It's a rough start to the week for bitcoin. The cryptocurrency trades down 4.38% at $2,483 a coin, a one-week low.

Monday's action seems to be a continuation of the selling that developed last Wednesday, the day rival Ethereum flash-crashed from $296 to $0.10 before recovering its losses.

Bitcoin is down about 9.5% since Wednesday's opening print. 

The recent weakness in bitcoin comes following a run up of more than 200% to start the year. Bitcoin's 2017 gains have been propelled by heavy buying from China and Japan. 

Recent strength has come on the heels of China's three biggest exchanges resuming withdrawals for the first time since February and Japan naming bitcoin a legal payment method back in early April. Additionally, Russia's largest online retailer began accepting bitcoin even though has Russia said it wouldn't consider the use of the cryptocurrency until 2018.  

But, the big gains have created some skepticism as of late. Billionaire Mark Cuban called bitcoin a "bubble" as the cryptocurrency hit its then all time high on June 6. "I think it's in a bubble. I just don't know when or how much it corrects. When everyone is bragging about how easy they are making $=bubble," Cuban tweeted. 

About a week later, Goldman Sachs head of technical strategy Sheba Jafari wrote bitcoin was looking "heavy" and due for a drop to as low as $1,915 before seeing a rally. It put in a low of $2,076 before rallying to almost $2,800.

There still remains one big unknown. Back in March, the US Securities and Exchange Commission rejected two bitcoin exchange-traded funds. It has since taken public comment on its decision regarding an ETF started by the Winklevoss twins, but it has not made an additional ruling.

SEE ALSO: Ethereum's flash-crash victims are getting their money back

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: An economist explains what could happen if Trump pulls the US out of NAFTA

We take another look at the high market valuations while also considering the extremely low levels of fear in the market as measured by the VIX. In the past David Bianco of Deutsche Bank has said if you look at the ratio of the S&P P/E to the VIX it can help identify complacency in the market. This makes sense intuitively because at times when valuations seem high it would reason that people would protect their portfolios if they were expecting a correction. As people buy protection, the implied volatility in the market rises along with the cost of that protection. But we aren't seeing increased implied volatility. Instead the VIX is hanging out around 10, calm as can be. 

Join the conversation about this story »

This is a preview of a research report from BI Intelligence, Business Insider's premium research service. To learn more about BI Intelligence, click here.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is growing rapidly as companies around the world connect thousands of devices every day. But behind those devices, there’s a sector worth hundreds of billions of dollars supporting the IoT. 

Platforms are the glue that holds the IoT together, allowing users to take full advantage of the disruptive potential of connected devices. These platforms allow the IoT to achieve its transformational potential, letting businesses manage devices, analyze data, and automate the workflow.

In a new report, BI Intelligence examines the evolving IoT platform ecosystem. We size the market and identify the primary growth drivers that will power the IoT platform space in the next five years. And we profile many of the top IoT platforms, discussing key trends in the platform industry like platform consolidation. 

Here are some of the key takeaways:

• The IoT platforms market is set to expand rapidly in the years to come, with current leading platforms expanding and others entering the space.
• We define the key categories into which IoT platforms fall: building block open platforms, closed high-end platforms, and product management platforms.
• We highlight the ways platforms can help companies reach the full five stage potential of the IoT.

In full, the report:

• Explains the coming growth of the IoT platforms.
• Profiles a number of leading platforms.
• Highlights the central role platforms play in the IoT.
• Looks to the future of the IoT platforms market.

Interested in getting the full report? Here are two ways to access it:

1. Subscribe to an All-Access pass to BI Intelligence and gain immediate access to this report and over 100 other expertly researched reports. As an added bonus, you'll also gain access to all future reports and daily newsletters to ensure you stay ahead of the curve and benefit personally and professionally. >> Learn More Now
2. Purchase & download the full report from our research store. >> Purchase & Download Now

Join the conversation about this story »

This portable turbine can harvest energy from wind or water to charge your devices when you're off-grid.

