PDA

View Full Version : Are you the next Gates?



swgh
07-28-2008, 01:02 PM
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?

medievalelks
07-28-2008, 01:52 PM
So do you aspire to create somthing like windows and own your own global empire on the IT market too?

Nope.

Mario F.
07-28-2008, 02:17 PM
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.

robwhit
07-28-2008, 03:42 PM
eww no

MacGyver
07-28-2008, 03:46 PM
I have plans on finishing my deathray and taking over the world.

robwhit
07-28-2008, 04:07 PM
cue BobMcGee123

Mad_guy
07-28-2008, 04:14 PM
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.

Perspective
07-29-2008, 08:35 AM
There are two sides to being the next MS/Google. One is the technology/development/idea side... I have ambitions to make these types of accomplishments in my field.

The other side is the business/marketing/30-hour-days-9-days-a-week-to-build-your-startup-company side. I don't have the desire for that... at least not right now.

abachler
07-29-2008, 01:56 PM
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.

DrSnuggles
07-29-2008, 02:27 PM
I'm going to be the next me. It'll be great I can tell already.

Mario F.
07-29-2008, 02:45 PM
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.

medievalelks
07-29-2008, 03:22 PM
No, supply needs to be increased. There's enough in Alaska to supply the US for 200 years.

But I'm down with nuclear as well. Wind, solar, nuclear, natty gas, oil - whatever it takes to get the US off of the foreign energy teat.

Mario F.
07-29-2008, 05:46 PM
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.

Yarin
07-29-2008, 07:08 PM
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 have thought about that before...
I've always though that it would be nice to get in the history books; not so much create a huge evil cooperation. ;) And not necessarily IT either, any super cool technological field would be fine. :D

medievalelks
07-29-2008, 08:02 PM
As for US, do you really think increasing supply will solve USA energetic dependence?

Of course, if it's our supply. In 1970 the US imported 24% of its oil. Today we import 70%. Our government has failed us with bad energy policy for decades and now only one side grudgingly wants to do something about it because people are feeling the bite of $4.00 gas and trickle down effect of increased commodities prices.

Washington needs an enema followed by a crash diet.

robwhit
07-29-2008, 08:15 PM
You can discuss this all you want, but the solution is right in front of you, you just don't want to see it.

medievalelks
07-30-2008, 06:00 AM
You can discuss this all you want, but the solution is right in front of you, you just don't want to see it.

And that is?

indigo0086
07-30-2008, 06:56 AM
And that is?


"You're a loser Bobby!"

robwhit
07-30-2008, 10:01 AM
That there will be no solution until you simply don't guzzle it down. Just live a life where your happiness is not dependent on how much oil you get. Then it won't matter. Like before energy powered the worlds infrastructure, things worked just fine. But people are too lazy to see that way of life now.

medievalelks
07-30-2008, 12:30 PM
That there will be no solution until you simply don't guzzle it down. Just live a life where your happiness is not dependent on how much oil you get. Then it won't matter. Like before energy powered the worlds infrastructure, things worked just fine. But people are too lazy to see that way of life now.

I don't think about "how much oil I get", I think about what I need to lead my life. If you want to live in horse and buggy times and never leave the state where you live, there's always Amish Country.

BTW, what's powering the computer you're using to post messages? And all the computers and switches in between that power the internet?

robwhit
07-30-2008, 04:35 PM
I never said anything about horse and buggy. I don't know where you got that.

And I doubt my energy-efficient laptop with its lcd screen is causing a global oil shortage.

mike_g
07-30-2008, 04:58 PM
BTW, what's powering the computer you're using to post messages? And all the computers and switches in between that power the internet?
Probably coal, and theres plenty of that in America.

robwhit
07-30-2008, 05:16 PM
There seems to be this attitude that it can be either all or nothing. Either you use all you want and need and use it whenever you think you can and it would benefit you, or you go cold turkey and don't use any and live in a hole in the ground walking everywhere and not turning on the radio.

I don't know where you got this attitude. It seems kind of knee-jerk to me.

Many things are good when used in moderation. Pretty much everything is not good when used too much. If you don't have the supply, or if using your supply causes harmful effects, then perhaps it's not /really/ that cheap. Kind of like addicting drugs. But not quite.

