A Series Of One Day Regional Conferences Addressing: Fill & Download for Free

I've never been a junior associate at McKinsey, but I have been a business analyst. From what I recall, junior associate is the title for the same role in India. The roles are basically the same, with a few regional differences including office culture and travel schedule (India travels Monday-Friday, whereas the US travels Monday-Thursday).I'll describe my experience for you, with the caveat that these things vary by office and project. I'll split my experience up into what it's like when you're on a project and when you're in between projects.When you're on a projectGetting staffed on a new project as a business analyst often feels like you're starting a new job. You're working with people you've never worked with before on subject matter you're likely not familiar with. Your first week on the project you're typically not very productive; a lot of your time will be spent reading documents to get familiar with the project and client context. Typically the weekend before you start, the project manager will send you a dump of documents to read over the weekend and during the week. These can include readouts from past projects with the client, the LOP (letter of proposal), and PDs (practice documents) related to the topic of your new project. In addition to reading documents, you'll typically be tasked with easy, rote tasks like making updates to a specific powerpoint page, running an analysis in excel, etc.One important distinction to make is whether a project requires travel or not. This impacts your life significantly. If a project requires travel, Tuesday and Thursday are travel days. You'll be getting up at the crack of dawn on Monday to head to the client site, and leaving mid-afternoon on Thursday to head home. Business travel seems glamorous at first, but most people tire of it quickly. Local studies are typically prized and seen as a luxury at McKinsey.For a non-travel day, a typical schedule could be:7:00 am: Wake up, check the flurry of emails that came in overnight, respond to anything urgent, shower and get dressed8:00 am: Grab breakfast in the hotel lobby and head to the client office8:30 am: Process check-in with the team's low-level client liaison to discuss progress since yesterday, plan for today, and any outstanding issues / questions9:00 am: Run an analysis on some client data that you've finally received after days of haggling back and forth11:00 am: Problem solving session with the partner / associate partner on the project (details on problem solving follow later)12:00 pm: Head to the nearest food source to pick up lunch; most projects bring lunch back to their desks and continue working1:00 pm: Work on slides for the next steering committee / progress report based on the outcome of problem solving4:00 pm: Progress report with 2-5 key clients; as a business analyst, you'll be taking notes and addressing any direct questions on the pages / analyses you worked on6:00 pm: Internal team meeting to debrief from the progress report and align on what needs to get done by the next day7:00 pm: Order dinner and continue working on the outcomes from the progress report10:00 pm: Head back to the hotel to wrap up any loose ends, work out, and sleepFridays are typically easier. The team disperses and works in their own offices. You'll typically have a few project conference calls on Friday, and some work to take care of, but most people spend a good chunk of their time on Fridays socializing with people in their offices. Fridays are also typically shorter days, running from 8:30-5:00 on average, with happy hour in the office in the evening.One last thing I'd like to note about time spent on McKinsey projects is that they typically feel like a series of deadlines. The sequence alternates between team problem solving and an important client meeting (either a progress report or steering committee). I'll briefly describe each of these here:Problem solving - Much has been made of the McKinsey problem solving method, but team problem solving is quite simple. Before problem solving, the team is usually scrambling to prepare the draft document for the next big client meeting. During problem solving, the project leader presents the draft document while team leadership (associate partners and above) gives feedback. It can get quite argumentative, and everyone is encouraged to jump in. The output of problem solving is usually alignment on what work needs to be done to finish preparation for the next client meeting.Progress reports / steering committees - These are when you meet with the client that pays the bills, and usually several other members of the project team. The agenda usually revolves around a project update (both on the process and the conclusions the team has made so far). These can be stressful, as the outcome of the meeting usually determines your quality of life for the next few days. Happy clients = happy life, so a good progress report is reason for celebration.Between projects / staffingThe staffing process is one of the biggest aspects of consulting that gets glossed over in information sessions and interviews. When you start at McKinsey you'll be assigned a PD (Professional Development) manager. They are in charge of helping you to find projects. They have one of the hardest jobs at the firm, as they are constantly getting pressure from partners to staff people and keep utilization up, while dealing with requests from consultants that want to wait for the perfect project.For your first project or two, you're basically assigned to a project without your input. It's like being deployed in the military. After that, once you've proven yourself to be a useful asset to a project, you'll have a lot of input in the projects you choose. The best way to get a new project at McKinsey is through your network, rather than waiting for PD, so typically in the last few weeks of a project you'll be reaching out to people you know to see what else is coming up. You'll also be having calls with PD to discuss your plans for after the project.A lot of the time you'll be going directly from one project to the next, but occasionally you'll find yourself with 'bench time', also known as 'beach time'. This is time between projects when you're not assigned to anything. Typically during this time consultants will help out with other things around the office, including proposals and knowledge work. 'Beach time' is another envious luxury at McKinsey.ConclusionsThis turned out way longer than I expected. I must re-emphasize that the above is generalities from my experience, and I've left out a lot of the complexity in working at McKinsey so I don't end up writing a novel here. In particular, problem solving can be a lot more complex than just preparing a document for a meeting.I hope this helped - cheers!

