High oil prices destroy demand, causes recession and subsequent price collapse of oil.
Anyone who is going to market a replacement vehicle for oil based ones is going to have to market it to people who cannot afford oil when it's low. i.e. it hast to be cheap. Think TATA motors Nano, but electric and with reasonable range, which is a pricing challenge.
The current generation of phones are just about powerful enough to replace the desktop. The next generation will do it. Think a couple of years for market penetration.
Your desktop will be at most a docking station to connect larger displays, better I/O and peripherals to your phone. Why do you think Microsoft paid Nokia to use their mobile OS? Because they know the desktop is irrelevant and they have to get into the phone market as their core income dwindles.
As I pointed out though due to their executive's egos it's certainly too little too late and they are going to be the third placed, or smaller player.
Then you need a core cash cow which you can sell to people again and again and again and again. At some point, people wise up and move on but until that happens you'll make money. What you have to be careful of is not losing too much on the rest of your failures while the cow is still producing.
Fining Google or any huge multinational corporation is so totally totally totally insignificant in comparison... I think you need to get out of your parent's basement and take a look at the real world to get some perspective.
The desktop is irrelevant now, the world has moved on and Microsoft can no longer dictate anything of consequence. They are losing money all over the place as they try to get out of their fading niche. Again, executive narcissism is going to prevent their success and ensure their continued slide into obscurity.
The very things you are worried about are Google's death knell, they are busy dividing and conquering their own workforce and focus, exactly the way previous giants, like Nokia did, so don't worry about it, it's a natural part of executive narcissism. Someone will come along (out of nowhere it'll seem) in a short while and make billions knocking Google off their pedestal into a has-been like Microsoft.
Excel is what Microsoft has done for innovation and bringing the world forward in this space. i.e. Nothing.
Seriously. What are you thinking? Microsoft's business model is selling you the same thing again and again and again every 18 months. This time with strips.
3 pxeboot configs; backup, wipe, localboot 2 corresponding tftp configs, which boot 2 different ramdisks.
First is a backup image using the tools of your choice. Last thing the backup does is write a flag to shared storage which tells the boot server to switch a particular machine to wipe mode.
Second boots the wipe image. When the wipe is complete, the pxeboot config switched to localboot.
Now you have a network of centrally managed systems you can manage by changing a couple of pxeboot files.
That's the sound of a meteor from the asteroid belt having been pulled into earth's orbit by space aliens responding to our 1960s Star Trek TV (original series) transmissions, plummeting through the atmosphere and flying just over top of your head.
Back decades ago it was commonly believed that by the 21st century people would be working only a few hours a day to provide for themselves and having a large amount of time off.
A laughably naive view of how money works.
That didn't happen primarily because they underestimated the willingness of a willfully ignorant subset of the population to vote for class warfare against the lower and middle classes and for the wealth to accumulate at the top even at those at the bottom suffer.
No it didn't happen because money demands a return. Everything else is an emergent behaviour from this simple rule. Go read Gesell on the nature of money and how it might be overcome.
Basically. Having an I.T. budget means that to end users, the services provided are perceived as free. It encourages poor behaviours on both sides.
Free means low value, if you are giving your services away for free (as most users experience the service). They are perceived as low value. Worse than that, because the services are free, they suffer from Tragedy of The Commons effects, more and more work is loaded on to an under resourced organisation as budgets never match work loads.
Get rid of the budget and go for a charge model. Set up an internal IT Shop where people "buy" services using internal money which comes out of their budget.
They can "buy" network access. They can "buy" 10 support calls they can "buy" backups on X, they can buy (Windows+MS Office(latest), Linux+OpenOffice, Mac+MS Office) + maintenance on their desktop for a year. They can "buy" a 10Tb NFS file system. They can "buy" professional services solution design for particular problems. They can "buy" a 100Gb mailbox if they want.
I.T. often refer to their users as "customers". Well, real customers pay real money, and customers who don't pay, are not customers but free loaders. No pay, no service.
