SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sea Otter who wrote (80349)5/22/2010 12:59:22 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 89467
 
What does the legendary Oceanographer Jean-Michel Cousteau have to say about the wisdom of doing deepwater drilling ?

blogs.reuters.com

Deepwater drilling is inappropriate, period

By Jean-Michel Cousteau

May 20, 2010

In the midst of desperate attempts to stem the flow of oil and the agony of waiting to understand its effects, we are left with simple questions like what exactly is happening to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico? And how quickly can we move from dependence on oil to a sustainable, renewable energy policy?

Absolutely no one knows the damage being done throughout the mile-deep water column. Crude oil and gas are gushing out at a few thousand pounds per square inch of pressure.

These very complex chemicals hit ice-cold water and travel one mile up to the surface and warmer water. This is similar to an oil refinery process where temperature and pressure convert crude oil into all sorts of other compounds. What are those compounds? Which ones are toxic? Which ones dissolve in water, which sink and which come to the surface?

I truly doubt anyone knows fully what is happening.

On the subject of unknown chemicals, dispersants are being used in massive quantities. Dispersants are known to be harmful to aquatic life and some scientists believe that these chemicals are likely to be more harmful to organisms than is much of the oil. In addition, dispersants only disperse; they don’t break down or detoxify. So, here we are adding more pollutants to an already massive amount of pollution. Why? Only to make the oil less visible!

We all know this is a catastrophe that should not have happened. We have not been prudent and we have not been diligent when it comes to oil drilling and extraction. The technology is limited and the oversight is inadequate. But now we have the consequences to live with.

I was at the Exxon Valdez 11-million-gallon oil spill and watched rocks being scrubbed and birds cleaned by 12,000 people using paper towels. Over 21 years later, we still hear stories of the ecological impact and lives forever changed, for the worse. Some estimates claim the rate of the Gulf spill is the equivalent of the Exxon Valdez every four to seven days.

Of course we’re alarmed, but the present hysteria angers me. How many times must we be surprised by the latest catastrophe? Will only a Doomsday event motivate us?

It is crystal clear to me that we need to stand back and look at our attitudes and make fundamental changes. Crisis management is no management at all. Crises are absolutely inevitable if we continue to ignore the FACT that nature is far more complex and unpredictable than we can imagine.

We cannot change what has taken place but we must learn from it.

We must embrace a completely different perspective of how we work in, exploit and manage the natural world, far beyond simply the search for new technology. We need a new philosophy about the appropriate use of technology and our relationship with nature. We must remember that it is the natural world that keeps our planet habitable, and so far, most of our activities undermine the health and vitality of nature.

We need to come to terms with the fact that nature is far more complex than we understand and technology is far more limited than we want to believe. Knowing the world is unpredictable means that our technologies need to be designed with multiple safeguards and multiple back up systems. We need to anticipate the worst, plan everything to prevent it and then prepare another plan for when that prevention fails.

Constantly being surprised by catastrophe is stupid because unpredictable events in nature are totally predictable.

Actually, the entire process of evolution is based on the certainty that unpredictable events will occur and that back-up systems need to be in place to ensure the business of staying alive continues. This is the lesson from 3.5 billion years of evolutionary progress. Diversity and redundancy are safeguards against change.

In fact, the existence of sexual reproduction ensures that there are multiple back-up systems, manifested as each individual being slightly different, as our parent’s genetic information is combined in unique ways for whatever the future may hold.

We all know that for now, we must stop the leak, clean up the mess, monitor the impacts, stay calm, and stick to the facts. We need to take care of the thousands and thousands of people whose lives are being destroyed in a domino effect, and make sure the political, industry and management people who were incompetent are held responsible economically and politically.

Finally, we need to accept the fact that some areas of our planet are too valuable and too risky for us to meddle in.

I have spent much of my life on and in the sea. I know it well enough to know that I don’t know it at all. It is unpredictable and powerful.

Working in the ocean is dangerous business. At great depths, like a mile below the surface, it is beyond challenging. The pressure is otherworldly. The temperature approaches freezing, cold enough to make methane gas combine with water in the consistency of a smoothie. There is zero sunlight. This is close to an impossible environment in which to work. We knew this from the beginning. Agencies responsible for permits, to oversee technological security and back up systems, and BP itself, knew these challenges; sadly, the ultimate test of any proposed fail-safe system is sometimes the reality of a disaster.

