Let's ignore the egregious question of internal and external validity of MBTI for a moment. I've been tested by one of Australia's spy agencies [we have about six] using MBTI, and came out as an INTJ, with extreme 'I' characteristics. One way to put that would be to say that I have almost no external locus of control. That doesn't mean I am immune to reasoned argument, quite the reverse; the only way to change my mind is by reasoned argument. I cannot and will not be browbeaten or blackmailed by anyone.
So what is this guy like in the workplace? Surely that Himalayan ego is a serious problem? Surely those Asperger-like symptoms are an impediment to corporate success? Can he work with, like, real people? In fact, I have led several teams to great success, because my ego is unthreatened by the brilliance and skill of the people who work for me. If someone has a better idea than mine, I don't feel the need to stomp on it. Quite the reverse; I'm proud to have the best and brightest working for me, I'm not scared of occasional failure, and I have a reputation as a great 'people person', a description that my secret self considers utterly bogus. I dislike physical contact, for example, and sometimes have trouble reading people, but I compensate for that because I am almost impossible to offend, unconcerned with personalities, and often barely aware of the people aspects when I wade into 'difficult' office situations.
So MBTI is a bit like horoscopes, or phenotypes and genotypes. It's not deterministic, it's indicative. Just because you and I have INTJ stamped on our foreheads, it doesn't mean that we can't be effective in situations thought to be more suited to the touchy-feely types; as an INTJ, I never play favourites, focusing instead on solving the problem rather than playing to the audience. Sometimes the INTJ's highly analytic approach to everything can be more effective in managing people than emoting all over them and wanting everyone to be your friend.
If you want to go to Europe and see stuff, do it. You might want to do it INTJ-style, preparing a detailed dossier on everything, mapping out locations, travel dates and times, selecting odd things aligned with your interests [Vesalius's dissecting room at Padua is still there, for example, and surely the LHC would be on your list], but hey, what's wrong with that?
Almost unheard-of in Australia, except in fields like fashion modelling, acting, etc. We also do not explicitly state age, marital status or religion on our CVs.
I guess you meant to say 'rules out the free version of Google Maps', which is a pity because I think it is th obvious choice. Not unreasonably, though, Google expect to recoup the cost of putting it together. Geocoding is one of those frontiers yet to be cracked by the OpenSource community, but if such a thing existed I doubt they would be happy with its inclusion in a commercial product.
Are you happy with specific countries, or are you hoping for a global solution? It's a tough nut to crack, because individual countries often use local datums or grid reference systems, and users in those countries expect to be able to use them, too. In addition, how accurate do you need them to be? Are we talking street addresses [lookup and reverse lookup], parcel location, grid references or what? The precision you need will determine what is an acceptable solution, or at least one 'fit for purpose'.
For Europe, at least have a look at what the INSPIRE data portal offers. I have no knowledge of any available Russian data, although past history would tell me that it is probably held in a locked vault.
Matt Hutchinson's IntelliGeoLocator project[written up here--http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/difficult-addr...] might also be a starting point for you, and the IP is apparently held by the Australian Co-operative Research Centre for Spatial Information [CRCSI], who can be contacted through www.crcsi.com.au. Ultimately, though, you will probably have to source the raw data you need and improve the accuracy as you go.
"Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynmann" and "What Do You Care What People Think", both [obviously] by Richard Feynmann
"Uncle Tungsten" by Oliver Sacks, mostly about Sacks' early life
"The strangest man: The hidden life of Paul Dirac", by Graham Farmelo
"The man who loved only numbers: the story of Paul Erdos and the search for mathematical truth" by Paul Hoffman
"Subtle is the lord: the science and the life of Albert Einstein" by Abraham Pais
"Thesiger", by Michael Asher, providing you think of Wilfred Thesiger as a scientist and not just an explorer
You seem to have imbibed a particular economic myth, and are now choking on its very prominent bones. Very few of us are destined to have even $1 million of disposable income in our hands at any one time. Making big bucks is primarily a combination of luck and the willingness to embrace risk.
Richard Branson is a rare example of a self-made billionaire; he started in the 1970s and leveraged his small investments into larger ones. But make no mistake, he took substantial risks; he could easily have lost the lot, like so many others did. The only reason we have heard of him is because he was the 1 in 1000 who made it.
The failure rate for small businesses, online or not, is 99%. Only 1 in 100 business survive beyond five years, and many do not even make it beyond the first. The key message from those who did make it is to ask around, workshop your ideas, to share and not hide your ideas; let others help you to success. The Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith [not a billionaire, but certainly a man with 'fuck you' money] asked lots of successful business people for tips, and found [to his surprise] that they were always willing to offer advice and to share their tips for success.
Very few people know anything about starting a business, let alone something entrepreneurial. As others here have said, reach out to the people around you. Find people with that experience, ask them what they learned, including the mistakes. Given the right approach, they will love to bore the pants off you with their war stories.
So what is this guy like in the workplace? Surely that Himalayan ego is a serious problem? Surely those Asperger-like symptoms are an impediment to corporate success? Can he work with, like, real people? In fact, I have led several teams to great success, because my ego is unthreatened by the brilliance and skill of the people who work for me. If someone has a better idea than mine, I don't feel the need to stomp on it. Quite the reverse; I'm proud to have the best and brightest working for me, I'm not scared of occasional failure, and I have a reputation as a great 'people person', a description that my secret self considers utterly bogus. I dislike physical contact, for example, and sometimes have trouble reading people, but I compensate for that because I am almost impossible to offend, unconcerned with personalities, and often barely aware of the people aspects when I wade into 'difficult' office situations.
So MBTI is a bit like horoscopes, or phenotypes and genotypes. It's not deterministic, it's indicative. Just because you and I have INTJ stamped on our foreheads, it doesn't mean that we can't be effective in situations thought to be more suited to the touchy-feely types; as an INTJ, I never play favourites, focusing instead on solving the problem rather than playing to the audience. Sometimes the INTJ's highly analytic approach to everything can be more effective in managing people than emoting all over them and wanting everyone to be your friend.
If you want to go to Europe and see stuff, do it. You might want to do it INTJ-style, preparing a detailed dossier on everything, mapping out locations, travel dates and times, selecting odd things aligned with your interests [Vesalius's dissecting room at Padua is still there, for example, and surely the LHC would be on your list], but hey, what's wrong with that?