The turbine has a max output of 25W and needs to be in water travelling at 5mph or in wind travelling at 7mph to achieve that.

It is perfect for tech savvy campers who want to harvest renewable energy for their devices while travelling off-grid.

Produced by Leon Siciliano

Join the conversation about this story »

And you thought Red Bull was bad.

It turns out that while a can of the energy drink has 80 milligrams of caffeine, a small cup of Starbucks drip coffee has more than three times that amount.

Since many beverages don't show their caffeine content, it can be tough to make sure you're not overdoing it — and the Mayo Clinic advises adults to limit their caffeine intake to 400 mg per day. More than that and you run the risk of unpleasant side effects ranging from migraine headaches to irritability, upset stomach, and even muscle tremors.

With that in mind, here's what the maximum amount of caffeine you should be drinking in a day looks like in the context of your favorite beverages, from McDonald's coffee to soda, tea, and energy shots:

SEE ALSO: 11 things people think are terrible for your diet that actually aren't

DON'T MISS: 13 diet 'truths' you should ignore

Starbucks coffee

The Mayo Clinic maintains that most healthy adults can safely consume up to 400 mg of caffeine each day. Starbucks ultra-strong coffee would put you over that limit with just two cups. In contrast, most other coffee only contains about 90-120 mg of caffeine per cup. A single small cup of Starbucks' Blonde Roast coffee, on the other hand, has 270 mg of caffeine.

5-Hour Energy

Energy shots might look tiny, but they can pack a surprisingly powerful caffeine punch. One 5-Hour-Energy contains 200 mg of caffeine — nearly the same amount as a cup of Starbucks.

McDonald's coffee

Unlike Starbucks coffee, McDonald's drip offers roughly the same amount of caffeine as a "standard" cup of joe, according to the folks over at CaffeineInformer.com. The chain does not currently report the amount of caffeine in its coffee, but Caffeine Informer says each 12-ounce cup has 109 mg of caffeine.

Don't have the time or money to get a bachelor's degree?

Don't fret. There are plenty of high-paying jobs that require only a two-year associate degree, postsecondary nondegree certificate, or even just a high-school diploma.

According to the latest data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, these are the 25 highest-paying jobs that you don't need a four-year degree to pursue.

Each has a median annual salary of at least $68,000.

SEE ALSO: The 25 highest-paying jobs in America

DON'T MISS: 37 jobs that are quickly disappearing in the US

25. Aerospace engineering and operations technicians

They operate and maintain equipment used in developing, testing, and producing new aircraft and spacecraft.

Median annual wage (2016): $68,020

Education required: Associate's degree

Projected job openings (through 2024): 3,200

Work experience: None

On-the-job training: None

24. Magnetic-resonance-imaging technologists

They monitor patient safety and comfort and view images of areas being scanned to ensure quality of pictures.

Median annual wage (2016): $68,420

Education required: Associate's degree

Projected job openings (through 2024): 9,800

Work experience: Less than five years

On-the-job training: None

23. Gaming managers

They plan, direct, or coordinate gaming operations in a casino.

Median annual wage (2016): $69,180

Education required: High-school diploma or equivalent

Projected job openings (through 2024): 800

Work experience: Less than five years

On-the-job training: None

LONDON — Britain's major lenders have been told by the Bank of England that they must set aside a combined £11.4 billion of capital in the next 18 months as a means to protect themselves from the risks of an economic downturn.

In its Financial Stability Report — released on Tuesday morning— the bank increased the so-called counter cyclical capital buffer (CCB) from 0% to 0.5%, with the expectation that that buffer will be increased to 1% at the next stability report in November.

Banks are expected to set aside £5.7 billion in the next six months, with a further £5.7 billion to be put away by the end of 2018.

The buffer is put in place to ensure that lenders do not get themselves into the same positions that they did during the financial crisis, protecting themselves from debt going bad and triggering another credit crunch.