There are three parts to this answer1. What is the Kashmir Conflict?2. Why Pakistan really wants Kashmir?3. Why does the Pakistani Military Establishment propagate hatred against India?1. What is the Kashmir Conflict?The Kashmir conflict is a territorial conflict between India, Pakistan.It started just after the partition of India. India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir,and the Kargil WarFurthermore, the two countries have been involved in several skirmishes over control of the Siachen Glacier. India claims the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir, and, as of 2010, administers approximately 43% of the region. They control Jammu, the Kashmir Valley, Ladakh, and the Siachen Glacier.India's claims are contested by Pakistan, which administers approximately 37% of Kashmir, namely Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas, or Gilgit-Baltistan.The root of conflict between the Kashmiri insurgents and the Indian Government is tied to a dispute over local autonomy.Democratic development was limited in Kashmir until the late 1970s and by 1988 many of the democratic reforms provided by the Indian Government had been reversed. Non-violent channels for expressing discontent were thereafter limited and caused a dramatic increase in support for insurgents advocating violent secession from India.In 1987, a disputed state election created a catalyst for the insurgency when it resulted in some of the state's legislative assembly members forming armed insurgent groups. In July 1988 a series of demonstrations, strikes and attacks on the Indian Government began the Kashmir Insurgency.Although thousands of people have died as a result of the turmoil in Jammu and Kashmir,the conflict has become less deadly in recent years.Protest movements created to voice Kashmir's disputes and grievances with the Indian government, specifically the Indian Military, have been active in Jammu & Kashmir since 1989.Elections held in 2008 were generally regarded as fair by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and had a high voter turnout in spite of calls by separatist militants for a boycott. The election resulted in the creation of the pro-India Jammu & Kashmir National Conference, which then formed a government in the state. According to Voice of America, many analysts have interpreted the high voter turnout in this election as a sign that the people of Kashmir endorsed Indian rule in the state.________________________________________2. Why Pakistan really wants Kashmir?Why does Pakistan really want Kashmir?Why would a country try so hard to capture an insignificant valley with no extra mineral resources or natural beauty ( Pakistani Illegally Occupied Kashmir is as beautiful).Pakistan could not care less about the freedom and issues of Kashmiri Muslims, they have enough problems in their own land to take another burden.The reason is water, Pakistan is scared that in times of Conflict, India will stop or divert the waterThe Indus Water Treaty, which was signed in 1960, has remained intact for more than 50 years even during periods of unrest. Under the treaty, India gained control over the Sutlej, Ravi, and Beas rivers, while Pakistan received control over Chenab, Indus, and Jhelum. However, since the Pakistan-controlled rivers first flow through India, in the background of mutual hostility and suspicion between the two countries, Pakistan has the tendency to believe that the water scarcity that they experience is somehow attributable to India (as opined by Ramaswamy Iyer, the former Secretary for Water Resources in India).According to the Asian Development Bank report, Pakistan is one of the most water stressed countries in the entire world. According to projections, India will become water stressed by 2025. Pakistan is likely to be classified as water-scarce soon, and India is set to become water-scarce by the year 2050.Pakistan draws a lot of water from its existing reserves, thus putting the country in great danger of water shortages in the future. According to the Asian Development Bank, the water storage capacity of Pakistan amounts only to a 30 day supply, significantly lower than the 1000 days that is recommended for countries that have a similar climate. Correspondingly, the water storage capacity of India is 120 days.The Indus Water Treaty, at the time, was the best option that both countries could get after a long negotiation of eight years. It wasn’t the best treaty, but it was the only one that was acceptable by both. As time passed, increasing water pressure has put new demands on both countries. In order to address the current situation, the treaty needs to be amended, but this doesn’t seem likely because of recurring conflicts and ongoing bilateral tensions.In 1947, when the subcontinent was partitioned, India and Pakistan were born to become rivals. Several other conflicts have also had an impact on the water relationship between the two countries.One of the reasons why Pakistan suffers greatly with respect to water is because of its weak lower riparian status. Also, the country does not have a good supply-side management structure. This results in wastage of almost 35% of its water resources. An imbalance in water distribution across Pakistan is also another reason for some areas getting less water than required.If in times of Conflict, India decides to go all out, no holds barred, no quarter given or taken war, then Pakistan is bound to die by thirst.This paranoia drives the entire Military & Intelligence wing to keep the Kashmir Agenda alive.