Sure, there would be sizeable changes to facilitate such an alteration in lifestyle. But once it happens, it wouldn't seem so bad. And I don't think I'm thinking of the changes you're thinking of.

medievalelks
07-30-2008, 10:20 PM
Economies grow. We need energy. Frankly, I don't care what kind it is as long as the US is producing their own. We are far too dependent on other countries for such a vital commodity. Countries that don't like us too much, to boot.

robwhit
07-30-2008, 10:35 PM
Maybe one day you'll understand that there's more to life than getting bigger.

edit: I guess I'm being a little cryptic. Sorry about that. Let's just say that I don't think that being well off and how much energy you get to your home/car/whatever are really that linked.

mkruk
07-31-2008, 04:02 AM
No, supply needs to be increased. There's enough in Alaska to supply the US for 200 years.

I doubt that.

As a little proof, let's look at some statistics from wikipedia:
According to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Production), USA produces 8.481.000 barrels of crude oil per day (yes, crude oil.. so the amount of usable fuel is less than that)

And according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Consumption), the US consume 20.588.000 barrel/day.

Unless the statistics are wrong, the US can't meet it's own demands for one single day. I guess I don't have to explain what the effects would be.

Btw, this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#United_States) states that the US have oil reserves of approx. 21.000.000.000 barrel of crude oil.
Dividing this by the per-day-consumption and then by 365, we get the result:
If you could actually use crude oil without refining, the US oil fields could supply the USA for the incredibly vast period of 2.79 years!

Your approximation was just a tiny bit out ;)

robwhit
07-31-2008, 09:38 AM
> If you could actually use crude oil without refining, the US oil fields could supply the USA for the incredibly vast period of 2.79 years!

Are you saying that's some sort of solution?

whiteflags
07-31-2008, 12:13 PM
If transportation used a completely different resource, such as water, the landscape of US oil consumption would be quite different I am sure, as any one county's would. Americans could also start using trains and buses more for long distance transportation, but suburbia isn't doing that. And since I really don't want to drive, I've noticed a lot of undue skepticism and negativity towards the system and the people who use it.

Oil is essentially a social problem -- we've developed engines that ran on different things before and we're already using some renewable sources. Wind power generated enough kWh for 1.6 million homes in 2005, for example (source (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/science/wind_power/windpowerbasics.html)). It's no silver bullet (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/birdkills1-12-04.htm), but power can't run on hopes and dreams. The real trouble is that whenever something new comes up, some group of people seem to get ........ed off and try to squash development. I feel as if we are waiting for the "new oil" to save us all and my outlook is bleak.

Does no one mind that we've gotten off the topic?

mkruk
07-31-2008, 12:32 PM
> If you could actually use crude oil without refining, the US oil fields could supply the USA for the incredibly vast period of 2.79 years!

Are you saying that's some sort of solution?

no, I was saying that the USA using their own oil is nonsense. With increasing demand for cars this might actually be 2 years or less.

I totally agree that, on the long run, oil is not a reliable source for energy because its supply is somewhat limited and its emmisions of Co/Co2 (among others) are unacceptable. But that goes for all combustible energy sources.

The only power source that does not pollute the environment with carbon-oxides is nuclear power, though uranium is also a limited ressource. Plus, nuclear power also bears a lot of danger for the environment (no, I'm not talking about power plant security).
I hope fusion reactors will be the answer.

medievalelks
07-31-2008, 01:03 PM
no, I was saying that the USA using their own oil is nonsense. With increasing demand for cars this might actually be 2 years or less.


This report says that there may be enough in the Arctic alone for 12 years...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=aqEDMhrCvp28

...and that of course doesn't include the vast off shore area where we can't drill or the approximately 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Green River Formation in parts of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming.

http://www.americansolutions.com/General/?Page=9d64a628-d028-48c1-840d-330aea987841

There's oil in them thar hills.

Thantos
07-31-2008, 02:09 PM
I have plans on finishing my deathray and taking over the world.

I'd rather be the person controling the person controlling the deathray. That way if anything goes wrong you can cut them loose, place all blame on them, and find yourself a new puppet.

Thantos for shadow government leader!

abachler
07-31-2008, 02:10 PM
No, supply needs to be increased. There's enough in Alaska to supply the US for 200 years.

But I'm down with nuclear as well. Wind, solar, nuclear, natty gas, oil - whatever it takes to get the US off of the foreign energy teat.