This is done by setting aside capital in good times so that banks can keep lending during a downturn, and are protected if customers lose their ability to make repayments on their debt.

Essentially, it is the banking equivalent of putting money aside for a rainy day.

"As is often the case in a standard environment, there are pockets of risk that warrant vigilance," the report, compiled by the bank's Financial Policy Committee said.

Areas of particular concern for the Bank of England include consumer credit and mortgages.

"Consumer credit has increased rapidly. Lending conditions in the mortgage market are becoming easier. Lenders may be placing undue weight on the recent performance of loans in benign conditions," the report noted.

"Consumer credit grew by 10.3% in the twelve months to April 2017 (Chart B) — markedly faster than nominal household income growth. Credit card debt, personal loans and motor finance all grew rapidly," the report added.

Here is Chart B:

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: JIM ROGERS: The Fed is clueless and is setting us up for disaster

As one of the most important drivers of the eight-year equity bull market fades, another bullish catalyst looks primed to fill the void.

Exchange-traded funds will purchase $300 billion of equities this year, more than 2015 and 2016 combined, according to Goldman Sachs. The firm raised its forecast after ETFs were responsible for $98 billion of stock buying in the first quarter alone.

It's just the latest in a flurry of signals that the $2.8 trillion ETF market is not only growing rapidly, but also expanding its market influence as it gains in popularity.

Credit Suisse was forecasting that ETFs would see record annual inflows as far back as early May, while Moody's predicted in February that passive investments will make up 50% of the US stock market by 2024.

The shift towards ETF investment comes at an ideal time for market bulls. Corporate share repurchases, which have served as a crucial backbone for much of the eight-year bull market, were down 18% in the first quarter on a year-over-year basis, according to data compiled by S&P Dow Jones Indices.

Even then, buybacks were still the biggest driver of equity demand during the period, Goldman says.

But the firm acknowledges that it scaled back estimates for repurchases amid expectations that tax reform will be delayed. President Donald Trump's proposed repatriation tax holiday was expected to boost domestic cash holdings, but no reform of any kind has materialized.

The resulting gap in equity demand has been bridged not just by ETF enthusiasts in the US — foreign investors have also gotten in on the action. They bought $55 billion of US stocks during the first quarter following two straight years of negative net demand, according to Goldman data.

Those foreign traders may be further persuaded to sink cash into US ETFs if dollar strength slows down, the firm says.

Still, amid all of the pro-ETF arguments being espoused, Goldman urges caution for investors blindly pouring money into such funds. After all, experts across Wall Street are expecting the S&P 500 to finish the year basically unchanged from current levels. On average, they see the S&P 500 ending the year at 2,414, less than 0.1% from last Friday's closing price, according to a Bloomberg survey of 19 strategists.

SEE ALSO: A crucial stock market indicator just got its most bullish reading on record

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: An economist explains the key issues that Trump needs to address to boost the economy

UFC champion Conor McGregor is at his best when "everybody is mocking him," according to the fighter's head coach John Kavanagh.

McGregor may be one of the top athletes in mixed martial arts but he is the bookmakers' underdog in his August 26 clash with Floyd Mayweather.

Coach Kavanagh, though, said McGregor thrives on pressure and is used to proving people wrong.

"We've always done our best when everybody is mocking the idea of an unknown Dublin guy saying he's going to take on the whole UFC roster and win the belt," Kavanagh told Ariel Helwani on The MMA Hour.

"Those challenges seem to bind us even closer than we already are. I'm really seeing that spirit lit up in the team. It's always there, but for whatever reason, because we're being laughed at, because we're being mocked, it's making us even stronger."

Kavanagh is aware of Mayweather's pedigree but is planning to exploit any weaknesses, no matter how slight, in the unbeaten American's game.