___________________________________3. Why does the Pakistani Military Establishment propagate hatred against India?It is a commonly known fact that Pakistanis are ‘in search of identity’.The Arabs look down upon them, since they are not arabs. The Iranis look down upon them, since they are not Persians. They are South Asians with nothing to unite them as a country.From the secession of East Pakistan to form Bangladesh in 1971 to the on-going conflict in Balochistan, the contestation that the country has faced since its independence in 1947 indeed suggests that Pakistan has not reached a consensual conception of the nation.The two-nation theory, which postulates that South-Asian Hindus and Muslims cannot live harmoniously in the same state, has provided the main ideological foundation for Pakistani state nationalism, yet it has failed to act as a unifying concept the way it did in the years leading up to Partition.Pakistani Military & Government are controlled by Ethnic Punjabis. Most of their important positions of power are filled by Punjabis. Lahore, Rawalpindi & Islamabad are the power centres and parts of Punjab.This leads to a loss of identity for the Balochs, Sindhis, PoK, and NWFP residents.What can stop their movements demanding greater autonomy if not secession?The answer is what we all know, find a common enemy, the bogeyman, the enemy of your existence - INDIABy keeping Hindus & India as the greater threat, Pakistani Military has ensured that the secessionist movements in various parts of Pakistan are under control.It is time for the Pakistani population to remove the veil from their eyes and realize that rather than India, the greatest threat to their nation are the generals sitting in RawalpindiJai Hind

This answer has been re-published on Forbes.Paul Graham of Y Combinator is fond of saying that the center of Silicon Valley is:"wherever there is at this moment the greatest concentration of the people who are going to make the next generation of stuff."I humbly disagree.The center of Silicon Valley, the capital, has a long and illustrious history proving its embodiment in a permanent physical space. We can use the principles of economic geography and the mechanics of industrial cities and regions to better locate this core. Lastly, a brief history of the San Francisco Bay Area at large will help us explain why and how that physical core isn't so permanent, and why it's shifting within this region. [1]Silicon Valley encompasses an industry over a particular geography, in this case, the high-tech industry as it's headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area.The capital of this region is going to be defined differently from the capital of a governmental region, like a state/province or nation.Wikipedia defines a capital city as:the area of a country, province, region, or state considered to enjoy primary status ... a capital is typically a city that physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government...So we can say that a capital city is where decision-making authority is physically located. When we compare this criterion to the capital city of an industry, such as the one Silicon Valley encompasses, we find that there is no central decision-making authority for that industry and thus no way to reach an answer by that definition. [2]A center of power is the more appropriate criterion by which to decide where an industry's capital might be located.For example, everyone knows the entertainment industry ("Hollywood") is located in Southern California. But within this region, it's not actually in Hollywood (not anymore). The centers of power--film, television, and music studios--are spread out across a few cities, notably Burbank, Studio City, Century City, Culver City, and yes, some parts of Hollywood. The people that matter, those with power and influence, live mostly in and amongst the same areas, across West L.A., typically Beverly Hills and the Hollywood Hills and everything in between. So where the power is concentrated, where people congregate to share ideas, fund them, and bring them to life, mostly, are in a small, 10-mile radius in an area that locals call the Westside.In fact, Southern California is actually an industrial capital for other industries too, they're just located in other parts of town. Aerospace and fashion also round out the city's economy, but despite being spread out, the main centers are by the airport and Downtown respectively.^ The 'capital' of the entertainment industry is this blob on the Westside. SoCal/LA may get the overall credit, but this red blob is what people refer to by 'Hollywood.'Even other regions defined by an industry, like New York is by "Wall Street," are confined to a specific geographic area because that's where the power is concentrated. Wall Street is basically Lower Manhattan, not all of New York City. The major banks and financial institutions are for the most part located there.