west1737

I haven't used a resume in 10 years. Maybe if it was more relevant, that would change.

And the name PG... very sketchy

It's pretty useful if you're looking for an overview of the US; it's pretty useless if you're just looking for info about silicon valley.

I really don't understand the negativity. They have an awesome team that's built an awesome product. No, it's not finished (hence the money to hire more engineers) and yes, there are competitors (competition proves market need).

I don't know much about how VCs structure their portfolios, but recognizing a need in the market and betting on a badass team seems like a pretty solid strategy to me.

As for me, I'm happy for them. I hope they succeed. I hope them and their investors make a ton of money and it encourages other teams to build more awesome products.

Do what you have to do. AOL is no worse for having someone sleeping on their couch.

To be fair, that's what I would do if I was doing a legit product- mock up the t's and bags, then get them printed once the money is received.

These past two statements illustrate pretty clearly why very little research has been done on this subject. One mention of LSD, or many drugs for that matter, and you have people jumping to two extremes (that have nothing to do with the original topic of off-label treatment / pain-management.

I have no experience, so I can't say who's right or wrong. I just think it's sad that these type of arguments have given some drugs so much of a stigma that it set back medical research in this area for 40+ years.

True, but changing the little checks to little middle finger bullets would have been a much more elegant method of retaliation.

I've only known Geoff for a short while now, but this will be a huge benefit to YC. Geoff has a great eye for product development and can really strip an idea down to its core elements.

That's good, I never thought Stanford made sense as a choice for NYC. Don't get me wrong, Stanford is an exceptional school, with great tech credentials, and has spawned a unique startup environment.

But the thing that makes the SF area great for startups is the proximity (and thus density) of startups and tech in general. While long-distance networking has come a long way, it's still no replacement. If NYC's goal is to build a stronger tech community, I think they're better off building their own East Coast tech culture vs. trying to import a culture from SF.

Disclosure: as a Cornell grad, I'm definitely biased and psyched about it getting more involved in supporting a tech community (a $350M donation didn't hurt either)

When I started my very first web business and didn't know any better, I almost blew $1000 on a couple angel groups that I know with the wisdom of hindsight would have been a complete waste of money. For someone who didn't know any better, it seemed like a good deal.

The worse part isn't that it preys on startups, it's that it prays on startups and new entrepreneurs that aren't plugged into the HN/SV scene (I was looking at angel groups in TX).

I don't think that a nominal fee (~$10 - $20) is necessarily a bad thing (but really, why bother?), but anything on the order of $100 or more is too much for a startup to be spending on that type of thing- a definite red flag. What investor would want to invest in a startup that spends all of its money looking for financing rather than creating a great product/service?

You can also take a picture of most things- it's a little less accurate, but it still works.

Also, when a store puts their own barcode over one, I generally don't feel any guilt about peeling it back a little and scanning the original.

Profit margin as the metric for measuring "interesting"? There are lots of reasons fb could be considered interesting, and profit margin is only one and waaay down on the list. How about the fact that fb revolutionized the way people communicate and connect?

On the flip side, SAP revolutionized business software and as a consequence, business organization. That's pretty interesting too. I know which side I would come down on, but simplifying the debate to profit margin misses the point by a wide margin.

I was pretty excited about Google moving sharing to Google+ as I like Google+ and I think making it easy to share will be crucial to success.

That being said, I hate the new Google Reader. I used it primarily as sharing tool, and the new sharing makes that more difficult. I think two fixes would make this better:

1) Being able to share easily with different circles. While I might be okay sharing publicly something interesting, there are plenty of less-than-appropriate funny articles that I only want to share with a few friends. This is one of the strengths of Google+, and it'd be great if Reader could take advantage of this.

2) Being able to see shared articles from other people. I understand they want to increase traffic to Google+, but this was always a great feature of Reader. In effect, each friend that used reader became their own feed. It'd be great to still have this feature and even though you're decreasing traffic to plus.google.com, you'd be increasing the overall use of Google+