"We're talking about one of boxing's all-time greats but there will be openings," he said. "Nobody is perfect and everybody can get hit. We’re just looking to make those openings happen more often than they usually do."

Kavanagh is expecting to see McGregor stun the combat sports world. "We're ready to see a lot of jaws drop on the night."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We finally learned the purpose of that extra shoelace hole on your sneakers

The European Commission has handed Google a record-breaking €2.4 billion fine for abusing its dominant position and promoting its own shopping service in its search results over those of its competitors.

The fine is twice as much as the €1.1 billion expected prior to the announcement.

It sets the tone for Europe's relationship with Silicon Valley going forward. 

Here's the full press release from the European Commission:

Antitrust: Commission fines Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This couple lived in Google’s parking lot for 2 years and saved 80% of their income — here’s how they did it

LONDON — Google was fined €2.4 billion (£2.1 billion) for abusing its monopoly in Europe on Tuesday, and while Americans will no doubt bemoan the stereotype of European antipathy toward innovation this is mostly Google's own fault.

Let's be clear: Today's action — the equivalent of $2.7 billion in US dollars — by European Commission competition chief Margrethe Vestager was based on real complaints about real things that Alphabet, Google's corporate parent, has actually done. And when people outside the tech/search industry see the evidence, it doesn't look good.

Google has, on occasion, behaved in unfair ways that hurt competition and smaller tech businesses. (For the record, Google denies wrongdoing, and you can read a statement the company made arguing its case here.)

Most of the people doing the complaining are NOT Europeans — they are other American tech companies (and their lobbyists) whose international businesses have allegedly been screwed over by Google.

Americans can comfort themselves with the image of French and Belgian politicians, sitting behind glasses of red wine, moaning about "les Americains" ruining everything for the workers, but that is not the reality.

Eric Schmidt once acknowledged Google was 'in that area' of being a monopoly

It is obvious how dominant Google's monopoly is, and Google has made many enemies over the years because of it.

Google is more dominant in Europe than in the US, even though it is an American company with a towering stateside presence. Everyone acknowledges Google is a de facto monopoly:

• Peter Thiel, the libertarian tech investor, has said so.
• Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer thinks Google is a monopoly.
• Yelp has lobbied the EU, arguing the same.
• The US FTC has investigated Google for monopoly practises, though it has concluded no significant antitrust action needs be taken.
• Even Google chairman Eric Schmidt has acknowledged "we're in that area." Although, Schmidt and cofounder Larry Page once declined to testify to Congress on the topic of their monopoly status.

That Google monopolises search is not in itself a bad thing. Merely being a monopoly is not a transgression, even in Europe (it's often a sign of natural success). Rather, EU antitrust law applies when companies abuse their monopoly to manipulate markets around them unfairly.

On that measure, Google has more than qualified for scrutiny over the way it distorts markets that have nothing to do with search.

FTC staff believed Google may have engaged in antitrust actions but chose not to act

The US FTC concluded an investigation of Google and chose not to pursue a case against the company. But it was a "close call,"a document leaked from the FTC said, and the document revealed a number of cases where FTC staff apparently did believe the facts showed that Google was using its dominance to manipulate the market. Here is one, where staff wrote that they believe a change to Google's "search engine results page" (SERP) hurt traffic going to other sites:

Another part of the document said Google had scraped content from Yelp and Amazon, hurting those companies:

The smoking gun against Google

You can see that for yourself when you do any type of search. More and more frequently, Google places its own results from its own properties on top of the actual "organic" search results that its algorithm produces. In many ways, this is the smoking gun against Google. The company's algorithm dominance is natural and not the product of unfair competition. But if the Google engine produces the best search results, why does Google feel the need to cram those results beneath its own properties?

The best evidence for this came from Yelp and a coalition of companies it has formed that believe they are being screwed out of their natural, "organic" ranking in search results because Google simply dumps its own — often less relevant — content on top of the "real" search ranking of which sites are best.

