tensafefrogs

It varies by deal. If you are a hot-shit growing company, you obviously have more leverage to negotiate for your employees and can get them full-time positions with good retention bonuses/stock.

If you are running out of money and don't have a choice, then your employees are probably going to be rolled into an existing product, and at that point, there's probably not a lot of benefit to Google to hire sub-par employees, so they may not get an offer or might get less than in the above case.

It also depends on what your team does: A failing company that does hard core research and employs a bunch of Phds might be worth a lot more than a random social startup that just employs a bunch of randos.

1) Meet with business people. 2) Tell them they need to focus on [Insert current industry trend here] 3) ??? 4) Profit.

Currently mobile (apps, web) and cloud services.

The police report is now posted in the story (it wasn't there when this was posted a few weeks ago after the incident).

It sounds like the cops told him to leave (aka cross the street) and he didn't, so they pushed him down and cuffed him for refusing to leave. Sounds like excessive force to me, and wtf @ arresting him and putting him in jail for that.

But really, it sounds like the whole thing could have been avoided if he just walked a ways away from the scene and let everyone do their job. Why make a big deal out of being told to cross the street? That's the part that smells funny to me.

You can watch the video of the flight that triggered the lawsuit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZnJeuAja-4

Definitely some questionable flying in my opinion.

Or, you could say that it was never illegal...

Yep, people are already making them:

https://fruitychutes.com/uav_rpv_drone_recovery_parachutes/m...

It would be possible if enough miners started supporting a blacklist, but the real problem is not enforcing it, but who decides which coins are "stolen"?

Bitcoin is decentralized, and that's the benefit of it. Creating a global block list would go against that.

> "It would also prevent unmanned aircraft from being improperly used by creating two new crimes: the illegal use of an unmanned aircraft to capture images and the offense of possessing or distributing the image."

Terrible.

What's the deal with the creepy hookah/booze bottle picture at the bottom of that page?

The "no" was directed at this statement, which I believe to be not very accurate:

> Google tried to avoid this scenario with 'snippets'

My point is that OKRs are meant to be used for tracking performance (such as what the article was talking about) and snippets are more for personal use or casually for information among teammates or other curious people who want to know what you work on.

Ah, I've always used snippets more for personal use, so when the time comes to evaluate yourself you have a record. Yes, they are public, but they've always felt more informational than a mandatory log of what you've done.

No, Google uses the OKR (Objectives and Key Results) system to track performance. You set goals with measurable results, and you grade them every quarter.

That way you aren't evaluated so much on when/how you work, but on what you accomplish.

(I should also include a note here about how you are evaluated by your peers at Google, which has its own set of benefits and downsides, but OKRs are meant to be a somewhat objective measure of output)

I don't believe this is the result of an ideological belief. This is standard Apple app store policy that if you allow any sort of in-app purchases, they have to go through Apple.

? This link now seems to redirect to an unrelated article[1]... very confusing...

[1] http://www.fastcodesign.com/node/1840715

This seems terribly biased towards more recent projects. Older projects might be used WAY more than the ones on Github, but because they started their lives on some other code hosting service, they will be left out of this evaluation.

I've also tried to create the kind of site you are hoping for. The key thing here is the ability to follow interests as well as people, but I think you are still getting bogged down in static categories. Look at how Medium has done it: Anyone can create a collection, and you can follow the collections (instead of following people). This way you empower people to curate and be rewarded for good curation, as well as allowing the followers to filter out the unwanted content. The classic example I like to use is I follow @gruber for his Apple commentary, but I don't care about Baseball, so a few times a year I wish I could filter that stuff out.

On the other hand, you want creators to be able to share seamlessly, and making them categorize their content isn't a good way to do it. Looking at the popular social services out there, making people choose a category is too much work, and is too limiting. And when you try to create a service that supports all of these needs, you end up with a really complicated tool that people don't use how you envisioned (see G+ - it has "pages" to support personas, it has private sharing via circles, it has communities, but you can't just throw all of this stuff at users all at once and expect a community to show up out of nowhere... you have to build your community)

Coinbase (a YC backed company) is probably the easiest (and one of the more trustworthy) places to get set up and buy some.

[disclosure: this is a referral link] https://coinbase.com/?r=5125b580c746f00bc6000018&utm_campaig...

You don't need to trust Google. They seeded the project and now it is open source ("uProxy has been developed at the University of Washington, with help from Brave New Software. The project was seeded by Google Ideas.")

uProxy is better than Tor (as long as you have a friend you can trust that has access to the content you are interested in). The problem with Tor and other proxies is that you don't know who controls the proxy or exit node, so can't trust it. Is your government running Tor nodes and logging everything and tracing it back to you? Maybe. You can't know.

uProxy is good.

The police were, but the FAA isn't a fan:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/9/4821094/remote-aircraft-pi...

I've always been curious about the pressure of shareholders in situations like this. Google is a publicly shared company, right? So if they don't maximize the shareholder's value, don't they open themselves up to lawsuits by shareholders?

So even if they wanted to "do the right thing" and pay some taxes on this money, they couldn't, else their board would get voted out by large shareholders who are only in it for the money.

I thought regex was overkill for that one and used:

return input.split(".")[1] || "";

Anyone interested in this stuff should definitely watch the lectures from the Stats 110 class from Harvard that's up on iTunes U (and perhaps other places).

Lecture 6 talks about this paradox and if I recall correctly he might even talk about this exact case:

https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/statistics-110-probabilit...

> In general product management does what you might think of "brand management" and "design language"

While it's possible some product managers have done that, they don't typically get involved in minutiae like that. Product Managers at Google are more business focused, figuring out what the teams should focus on and keeping them pointed in the right direction based on the market and feedback from their customers + users.

Because this is America, and it's supposed to be an amazing country where you have wonderful rights as outlined in the constitution.

Your wording implies that you think Google has something to hide or to be embarrassed about releasing the data, and that is not the case.

The government asks for people's data all the time, and Google is legally obligated to provide the requested data. They then go the extra step and tell the users as soon as they are allowed to.

There's nothing here to "get in front of."

Sad that this only got 5 votes, when it's a perfectly logical explanation for all the sensationalism around this story.

"Collection directly from the servers of these U.S. Service Providers..." could easily mean "We ask them for the data and they give it to us from their servers."

Especially in the context of that slide where they are contrasting it with their "upstream" collection which would require sorting out the packets (and presumably decrypting them) before analyzing the data.

When you get a FISA letter you aren't allowed to acknowledge that you got it, or tell anyone about it. So yes, there are very tricky laws to skirt around here which necessitate the use of a lawyer when responding to these.

Google has been a strong proponent of transparency around these requests, but they are bound by law to not talk about it, so there's only so much they can do.

So... this is basically a really slow Fax service.

They would probably let you reapply for the different position. You should try.