Thread: Are you the next Gates?

We all like IT, we all program.

So I was wondering, do any of you aspire to acheive the greatness he has done in the computing world? Microsoft is massive, we more or less all use their products from Windows to VC++.

So do you aspire to create somthing like windows and own your own global empire on the IT market too?

I did for some time. After all I was the most active career-wise during the time these companies where being either formed or gaining their market shares. It would have been difficult not to think of the possibility. I was more internet-centric though and companies like Amazon and Yahoo were inspiring examples I wanted to follow.

In the end I failed miserably. Very proud of my spectacular failure (I didn't even manage to secure a name in my own house) since I learned two valuable lessons:

. You rarely achieve that level if you are thinking about it
. That kind of success, at least in my own country, is not dependent in your skills and engine. Private initiative is rarely rewarding in a country where corruption is one of the highest in Europe.

I have plans on finishing my deathray and taking over the world.

I prefer the idea of total world domination.

I have plans on finishing my deathray and taking over the world.

If you need hardcore equipment such as a toothbrush or cigarette butt to complete it I'd be happy to contribute.

You forgot the cant-start-a-business-on-a-shoestring-anymore side of it. Without financing, any company is doomed. Software jobs are grqadually drifting into the lower scale pay ranges as they become yet another replaceable position, which means that fewer people on the technical end will be able to finance their own startup. Venture capital is becoming more difficult to find these days, which on the whole means fewer shots at discovering the next big thing. From the looks of it, IMO, the next administration (whoever it is) won't be turnign things around. We are in the post oil boom years now. Production will peak during the next 4 years and begin a permanent decline. What this means is the oportunity is there for new energy technologies, but probably not so much for new IT tech. Things like hydrogen power etc are doomed to fail for technical, safety, and economic reasons. What we need is an new primary source of power. Hydrogen doesnt work because its a dirivative of oil. If we crack water its just an energy conversion process, you have to get the power from somewhere to produce the hydrogen. So, we either need major advancements in fusion or we switch to fission. Current fission reactors are extremely innefficient, but its impossible to do significant research on experimental commercial reactor designs due to regulations and the expense involved.

Ah, the nuclear talk. Many were dying to start the whole thing again. The debate started over here already too. I vote we get as many fusion reactors all over the world as we can. Nuclear power is so cool.

Meanwhile... let's just forget there isn't really any oil shortage as it was repeatedly said by all producers. What there is instead is speculators that are rapping world markets and increasing the prices for their own benefit. Proving in fact that the current anti-speculation measures aren't capable and need to be revised.

I don't see how. Demand an increase in production? Use the reserves? Why one would want to do that when the recent escalation of prices had nothing to do with oil shortage, but was instead decided by speculators?

Not for a single day did any country in Europe faced an oil shortage, or an oil shortage made news for the past year anywhere in the globe that I am aware of. There was no increased demand for oil that couldn't be matched. OPEP in fact made it clear throughout the whole time that reserves were at full and production was meeting demand.

As for US, do you really think increasing supply will solve USA energetic dependence? Or building more nuclear stations, or going with alternative sources. The amount of money needed to supply a country that uses 25% of the world oil production is astounding by any standards. Even by yours since the number is clearly too big and instead the national debate centers often, from all I know, on what can be done to change people habits, as well as proposed (and underway) investigations on more efficient energy consumption methods and materials.

A similar problem is faced by many other countries, in which a dependence of energy is an almost direct consequence of progress. In all these countries, that I am aware of, the debate is the same; better and cheaper energy and changing people habits. Not supply more oil to sustain an inefficient industry and bad habits.