It came from the linked article that references a rejected appeal in a bank fraud case concerning turning over an encryption key.
If I hear about a startup that hasn't lost any employees then I just figure they're waiting for the IPO. While l like the description of the diverse group of employees and other aspects of the company, I think not mentioning compensation at all is a little disingenuous
If they're paying the people a reasonable wage and the checks don't bounce then employees tend to stay. Add in stock options and waiting for the big IPO, or as mentioned in the article a very big buyout, then you have people waiting for the big payday. The perks ( or lack thereof ) might have had an effect on employee retention thus far, but you shouldn't ignore the hope of substantial monetary compensation as an additional big motivator.
Might as well make it local.
I was thinking more like this: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/bibuxton/buxtoncollection/detail.aspx?id=178
"Rather than a free-standing slate/tablet computer, the Zenith CruisePAD was a remote terminal to one's PC. It was designed to allow the user to interact with that PC's applications from a distance over a wireless network. What made it interesting to me was that it let one do so directly on the CruisePAD's screen, using either a stylus or finger."
I don't know if it was a case of "if you can't beat them join them" but when I searched for "MTM watch" on Amazon there was a sponsored link by the plaintiff on a resulting page. So they appear to be paying Amazon ( directly or indirectly ) when someone searches there to give them a link back.
It doesn't have to be a keyword. Amazon has a feature "other people who searched for that bought this". So people could initially have searched for the exclusive watch, not found it and then looked at others. They might even have bought one. Amazon wouldn't have had to do anything specific regarding the "other watch" besides see what people who came looking for it looked at after when they didn't find it.
Scanning for ads pays for the service. Ad-Supported. Scanning for ads means you get an email service, for free. Spam filtering, for free. You get multi-gigabytes of storage, for free. So how in the heck can any Gmail user say it benefits Google and not them also?
It's legitimate for a non Gmail user to say that having their mail scanned isn't isn't worth the value of the email service. If you do have Gmail, you made the deal and you can leave any time if not happy with what you perceive as value you get for them scanning your mail.
Forget all the arguments about whether the art installation is a hack. The real hack is when someone else gets hold of the lights and make them spell out something like "Turk 182"
The civilian opportunities for this sound great. When compelled to give up a password or your devices are otherwise being examined without your permission, the same function used to protect private data.
Q: What's your password?
Q: What's that smoke smell?
I was thinking the subatomic particle. I should have gone with transistor, but wanted to use my "Q"
I can see the point made by people wanting to change the scoring. The initial letter/point associations were made based on the number of tiles in the bag and the frequency of use at the time. The "official" rules have changed by virtue of the allowable words. With new acceptable words added the letter frequency changed as well.
If new words are added (or subtracted ) , to keep the game the same, then eventually the letter scoring would also need to change if the desire was to keep the game from changing. Changes were made for non-English versions, with different distribution of letters and point values:
So if English has changed since 1938 it's not outrageous to suggest a new distribution/scoring mix. Desire to keep the game "the same" is also understandable, but that would require using a 1938 dictionary and not allowing new words. ( Nope, can't used "quark" )
If a dad tried this in the USA he'd probably find himself, along with the assassins, being charged with some cyberbullying statute. The kid would then sue successfully, making enough money to move out, get his own place and continue gaming full time.
The build up and payoff was about as satisfying as "Bambi Meets Godzilla"
Following links several layers down from the original article lead to this one that cites the doubling :
This article is from 2012, so not part of the analysis from the other paper listed that is from 1999.. But as both analyze the results of previously performed studies one meta-analysis of another meta-analysis might not have been appropriate anyway. They do come up with different conclusions. As the one linked to here is from a decade later that the other one, it may be that it is bases on studies done after the the other paper was published.
In the study referenced there are LOTS of "conclusions" mentioned that can be taken out of context of the article. This be because the paper references many other studies and quotes their conclusions or observations. The bulk of the paper points out positive and negative aspects of previous studies. The paper itself does not present the conclusion of "a near doubling of the risk of fatal crashes" as suggested above. There may be another paper with that conclusion, but it's not this one. If that number came from one of the other studies that this paper cites, it would be interesting to see how this paper's authors address that conclusion.
There are three points at the end of this paper:
"Overall we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:"
1. No evidence that consumption of cannabis increases the risk of culpability for fatal traffic crashes and may decrease them.
2. The evidence for the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol relative to alcohol alone is unclear.
3 It is not possible to exclude that cannabis use, with or without alcohol leads to an increase risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.