I believe drilling for oil in these regions is inappropriate across the globe, period.

Why would we treat the alien and hostile environment of the deep ocean with any less caution that we treat space, where we go only with multiple back-up systems?

We need to implement the precautionary principle, which requires the user to prove that any action taken will not cause harm. If we are not convinced, then the project should be stopped, whatever the profit. The Hippocratic oath, “First, do no harm,” must be applied a priori to our natural environment. When it comes to any action with a consequence to the environment, we must assume any industry is guilty until it proves itself innocent.

The Gulf of Mexico oil spill will be a tragedy of massive proportions to the natural world no matter what. Our only redemption is to make it the catalyst for a philosophical change that will protect us all in the future. For starters, in the meantime, we need an across the board inventory, from businesses and industry, to do what we can to reduce our need for oil.

No one has been harmed by extracting energy from sunshine and wind, tides, waves, currents, or from the temperature differential between warm surface and deep ocean water. In comparison, these seem risk-free. I, for one, am willing to take the chance.
_______

*Jean-Michel Cousteau is an environmentalist, documentary producer, president of Ocean Futures Society and the son of ocean explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau.



To: Sea Otter who wrote (80349)5/22/2010 9:21:39 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
"The whole entrepreneurial thing is that you kind of jump off a cliff and assemble your airplane on the way down."

~Reid Hoffman



To: Sea Otter who wrote (80349)5/28/2010 8:25:39 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Is Apple Really Worth More Than Microsoft?

seekingalpha.com



To: Sea Otter who wrote (80349)5/28/2010 11:01:53 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Tesla's Elon Musk: "I Ran Out Of Cash"

businessinsider.com



To: Sea Otter who wrote (80349)5/28/2010 2:38:20 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Is the Gulf Oil Spill The Break That Cleantech Needs?
_______________________________________________________________

Posted on May 28th, 2010 on PeHub

The disastrous BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, with its rampant and inestimable destruction of ecosystems and livelihoods, would seem to be the kind of cultural and political event that would push clean technologies into the big leagues. Unfortunately - and strangely - the industry seems to have received only a mild bump.

“I think it… impacts people’s perception on offshore drilling, and has had a positive view on people’s enthusiasm for renewables,” said Sheeraz Haji, president of industry association The CleanTech Group. “I’m not sure that it’s this radical shift by any means.”

The most attention cleantech got since the spill was when President Obama spoke at VC-backed solar company Solyndra, saying that alternative energy would be a great thing to have. Advocates might have hoped for a stronger Administration push - and more importantly, more concrete financial support - of the giant industry, which is working on creating alternatives to the biofuels that have bought America’s energy industry and its political system.

But Obama’s choice to appear at Solyndra highlights why the cleantech industry still seems too green for its closeup: Too many technologies, expensive start-up costs and intense difficulties getting late-stage financing. Solyndra itself has had some trouble pulling together a $300 million IPO. Other solar companies planning IPOs, including Jinka Solar and Dinqo, have had similarly rough luck.

Haji noted that renewable energy has had the steepest drop in venture capital financing of any cleantech verticals. In Q3 2008, renewable energy took in 65% of all the venture capital investment in clean technology. According to the most recent numbers CleanTech Group aggregated in partnership with Deloitte, investment in renewable energy is down to only 35% of the total, even though overall cleantech investment jumped 83% in the first quarter of this year.

There are reasons that the renewable energy sector took the biggest hit in VC funding: It’s expensive, and results are not always dependable.

“I think you’ve had a flood of dollars, and pretty mixed results, in solar and biofuels where technologies were not ready. Some investors got burned in the past. Investors have absolutely underestimated the time and dollars required to mature these technologies and get them ticking,” Haji explained.

Entire renewable energy subsectors have failed. One notable example is ethanol, which was boosted by government subsidies but turned out to be impossible to actually make cost-effective as a substitute for fuel. (One problem: the high cost of delivery. Ethanol actually corroded many of the pipes created to transport it).