Yelp's evidence was elegant and simple: It used Google's own search API to create a browser extension that displayed Google search results without results that include promo boxes generated from Google+, the unpopular identity/social-network product that Google launched to counter Facebook. The extension shows you the "real" result generated by Google's algorithm, without the self-promotional fluff that Google layers on top of it. Here is what that looks like:

The difference is alarming. Hotel review sites like TripAdvisor — which have hundreds of reader reviews per hotel, and are thus good quality search results if you're looking for hotels — get buried under Google's own Google+ review boxes, in which only a handful of people have written reviews. It's difficult to argue that Google is serving the "best" hotel results if its own algorithm is being crammed down under automatically generated promo boxes for Google's own properties. Another example:

You should take this argument with a pinch of salt: Yelp is an avowed enemy of Google.

Yet ... it's compelling.

So compelling that the EU based its €2.4 billion fine on a version of it today. Here's a diagram from the official announcement showing how anti-competitive Google's shopping ads are:

A long list of companies hurt by Google

Dozens of companies believe Google uses its search might to dictate terms in industries in which Google itself does not compete. Expedia, TripAdvisor, Microsoft, and a bunch of smaller companies have complained that Google sets competition rules within their industries.

Even the adultery website Ashley Madison has a case: It cannot advertise on certain Google properties, but Match.com can. Google doesn't run dating sites, but it sets the rules through which they can advertise against one another.

Over the years, all these complainers have piled up into a veritable tidal wave of discontent against Google. The company, because it is so successful and so dominant, has created an army of enemies that want to see it brought down.

Today, they scored a rare victory against a giant that until now had looked bulletproof.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: This is what happens to your brain and body when you check your phone before bed

Here is what you need to know.

The CBO has released its analysis of the Senate Republican healthcare bill. The Congressional Budget Office projects that 22 million fewer people would have coverage under the Better Care Reconciliation Act in 2026 than under the current healthcare system.

A hung Parliament crushes UK consumer confidence. The outcome of a hung Parliament in the UK's general election caused consumer confidence to plunge to 105.2 from 109.1 in the week following the vote, according to research by YouGov and the Centre for Economics and Business Research.

The EU hits Google with a record-breaking fine. The European Union fined Google 2.4 billion euros ($2.7 billion), saying the company "abused its market dominance as a search engine by promoting its own comparison shopping service in its search results, and demoting those of competitors."

GM cuts its US 2017 new-vehicle sales outlook. The automaker sees new vehicle sales in the US totaling in the "low 17 million" range, down from its previous estimate of "mid 17 million," Reuters says, citing a top executive.

Jamie Dimon isn't worried about automation. "My guess is our headcount will go up over the next 20 years, not down," Dimon said in a LinkedIn interview cited by Bloomberg.

There's a showdown between America's biggest players in trading. The House Financial Services Committee's US Equity Market Structure hearing takes place Tuesday, and things are likely to get heated.

Paulson & Co. ups its stake in Valeant. Billionaire investor John Paulson's fund disclosed a 6.3% stake in the pharmaceutical company, up from 5.68% on March 31, Reuters says.

Stock markets around the world trade mixed. Japan's Nikkei (+0.36%) paced the gains in Asia, and France's CAC (-0.50%) lags in Europe. The S&P 500 is set to open little changed near 2,438.

Earnings reporting picks up a bit. Darden Restaurants reports ahead of the opening bell, and KB Home releases its quarterly results after markets close.

US economic data flows. Case-Schiller home prices and consumer confidence will cross the wires at 9 a.m. ET and 10 a.m. ET, respectively. The US 10-year yield is up by 1 basis point at 2.15%.

Join the conversation about this story »

Google was just served its biggest fine yet by Europe's competition watchdog — a massive €2.4 billion (£2.1 billion) for "illegally" promoting its Google Shopping results above similar comparison results from rivals.

Google must change its behaviour within 90 days, or fork out up to 5% of its parent company Alphabet's global daily turnover.