It aligns IT staff with real customers needs, free loaders get dumped as unimportant and the department has the resourcing to actually do what the paying customers want. You will find that customers actually start to behave responsibly when they discover their irresponsibility costs them money and they have to explain to their boss the extra 1 million for email + backups.
You will also find that paying for services dramatically increases the level of respect, particularly when 1. They discover what the trivial extra thing they are asking for is actually rather expensive. 2. You cut people off for non payment.
fannn tastic, So.. about 1/3 of the population/ national GDP will be involved in production, sounds fabulous.
Also, the Haber-Bosch process does not consume natural gas, it consumes hydrogen
And the hydrogen on most plants comes from??????.......
Also, energy consumption doesn't matter in the end, only emissions.
Yeah....... Tell that to the 2 billion starving to death as biofuels 3:1 EROEI ratio drives food inflation to the point they can't afford to eat. I foresee a touch of political instability.
The fertiliser used to grow the plants was created using the Haber-Bosch process which uses lots of natural gas. The ploughing etc is all highly energy (oil) intensive. The processing an transport use existing oil reserves.
Finally, the energy consumption of the vehicle increases with the square of the speed.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly the IT guy should be fired.
High oil prices destroy demand, causes recession and subsequent price collapse of oil.
Anyone who is going to market a replacement vehicle for oil based ones is going to have to market it to people who cannot afford oil when it's low. i.e. it hast to be cheap. Think TATA motors Nano, but electric and with reasonable range, which is a pricing challenge.
~$100 is the new low BTW.
The good enough always wins because "the perfect" is a figment of deranged and twisted egos.
Who would have thought a company producing this!:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmechanics/images/ib/aptera-8-doors-up.jpg
might go out of business.....
Y'now, cars are the shape they are for a reason. Or in fact many reasons.
They forgot to change the thread title and are now simply strengthening search weightings between the words "Microsoft" and "has-been".
The current generation of phones are just about powerful enough to replace the desktop. The next generation will do it. Think a couple of years for market penetration.
Your desktop will be at most a docking station to connect larger displays, better I/O and peripherals to your phone. Why do you think Microsoft paid Nokia to use their mobile OS? Because they know the desktop is irrelevant and they have to get into the phone market as their core income dwindles.
As I pointed out though due to their executive's egos it's certainly too little too late and they are going to be the third placed, or smaller player.
As I said.
Microsoft is a has-been.
Google will be a has-been shortly.
And Facebook is the Tech Bubble 2.0 or Social Whatever Bubble 1.0 if you prefer.
You mean just like car companies are on verge of dying
Strawman. Cars are not software. Nevertheless, go buy some General Motors shares and bonds since you are so sure of their business model.
And at 32% market share in the US, I would say Bing is a really successful product
Bing is losing more than a billion a quarter. Highly successful, if it was a government project.
Google will also lose billions on their own vanity projects.
They all have a schedule. Even it it's no more than "today".
Then you need a core cash cow which you can sell to people again and again and again and again. At some point, people wise up and move on but until that happens you'll make money. What you have to be careful of is not losing too much on the rest of your failures while the cow is still producing.
Italy alone has to roll 300 billion next year.
Fining Google or any huge multinational corporation is so totally totally totally insignificant in comparison... I think you need to get out of your parent's basement and take a look at the real world to get some perspective.
The desktop is irrelevant now, the world has moved on and Microsoft can no longer dictate anything of consequence. They are losing money all over the place as they try to get out of their fading niche. Again, executive narcissism is going to prevent their success and ensure their continued slide into obscurity.
Look. Google is just flavour of the month.
The very things you are worried about are Google's death knell, they are busy dividing and conquering their own workforce and focus, exactly the way previous giants, like Nokia did, so don't worry about it, it's a natural part of executive narcissism. Someone will come along (out of nowhere it'll seem) in a short while and make billions knocking Google off their pedestal into a has-been like Microsoft.