Fragmentation is another issue. Clean technology is a vast sector, encompassing everything from wind to solar to algae to ethanol, and there are minute differences among the vast universe of companies that create and distribute the technologies. As far back as 2006, investment banks including Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Lehman Brothers invested their own money in various cleantech companies; the joke of the whole enterprise, however, was that it was so impossible to tell which companies would be the winners that the investment banks threw money at masses of them and then sat back to see where the dollars would stick.

Renewable energy is, in short, still in its startup phase although it has been around for over a decade. Moreover, these are the kinds of startups that have the capital-intensive needs of mature companies: They require both equity and debt financing.

Add to that the fact that markets tend to be unsupportive of relatively young companies that carry a lot of debt, no matter how pure their corporate mission or societal benefit. It’s a lesson that was notably drilled home in the February IPO of A123 systems, a maker of electric-car battery packs that had backing from both General Electric and Warren Buffett. After a big 50% pop in shares on the first day, A123’s shares feel steeply over the next four months as investors came to grip with the company’s long history of losses. “These are fairly high-risk ventures,” Haji said.

The outlook is not completely bleak, however. Some renewable energy technologies are further along than others: Haji says the wind sector, for instance, is the closest to getting off the ground (no pun intended), partly because of significant state and federal government incentives.

And while renewable energy investment has been hit by the recession, some cleantech sectors that focus on traditional industries appear to be doing well. According to Cleantech Group, the biggest investments went to electric car-related companies, including one giant investment in Better Place. Another area that has been popular is energy efficiency, or finding ways to cut energy costs of existing companies. Energy efficiency brings the fastest return on investment in cleantech, earning back its cost in just over a year, according to Haji.

Another cause for optimism about the industry’s financing future: Haji notes that private equity funds are now getting in the game. There may a silver lining around that oil spill yet.



To: Sea Otter who wrote (80349)5/29/2010 12:27:38 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
How VCs Should (And Should Not) Do Their Due Diligence

businessinsider.com



To: Sea Otter who wrote (80349)6/2/2010 9:42:17 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
Google's Latest Launch: Its Own Trading Floor

businessweek.com



To: Sea Otter who wrote (80349)6/11/2010 8:48:53 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
A Void in the Enterprise Software Space Equals A Perfect Storm of Opportunity?

strikeiron.typepad.com



To: Sea Otter who wrote (80349)6/18/2010 12:52:04 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 89467
 
Fiorina’s HP Mishaps Prompt Technology Executives to Back Boxer

By Ari Levy

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Carly Fiorina, the former head of Hewlett-Packard Co., faces a wall of opposition from her Silicon Valley peers as she campaigns to win one of California’s U.S. Senate seats.

Her victory in the Republican primary last week puts Fiorina up against Democrat incumbent Barbara Boxer, a senator since 1993. Boxer has the financial support of local executives, including Cisco Systems Inc.’s John Chambers, Oracle Corp.’s Larry Ellison, Netflix Inc.’s Reed Hastings, and John Doerr from Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

Fiorina’s inability to win the backing of technology leaders contrasts with EBay Inc.’s former chief, Meg Whitman, who’s racking up funding from Silicon Valley in the state’s gubernatorial race. Fiorina’s lack of support, even from executives such as Chambers who are known to back Republicans, may reflect misgivings about her tenure at Hewlett-Packard, which lost half its market value on her watch. It also stiffens the challenge of beating a Democrat in a Democratic state.

“It makes it a harder hill to climb for Carly,” said Jim Cunneen, who served as a Republican state assemblyman in Silicon Valley from 1994 to 2000. He’s currently a principal at political consulting firm California Strategies in San Jose. “She has a lot of work to do to reach out to independents and moderates, but also to reach out to this tech community that certainly knows her private-sector experience the best of anybody in the state.”

Boxer’s Lead

Fiorina, 55, aims to beat a senator who’s spent almost three decades in the house and senate working on legislation to support Silicon Valley. As of May 19, Boxer, 69, had raised $16.3 million in donations for the November election, more than double Fiorina’s $7.4 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group in Washington.

Boxer has received $229,487 from computer and Internet companies, compared with $45,550 for Fiorina, the group found.