The European Commission has explained exactly why Google deserved that scalping in a factsheet that takes into account Google's history of dominance in search, and how it demoted rival comparison services.

First, if you're not familiar with Google Shopping, it's that graphical bar that shows up any time you search for a product. For example, if you Google the term "frock", Google will show you some pictures of dresses with some links to third-party retailers such as British department store House of Fraser.

Here's an example:

Let's say you didn't want to buy a frock though. Normal results still show up underneath Google Shopping, but it still takes up almost half of the screen.

Google abused its massive power in search to promote Shopping results

To understand why this is such a problem, Europe's competition regulator examined how Google dominates search.

It found that Google is the leader in online search across its entire jurisdiction — the 31 countries that form the European Economic Area. Google's actually been the leader since 2008 in most countries, it found.

Here's a StatCounter diagram from the regulators showing just how all-powerful Google search is. You can probably see that Yahoo and Bing are pretty much nowhere to be seen, despite being considered Google's biggest search rivals.

And Google's dominance is self-fulfilling because of "network effects," the regulator said.

"The more consumers use a search engine, the more attractive it becomes to advertisers. The profits generated can then be used to attract even more consumers. Similarly, the data a search engine gathers about consumers can in turn be used to improve results."

Search is the golden goose from which all eggs are laid, in short.

Now, being number one in search isn't illegal by itself. But using that number one position to promote a totally different in-house service is, according to the Commission. Especially if it means pushing down rivals.

What does "rivals" actually mean? The Commission said its focus was kept on other comparison shopping sites, and not sites which sell to you directly like Amazon, or eBay. It didn't name names though.

As the Commission put it: "Google has abused its market dominance in general internet search by giving a separate Google product ... an illegal advantage in the separate comparison shopping market."

Not only does Google Shopping show up at the top of Google results, the results are displayed in a "rich format, at the top of the search results, or sometimes in a reserved space on the right-hand side."

It also looks like Google Shopping results are exempt from Google's own search algorithms, the Commission added. That's another competitive advantage against rivals who have to ensure their SEO is in shape to appear top of Google's search index.

"Comparison shopping services in the EEA are prone to be demoted by at least two different algorithms, which were first applied in 2004 and 2011, respectively," the Commission said. "Evidence shows that even the most highly ranked rival comparison shopping service appears on average only on page four of Google's search results, and others appear even further down. In practice, this means consumers very rarely see rival comparison shopping services in Google's search results."

Google cost rival comparison services up to 85% of their traffic

The Commission found that Google's practices meant a huge drop in traffic for rivals once Google Shopping was introduced.

Here's what it found:

• An 85% drop in the UK
• 92% drop in Germany
• An 80% drop in France

"These sudden drops could not be explained by other factors. Some competitors have adapted subsequently and managed to recover some traffic, but never fully," the Commission said.

Meanwhile, Google's traffic went up, it found.

Why the record fine?

The Commission said the €2.4 billion fine accounted for the duration and severity of Google's practices. The regulator was looking at Google's impact on shopping comparison services since 2008, and the fine was calculated based on what the Commission thought Google had probably earned.

The Commission plans to publish even more details around the case, but said it needs permission from Google and other companies because these contain commercially sensitive information.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's how Google Maps knows when there is traffic

This device is designed to stop animals drowning in swimming pools.

The FrogLog hangs from the poolside into the water, providing a small platform for animals to easily escape from swimming pools. The product has been successfully tested with a range of animals, including mice, lizards, ducklings and frogs. 

The product was designed by a wildlife biologist after finding 53 dead frogs and toads in his friend's pool. 

You can buy the FrogLog for £20.

Produced by David Ibekwe

Join the conversation about this story »

The Premier League could break its £1.17 billion ($1.5 billion) summer spending record this summer as clubs scramble to sign the world's top talent.