^ The tip of Manhattan is the capital of 'Wall Street.'So when it comes to Silicon Valley, where is the power concentrated? If we go by where the largest technology companies are headquartered, we're in a bit of an odd situation. The world's pre-eminent tech company, Apple, is in Cupertino. Google (company) is in Mountain View and Intel (company) is in Santa Clara. Like Southern California, these power centers are spread out in a small area of an even larger industry-region. But there is a big difference: Hollywood doesn't pull actors and actresses from top university engineering and business programs and doesn't need venture capital firms to back productions.In fact, it's important to note that Silicon Valley is in the business of innovation, which is a complex labor process requiring: [3]massing of technical competencefirms and skilled labor (which are willing to share knowledge to some extent)free movement of workerstechnical interaction (problem solving / learning-by-doing / experimentation)These processes are best fostered by a strong clustering effect among universities, research institutions, investors, companies, and workers in close proximity. Thus we can focus on the true capital of Silicon Valley, the exact location where the power of the industry is concentrated, where talent is nurtured and ideas are forged and funded: Stanford, Palo Alto, and Menlo Park.^ The little purple blob center-south above has been the capital of Silicon Valley since the region got its name (if you go by my definition). There is a lot of power to the south and to the east, but this kernel of land is the 'promise-land.'Stanford University produces the talent and the attitude to start tech companies. Harkening back to our definition of innovation-based businesses, the students that come out of Stanford are not only technically competent, they share the attitude that certain competencies should be shared and expanded upon experimentally for the betterment of everybody (these days this ethos is embodied in "hacking " and "hacker culture"). Look no further than the Homebrew Computer Club spawning the personal computer revolution in the 70s. The traditions established by hackers then continues today, and it's physically embodied in this area.Palo Alto is the city where much of these student-entrepreneurs live, and companies are founded and based there because of that (at least till they grow large enough to seek accommodations elsewhere). Menlo Park is home to Sand Hill Road, where every marquee venture capital firm has an office. Over time, these specialized cities created a name for themselves, attracting auxiliary professional services like financiers, attorneys, accountants, and other business consultants. Today this specific cluster has become the de facto capital of Silicon Valley, independent of anything it originally offered. [4]There isn't one building, one campus, one location, but rather, a small little cluster of cities where the power lies, and that is the capital of Silicon Valley.Now, the story doesn't end there. We've so far ignored the role San Francisco has to play in possibly being the capital of Silicon Valley, and there is a fair bit of history to explain its role.San Francisco has always been the capital of the Bay Area, and for much of its history from the mid-19th century onwards it served as the capital of the region. The city's port made it a center of commerce, and people emigrated in droves to capitalize on the bounty of the West Coast: industry and finance were booming. There was no Silicon Valley in sight.By the mid-20th century, San Francisco had lost its claim to main port of the region. Across the Bay, the Port of Oakland was better suited for the age of containerized shipping. There was still no Silicon Valley.It was at this point that two things happened that will help explain why San Francisco was not, but now may be, the capital of Silicon Valley.When the shipping industry moved across the Bay, large swaths of warehouses and industrial space south of Market Street (and elsewhere) went unoccupied, and the area began to experience significant urban decay. Industries like banking and law were still prominent SF fixtures, but things weren't as glorious as 50-100 years prior.Scientific advances that had emerged out of a need for sophisticated radar/electronics technology for World War II had led to a booming new industry just south of the city, in the Santa Clara Valley. By the 1960s, innovations led to silicon transistors which started a new industrial boom, giving the region the name 'Silicon Valley.'To support the new high-tech ventures, a new class of financial support known as 'venture capital' emerged simultaneously to serve the needs of budding entrepreuners. They mostly located around where the innovation was taking place, in the Santa Clara Valley. From the 1970s till about now (the early 2010's), the capital of Silicon Valley, as I said earlier, is in and around the Stanford/Palo Alto/Menlo Park area.But things may be changing...A series of factors are coming together to help make San Francisco the capital of Silicon Valley. [5] Notably five main trends:SOMA: Remember the urban decay mentioned earlier? The city and its residents were driven to reverse the situation, and starting in the early to mid 1990s, diverted significant resources to turn things around. This was the