Among voters, Boxer leads Fiorina 48 percent to 43 percent, a Rasmussen Reports poll found. The June 9 telephone survey of 500 likely voters had an error margin of plus or minus 4.5 percent. With statewide unemployment at almost 13 percent and California having the fourth-highest home-foreclosure rate in the country, the incumbent could face a challenge, Cunneen said.

“This election is really about jobs and the economy, and there aren’t many jobs and the economy is still sputtering,” said Cunneen, who previously worked for Fiorina’s primary opponent, former Congressman Tom Campbell. “Despite early returns and contributions, this will still be a very competitive race.”

Worker Visas

Boxer’s popularity in Silicon Valley is due in part to her role as chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where she has focused on creating clean-energy jobs and reducing carbon emissions. She’s also backed policy for the granting of more H-1B visas, which bring technology engineers to the U.S. from overseas. And in 2004 she opposed rules that forced companies to expense stock options for employees, saying it would eliminate an incentive for attracting top talent.

“Barbara has worked with our industry on critical issues impacting Silicon Valley, including education, promoting innovation, stock options and tax policies,” Chambers, Cisco’s chief executive officer and a founding member of Technology Leaders for Boxer, said in an e-mail.

Chambers, 60, often backs Republicans, including presidential candidate John McCain in 2008. In that election, Democrat Barack Obama won 61 percent of votes in California to McCain’s 37 percent. Fiorina served with Chambers on Cisco’s board from 2001 to 2003. She also was an economic adviser to McCain’s campaign.

Executives’ Support

Boxer’s backers for the 2010 election also include EBay CEO John Donahoe, Autodesk Inc. CEO Carl Bass, Symantec Corp. Chairman John Thompson and Yahoo! Inc. co-founder Jerry Yang.

“It isn’t surprising that a three-term incumbent senator is supported financially by many in the tech industry,” said Amy Thoma, a spokeswoman for Fiorina. “Carly enjoys a broad range of support both from the Silicon Valley and throughout the state and now that the primary has ended we expect that support to continue to grow.”

Fiorina’s most high-profile support so far in Silicon Valley comes from Intel Corp. CEO Paul Otellini and Kleiner Perkins co-founder Tom Perkins.

Fiorina joined Palo Alto, California-based Hewlett-Packard as CEO in 1999 after spending 20 years at AT&T Corp. and its spinoff Lucent Technologies Inc. Two years later, she orchestrated the $18.9 billion acquisition of Compaq Computer Corp. to grab a bigger piece of the personal-computer market. The strategy backfired and HP lost its lead in the industry to Dell Inc., leading to Fiorina’s ouster in 2005.

‘Lot of Animus’

“There’s a lot of animus about her business decisions at HP,” said Barbara O’Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at California State University, Sacramento. “It’s mostly the Compaq decision and how she handled it.”

In the governor’s race, Whitman, 53, is having little trouble finding support in Silicon Valley. She’s challenging the state’s Democratic attorney general, Jerry Brown, for the chance to succeed Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is departing because of term limits.

The $54 million Whitman has raised this year, through May 22, trumps the $16.7 million brought in by Brown, according to data from the California Secretary of State. Her donors include Chambers, Donahoe, Yang, Otellini, Apple Inc.’s former finance chief Fred Anderson, Intuit Inc. CEO Brad Smith and Microsoft Corp. CEO Steve Ballmer.

Record at EBay

In Whitman’s decade as CEO of EBay, she took the e-commerce company public and built its market value to about $40 billion, with about $7.5 billion in annual revenue.

Her record wasn’t without blemish. In her final years at the helm, she failed to reignite slowing sales. And a bidding war between Google Inc. and Yahoo forced Whitman to pay $2.6 billion for Skype in 2005. EBay wrote down the division’s value by $900 million in 2007 before selling it last year.

Whitman is less conservative politically than Fiorina on one key issue: abortion. Fiorina is opposed to it, while Whitman favors abortion rights. California Republicans winning statewide office in recent years -- such as Schwarzenegger and Pete Wilson, who was governor in the 1990s -- have supported abortion rights.

Whitman’s position on abortion is part of what makes her “the kind of Republican who can win in California,” said Thad Kousser, associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego.

For Fiorina, it’s just one more issue to overcome.