BS. The entire reserve under the wildlife refuge will only provide a 6 month supply, ant it will take 50 years to extract. What is under the whoel state will take 200 years to deplete, but it will not provide our entire supply during that time. You need to do a bit more fact checking before making grandiose claims using fuzzy numbers.

mkruk
07-31-2008, 02:23 PM
In oil shale alone, found in the Green River Formation in parts of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, the U.S. has approximately 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil, or over three times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia

sounds like a fairy tale to me...


This report says that there may be enough in the Arctic alone for 12 years...
the Arctic isn't USA. You were talking about US oil reserves.
Still, drilling in the Arctic could be difficult because of the temperatures. And isn't there a treaty to keep the Arctic's ressources untouched, like with the Antarctic?
I'm not sure about that, since the Arctic is just a bunch of frozen water, unlike the Antarctic.


...and that of course doesn't include the vast off shore area where we can't drill
yes, where you can't drill... so its technically not a solution

Long story short, I don't think that there are reserves or reserves that can be used to satisfy the oil demands.

Even if there were, how does it help up? We'd just have more fuel to harm the environment with. If we don't put something on the other side of the equation, we'll destroy our own living space. (I wouldn't say we destroy earth, because it regenerates after we're gone)
Some might say that this would at least lower the gas price, but I don't think so, because we don't have oil shortages at the moment, but we were still having peak prices a few weeks ago (1.60 EUR/l, which is about $9.44 per gallon).
Judging from the individual's PoV, what does it help, if I can't pay the gas price?
We shouldn't rely on a power source, which is controlled by a few companies and their lobby.

BobMcGee123
07-31-2008, 05:09 PM
Your butt acts as a nozzle in the sense that the gas experiences a drop in pressure, from internal intestinal pressure to atmospheric pressure, and that pressure drop is subsequently converted into an increase in velocity (of the gas.) Theoretically, you could use this conversion of thermal-to-mechanical energy to impinge upon the blades of a turbine, thus spinning electrical conductors in a magnetic field to produce electricity.

Note that the change in momentum of the gas is the net resulting thrust force experienced by the butt. This is the principal of operation of the first jet fighter, the German Messerschmitt Me 262.

guesst
08-01-2008, 09:47 AM
I heard this recently in relation to the IT industry looking at becoming unionized. The union boss courting the IT field made the comment that a lot of folks in IT think they're going to be the next Bill Gates.

The problem with IT and software in particular is it seems to me the top of a very precarious tower of resources. IT relies on manufacturing industry, electricity production, all of which are aspects of a fairly advanced society, and software often relies on software that others have written to write. Most people who write software have no concept and don't seem to care about the layers of resources they're balanced on, but to me it seems far too precarious a summit to build a kingdom on. Good for a quick buck, but to me it'd be a means to an end.

abachler
08-02-2008, 07:36 PM
Petroleum plays a much larger role in our economy than just energy. We can arguably supply our energy needs using nuclear, coal, etc. What we cannot supply however is the petrochemical industry, which requires the raw oil itself. There is no substitute for these.

medievalelks
08-03-2008, 05:29 PM
sounds like a fairy tale to me...


That's a counter-argument?


the Arctic isn't USA

"Arctic" as in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which is in Alaska.



yes, where you can't drill... so its technically not a solution


We can't drill because of politics, not because it's not possible.

These are things we should have been doing decades ago, not when we're mired in a state of emergency. Democrats and Republicans have both failed the US on energy policy for far too long.

BobMcGee123
08-04-2008, 06:59 PM
I understand the bit about wanting to expand drilling, I'm just afraid that extending drilling without any sort of a real alternative is going to put us into serious trouble in the future.

I'd support drilling in ANWR if I believed we'd use the added oil to buy time to improve technology that can provide us with real alternatives. I'm just afraid we'd use it as a band aid and we'd just end up in the same position, just postpone it.

Or something like that.



Petroleum plays a much larger role in our economy than just energy. We can arguably supply our energy needs using nuclear, coal, etc. What we cannot supply however is the petrochemical industry, which requires the raw oil itself. There is no substitute for these.


I'm interested what, exactly, you mean by this comment. Do you mean, for instance, the jobs associated with the petrol. industries? On a side note, I worked on a ship that supplies oil rigs in the Gulf. More notably we operated in the BP Atlantis oil field, which I believe is like the third largest in the Gulf. And I'm not gonna lie, those jobs pay well (a licensed ship's engineer grosses about $150,000 every 8 months for the company I was working with).
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=9004519&contentId=7008067