birth of SoMa (South-of-Market) as it exists now: a hub of high-tech startups in repurposed warehouses and lofts. Part of this effort included spending a lot on public spaces like the Moscone Center and the Yerba Buena Gardens, places where tech companies from the 'real' Valley could host conferences and events. [6]Take this very interesting photograph below.It's shot from the Bay Bridge in 1971. If you click on it and expand it for a detailed look, you'll see that SoMa is basically just a downtrodden industrial area. Notice all those warehouse-wharfs to the left of the bridge? Most of those are gone now. Oracle Park is of course not even built, and the little marina nearby is absent. All the attractions that make SoMa lively and 'modern' are yet to be built.At the moment this photo was captured, Silicon Valley was flourishing to the south. The dawn of the personal computer was yet 5 years away. SF was in decay, but now, 40 years later, SoMa is as close to a 'capital' of Silicon Valley as you can get.All the restaurants and coffee shops are aflutter with startup talk, people walk to and from their startups and lofts. The dense urban landscape of SoMa has a higher concentration of power now than the suburbia down south, if measured by serendipitous collisions of entrepreneurs and investors on sidewalks. Even Michael Arrington, a self-made Silicon Valley power broker, confesses as much in his blog post entitled, "San Francisco or Palo Alto?" where he says:Most people, though, just want to meet in San Francisco....Specifically, most meetings are in SOMA. And a huge percentage of those meetings, especially the informal ones, are at The Creamery (San Francisco restaurant) in San Francisco....Part of why I like the bay area is because so many people there are in tech that it’s the center of all conversation. Even a few years ago San Francisco didn’t feel like part of the party. Somehow it stole the show. [7]Tax Exemptions: Further on in the decade, tax exemptions were made to make the city more attractive to tech companies (or at least retain the big ones that had already located there). Zynga (company) and Twitter (product) are the big beneficiaries so far, but there is likely to be more over time. [8]Software vs Hardware: The hottest startups of the day are now software/Internet companies, not the hardware companies of the older Silicon Valley. These new companies don't need large, industrial spaces, warehouses, R&D offices, etc that had been developed in the 'real' Valley. Software is a relatively lean operation (in terms of industrial capital), and you could base it out of lower-footprint office buildings if need be.Silicon Valley luminary Marc Andreessen, in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal entitled, "Is Software Eating the World?" proves the point when he writes:On the back end, software programming tools and Internet-based services make it easy to launch new global software-powered start-ups in many industries—without the need to invest in new infrastructure and train new employees. In 2000, when my partner Ben Horowitz was CEO of the first cloud computing company, Loudcloud, the cost of a customer running a basic Internet application was approximately $150,000 a month. Running that same application today in Amazon's cloud costs about $1,500 a month. [9]Younger Founders & Lifestyle: Startup founders are now also younger than before, and they care about the hustle-and-bustle of city life, which San Francisco provides. Startup founders from the 1960s and 70s were older gentlemen, and it took longer for companies to reach maturity, so even if they were young when they started, by the time they wanted office space, they were old enough where the constraints of boring old suburbia didn't matter. In fact, they were preferable: a safer, quieter place to raise children and grow old.There is a more exaggerated form of this argument as well. Back in the 'golden days' of early Silicon Valley, entrepreneurs likely had PhD's in electrical engineering and related fields, or were working towards them. These days, there is an entire movement in the Valley to convince young college kids (or at least an elite subset) to drop out of school and found companies. [10] There are huge lifestyle differences between these age groups, and the younger in age, the more likely to prefer the city.Transit Options: San Francisco has more transit connections than any other region. You can take CalTrain, BART, the freeway system, or ferries. No other city has as many transit options linking it with the rest of the Bay Area. This is ipso facto a strong indicator of SF's importance.Depending on what your definitions of an industry-region's capital are, you may or may not be partial to viewing San Francisco as the hub of all power, but you can't ignore the trends. Then again, why does there have to be one capital in the first place? Just like nations have multiple capitals (the financial capital of the U.S. is New York and the governmental capital is Washington D.C.), so can an industry-region like Silicon Valley. What may emerge in the coming decade is that the startup/entrepreneur's capital becomes San Francisco, and the financial/VC capital remains in the original 'Valley.'UPDATE [05/2014]: According to a new study (Startup City: The Urban Shift in Venture Capital and High Technology), on a per capita basis, San Francisco now attracts more venture capital than Silicon Valley proper. This is attributed to "walkable, mixed-used [urban environments] ... the newest and most innovative developments in the industry are likely to emerge from urban and urban-like locations."Footnotes[1] I didn't feel it necessary to address whether Silicon Valley itself is the capital of the technology industry. That is already established with a long line of work that details the historical development of this technopolis. Annalee Saxenian's book Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 discusses at great length why Silicon Valley became the technological capital of the U.S. See Google Books link: http://books.google.com/books?id=gnh2Rb1rcMIC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=falseI also avoided a discussion on cost-centers and competitive advantage. Between regions, those factors would be central to the discussion, but it shouldn't be applicable within this region. It's not like engineers in Palo Alto are getting paid any more or any less than their San Francisco counterparts. We can't therefore use these factors as a basis.[2] Certainly going by where a trade group or association is located would be silly. While they are standard-setting bodies that govern how a particular industry might behave, they are not necessarily centers of power.[3] This definition is inspired by a series of lectures on economic geography given by Professor Richard Walker of the UC Berkeley Geography Department. See this YouTube video of Lecture 6 of the Geography C110 course (at 1:14:32 specifically):[4] It would be irresponsible not to mention Mountain View as a strong possibility of being part of this cluster. Several reasons:It's really physically close to the existing cluster, so it's not a stretch to tack it on. It's also connected by CalTrain and the expressway system so power brokers and influencers, allowing key people to move easily within this area.It draws power to it, which is a key characteristic of industry-region capitals. More details on this in points 3-7 below...Google (Googleplex): In addition to being one of the world's powerhouse tech companies, brings in lots of people for Google Talks and other events. Smart people are buzzing around the area because of Google.Y Combinator: As I said, if Stanford/Menlo/Palo play mentor and incubator for tech startups, Y Combinator is just as good a mentor these days. Attracts tons of ambitious smart people building the next generation of companies, and that's the type of power that defines capitals.Singularity University: A growing power center that attracts power as well.NASA Ames Research Center: Home to the aforementioned Singularity University and of course, a big draw for science/research.Lots of important startups (but I don't want to tout this too heavily, since other Bay Area cities have lots of startups as well but that's not enough to qualify for 'capital' status)[5] Some may object to San Francisco's inclusion into Silicon Valley since it's technically outside the Santa Clara Valley, from which the region derives part of its name. However, Silicon Valley has morphed into a larger term to encompass the high-tech industry located in the Bay Area (i.e. it's grown out of the physical Santa Clara Valley). For example, Twitter is part of Silicon Valley, but it's located in SF.In fact, some people just use Silicon Valley to refer to the entirety of the American high-tech industry. (People often group Amazon and Microsoft into Silicon Valley, even though they're Seattle companies.) But without further digression, it's safe to say that SF may be considered part of Silicon Valley, even if it's not part of the 'Valley' proper.[6] The investment into large conference/convention spaces definitely paid off. Almost all major tech events in the Bay Area take place in San Francisco. Proof of this is available at my list of major tech events from 2011: Michael Sinanian's answer to What are the major technology events in a given year? .[7] Michael Arrington's blog post: http://uncrunched.com/2012/02/21/san-francisco-or-palo-alto/[8] Tax exemption sources:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/technology/04tax.html?_r=1&src=busln&pagewanted=allhttp://www.sfexaminer.com/local/development/2012/02/zynga-saved-millions-its-taxeshttp://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2011/04/05/twitter-payroll-tax-market.html[9] Marc Andreessen's op-ed can be found here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460.html[10] The Thiel Fellowship is at the center of such efforts, with their "20 under 20" campaign. See: http://www.thielfellowship.org/Image/Video CreditsMaps showing Hollywood/Wall Street/Silicon Valley taken and modified with Google Maps.Panoramic view from Bay Bridge (1971): This photo was taken before stitched panorama techniques existed. The original shots were taken by Bruce Steinberg. They were scanned and assembled by Brad Templeton. The original source can be found here: http://pic.templetons.com/cgi-bi...Geography lecture from footnotes is taken from UC Berkeley's YouTube channel; Creative Commons license (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works).