This is a self-absorbed inflammatory post from someone who is clearly going through a difficult experience. I don't think he's a troll (though the account was created 2 hours ago), but I also doubt there's anything you can say to him in this thread to change his feelings.
Would it be impossible for webapps to just have different interface versions always available? Like if I really liked something about the very first release, I should be able to roll back to that version and use that. We should all be able to use the interface that we like the most and upgrade as we see fit.
I'm an HBS'er who has also started 3 companies over the past few years (including one while at HBS). I'd say HBS definitely emphasizes supporting entrepreneurship, but it's not the way that you'd expect. HBS is a great place to start a company not so much because you learn about entrepreneurship in the classes as much as the place is so well setup as a platform to support people starting companies.
Yes, HBS is all about the case method for its classes. It's actually a great way to learn. It is very time consuming, all-encompassing, and incredibly powerful if you commit yourself to it rather than blow it off the way many post-consulting, post-finance students may. The case studies will give you some tools that are really helpful in organizing a business, but they will not show you how to do it. The only way to learn how to start a company (in my opinion) is to actually do it yourself. The reason HBS is a great place to start a company is that you have access to all of Harvard, MIT, Babson, Boston University, several world-class hospitals, and many venture capitalists in the Boston area. HBS offers a protected time where you can get successful entrepreneurs (your professors, case protagonists who come in, classmates, etc) to help you come up with ideas, get in contact with people, and create something of enduring value. You are surrounded by classmates from any industry you could imagine who are connected at the very top who are excited to just have lunch and talk about whatever you want to talk about.
While it's true that many people out of HBS go to work at a company, the statistics show that more than 50% of HBS graduates ultimately do start their own companies, often only a couple years after leaving HBS. If you look at the sorts of companies they start there are many really great companies, not just random me-too sorts of small tech companies based on relatively thin IP.
I think it's really easy to dismiss a place like HBS as a place that just churns out consultants and crappy I-bankers. In all honesty I looked at HBS, and MBA programs in general, like that a few years ago too. I was a techy who thought most business people only had a limited amount to add to any true entrepreneurial endeavor. I still think that's the case for many business types and surely HBS still pumps out its fair share of consultants and crappy-douchebag I-bankers. Nevertheless, there are also some world-class entrepreneurs there. People who will and have changed the world in far more significant ways than most technical folks who think the way I used to will ever really appreciate.
Also, just for the record, I know there are a group of HBS'ers who do read HN regularly and have attended Startup School. I for one have not signed up for hndir.com yet and I'm guessing most of them haven't either. I have my yahoo mail account that I'll use to sign up for random sites, but I'm a bit more selective about how I use my .edu account and it's not clear from the website that they won't use this for spam. Overall I like the idea though. Just my 2 cents.
It's released to a specialized submarket of all Mathematica users (namely those who are paying out of pocket and who want to save money). That's called price discrimination, and it also exists among the submarkets of students shopping for colleges to attend.
The problem with Mathematica for serious development is that you need Mathematica to run the stuff. So if you write a gadget/utility, only people with Mathematica can run it.
This is an attempt to get deeper penetration into the hobbyist market.
I have the Apple TV and have cancelled cable as well. Greatest thing about Apple TV is that my wife and her sister - neither of whom have any patience for futzing around with AV or computer equipment - can easily figure everything out and happily watch TV/movies whenever they want. Also, LOVE watching podcasts on a normal TV and being able to control music playback in the living room via my phone. Video podcasts have replaced the time I used to spend randomly flipping through channels.
I think the only thing that's really missing from my current experience is an easy way to stream live video to my Apple TV (without breaking the simple interface). It was a bit of an issue during the election. I would have paid to have had access to a CNN or some other news channel other than one of the broadcast networks, though PBS served us reasonably well.
So let's say you have a CS background and want to pick up python today - is it worth it to read up on the 2.0 stuff or just go right for 3.0 seeing as 3.0 is "backwards incompatible"? Is there a mass exodus to 3.0 happening or are there going to be a lot of people (e.g. researchers in other disciplines whose life is only peripherally programming) who are going to stick with the 2.0 that they already know and love?
And is this (http://docs.python.org/3.0/) the best place to look for 3.0 learning material or is it better to do the Dive Into Python (for v2.0) thing then figure out the 3.0 differences?
I would suggest learning Python 2.x first. The v2 branch is not going away overnight, and you're going to pick up Python 3.0 fairly quick after you know 2.0, so you may as well learn the version you can use straight away (with frameworks, libraries etc.) and learn your way up to 3.0 proficiency from there.
Agreed, with the addendum that you should learn on Python version 2.6, which lets you import many of the features from 3.0 on a per-file basis to make the transition to 3.0 easier.
3.0 is not backwards compatible.
Whether to use 3.0 or 2.x depends upon the libraries you want to use. Some library writers are holding off the migration to 3.x until 3.0 is included as default in the popular linux distros.
I'm a med student and a programmer. I think there are a lot of similarities between these two disciplines.
The body is an incredibly complex system that you or a pathological process can perturb in a variety of ways, just like any other system. The results of those perturbations may be evident immediately or may take a long time to present themselves. The results are output in the form of physical signs and symptoms. The way this particular system works is that there are more potential pathologies than there are physical signs and symptoms, so sometimes you end up with collisions in the pathology to sign/symptom mapping. In these cases you can use instruments like labs, radiological tests, and sometimes invasive methods like surgery to further investigate. These tests are imperfect and are themselves perturbations to the system.
If you can come to a final diagnosis of the underlying pathology using the tools at your disposal (history, physical exam, labs, tests, and procedures) you can then engage in a therapy. The more precise your diagnosis, the more precise your therapy can be. Again, therapies are also perturbations to the system. Ideally these perturbations move the system back into its normal functioning state though they may also cause undesired results that must then be diagnosed and treated.
This entire process takes place within the context of a social interaction that can itself help or hinder. Both doctors and patients have their own social idiosyncrasies that may or may not match up well with each other.
I believe that most physicians operate by generating a gigantic hash table. Essentially they know several patterns of physical signs/symptoms that act as the key. The value is whatever knowledge they have of that disease process. As medical knowledge progresses some physicians update their hash table keys/values with new information, most don't. Almost all physicians update their hash table (i.e. learn) using information gathered in the process of seeing their own patients and recognizing the difference between the predicted outcome and the actual outcome. This is often a subjective process. I think it is because of this approach that most physicians find it hard to believe that medical diagnosis and treatment can be highly systematized and is at least partially such an obvious idea even needs a study to support its use.
Do you think there are other industries that would be a good example for the medical industry to follow? It seems like coming up with standards for such a complex area has been a stumbling block for healthcare. Is healthcare more complicated than other areas that have seen massive success with IT or is that just an excuse?
Does anyone have any good resources that describe frameworks for developing standards or examples of other industries that have done a good job with standards?
This Charlie Rose of George Lucas has some really interesting parts about how art is technology. That is, technology as a way to realize a vision - an artistic vision in George Lucas' case. I think the particularly interesting stuff is around 23:30 and 27:00. Reminded me of Hackers and Painters.
I didn't watch the video (yet), but your comment makes me think of my experience with artists with whom I've been impressed: A lot of them are really good technicians in the technical areas pertaining to their art.
Somehow, when I grew up the overall message I received regarding art seemed to want to separate the "creative" from the technique. It just isn't so. It takes a lot of technique to reliably record the creative.