So none are an appropriate analogy.
HTH
That the government invented these things?
Which came out first on the NeXT.
Excel is what Microsoft has done for innovation and bringing the world forward in this space. i.e. Nothing.
Seriously. What are you thinking? Microsoft's business model is selling you the same thing again and again and again every 18 months. This time with strips.
Always network boot first.
3 pxeboot configs; backup, wipe, localboot
2 corresponding tftp configs, which boot 2 different ramdisks.
First is a backup image using the tools of your choice. Last thing the backup does is write a flag to shared storage which tells the boot server to switch a particular machine to wipe mode.
Second boots the wipe image. When the wipe is complete, the pxeboot config switched to localboot.
Now you have a network of centrally managed systems you can manage by changing a couple of pxeboot files.
HTH.
That's the sound of a meteor from the asteroid belt having been pulled into earth's orbit by space aliens responding to our 1960s Star Trek TV (original series) transmissions, plummeting through the atmosphere and flying just over top of your head.
Or, did you miss it?
It's the next big communication medium. Everything on one page. So easy to use.
and egos the size of the moon. That's why narcissism is so dangerous.
Back decades ago it was commonly believed that by the 21st century people would be working only a few hours a day to provide for themselves and having a large amount of time off.
A laughably naive view of how money works.
That didn't happen primarily because they underestimated the willingness of a willfully ignorant subset of the population to vote for class warfare against the lower and middle classes and for the wealth to accumulate at the top even at those at the bottom suffer.
No it didn't happen because money demands a return. Everything else is an emergent behaviour from this simple rule. Go read Gesell on the nature of money and how it might be overcome.
Otherwise the money to build it has been misallocated and would have been better used elsewhere. For the children etc.
Basically. Having an I.T. budget means that to end users, the services provided are perceived as free. It encourages poor behaviours on both sides.
Free means low value, if you are giving your services away for free (as most users experience the service). They are perceived as low value.
Worse than that, because the services are free, they suffer from Tragedy of The Commons effects, more and more work is loaded on to an under resourced organisation as budgets never match work loads.
Get rid of the budget and go for a charge model. Set up an internal IT Shop where people "buy" services using internal money which comes out of their budget.
They can "buy" network access.
They can "buy" 10 support calls
they can "buy" backups on X,
they can buy (Windows+MS Office(latest), Linux+OpenOffice, Mac+MS Office) + maintenance on their desktop for a year.
They can "buy" a 10Tb NFS file system.
They can "buy" professional services solution design for particular problems.
They can "buy" a 100Gb mailbox if they want.
I.T. often refer to their users as "customers". Well, real customers pay real money, and customers who don't pay, are not customers but free loaders. No pay, no service.
It aligns IT staff with real customers needs, free loaders get dumped as unimportant and the department has the resourcing to actually do what the paying customers want. You will find that customers actually start to behave responsibly when they discover their irresponsibility costs them money and they have to explain to their boss the extra 1 million for email + backups.
You will also find that paying for services dramatically increases the level of respect, particularly when
1. They discover what the trivial extra thing they are asking for is actually rather expensive.
2. You cut people off for non payment.
Problem solved.
The EROEI of biodiesel fuels is around 3-3.5.
fannn tastic, So.. about 1/3 of the population/ national GDP will be involved in production, sounds fabulous.
Also, the Haber-Bosch process does not consume natural gas, it consumes hydrogen
And the hydrogen on most plants comes from?????? .......
Also, energy consumption doesn't matter in the end, only emissions.
Yeah....... Tell that to the 2 billion starving to death as biofuels 3:1 EROEI ratio drives food inflation to the point they can't afford to eat. I foresee a touch of political instability.
The fertiliser used to grow the plants was created using the Haber-Bosch process which uses lots of natural gas.
The ploughing etc is all highly energy (oil) intensive.
The processing an transport use existing oil reserves.
Finally, the energy consumption of the vehicle increases with the square of the speed.