of the chemicals used, while nothing you would want to sprinkle on your cereal, are known quantities. Hydrochloric and acetic acids are used to clean out the perforations in the casing pipe through which the fracking fluids and oil flow and break down the rock near the pipe. They are largely consumed in this process and what's left can be neutralized. Carboxymethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (and a bunch of related compounds) are gelling agents, so the water is goopy enough to carry sand into the cracks to keep them open. Other agents break down these gels so the gas can get through the cracks. Radioactive tracers are sometimes added to monitor the extent of fracturing. Short-lived isotopes are used so that after six half-lives, for instance, only 1/64 of the original radioactivity remains.
Can a sloppy operator dump this stuff on the ground and contaminate groundwater? Sure, which is why operators should be monitored and licensed. A responsible operator will recycle fracking fluids, neutralize them himself, transport them to a municipal sewage plant for treatment, or inject them into dead wells — and if you object to injection well disposal, be aware that that's what greenies are advocating as a method of carbon dioxide disposal.
Hydraulic fracking has been around for sixty-three years. All the major questions were dealt with years ago. The current controversy has been ginned up to keep alternate-power projects from being derailed. Future regulation should deal with new problems as they arise, not be imposed to carry out a political agenda.