Real Madrid forward Álvaro Morata, Borussia Dortmund striker Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, and AS Monaco attacker Kylian Mbappé have all been linked with moves to English clubs.

But former Manchester City technical director Mike Rigg thinks English football will be better off "when the money runs out."

There's not much chance of that happening anytime soon, particularly with a record £5.14 billion in TV money being injected into the Premier League, but Rigg said football would benefit from a greater focus on youth development.

"In many ways finances are obscene and out of control," Rigg told Business Insider. "Look at the way fans relish spending millions of pounds on football players. Other clubs relish building that player. In Germany for instance, they create millionaires. In England, we buy them."

Rigg was no stranger to eye-catching deals at Manchester City. He signed the likes of Sergio Aguero and Yaya Toure for the club. City has been the Premier League's top spender since 2012/13, according to the Daily Mail, splashing out £565.65 million on players.

But Rigg was also at City when plans were drawn up for its £200 million City Football Academy, which has state of the art facilities for young players. He was also previously the Welsh Football Association's regional development officer and helped lay the groundwork for the UEFA pro licensing courses.

"The Premier League and the academy systems do a good job in creating players but because we are so rich we are in a position where we can buy a player for £100 million," Rigg said.

"To some degree, the best thing to happen to football in this country will be when the money runs out. We can then focus on developing players and nurturing talent again."

He highlighted the success of England's youth teams as an example. The Under-17 side were finalists at the 2017 UEFA European Championships, while the Under-20s won the Toulon Tournament in June. The Under-21s are currently striving for success in the UEFA European Under-21 Championship.

But some of the England stars of these tournaments struggle for game time at their respective clubs. Rigg said "it is important that the pathway to play [at club level] is open." He added: "When we have so much finances in our system, developing players becomes less of a focus."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here’s a simple no-weights workout that could lead to real results

The Autopulse Resuscitation System does continuous CPR on the move. It's designed to support manual CPR rather than replace it.

The machine is portable, battery-operated, and compresses the chest without stopping.  It's intended to reduce the impact of rescuer fatigue.

The whole kit with batteries costs £9,000.

Produced by Claudia Romeo

Join the conversation about this story »

John Oliver summed up the problem with the anti-vaccine movement on "Last Week Tonight" in one line:

"Opportunistic quacks writing books that fan the flames of people's unfounded fears don't cause a legit public health hazard, except when they do."

Oliver was talking about Dr. Robert Sears, a pediatrician who promotes the idea that vaccines could be safely administered to children over a longer period of time, rather than all at once as is traditionally done.

Sears' approach has been portrayed as a sort of middle ground between anti-vaccination naysayers, who wrongly claim that vaccines are dangerous, and the medical community's consensus that vaccines are safe and necessary.

The problem is that Sears' method doesn't work. No scientific studies suggest there's a benefit to his technique, and a mountain of evidence supports the fact that vaccines are important and effective. There is no safe alternative to vaccination, and research has shown  that spacing out vaccines can have harmful results.

"Infants and young children who follow immunization schedules that spread out shots ... are at risk of developing diseases during the time that shots are delayed," the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrote in its vaccination guidelines.

The frightening consequences of spreading out, delaying, or avoiding vaccinations has already been seen in the recent measles outbreaks in the US.

Nevertheless, a growing number of parents have expressed worries about vaccines. That controversy, Oliver says, can likely be traced back to a 1998 press conference called by London's Royal Free Hospital, which publicized a research paper published in the medical journal The Lancet. That paper has since been withdrawn from the journal. 

The paper's author, Andrew Wakefield, said during the conference that his research suggested a link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and the onset of autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impaired social interaction.

Wakefield's results— which actually came from a small and poorly done study — were wrong.

Dozens of large-scale studies done since then, including a Danish study of close to half a million children, have sought to redo Wakefield's work in an attempt to replicate and essentially prove his results. So far, none have found an association of any kind between autism and the MMR vaccine.

The Lancet retracted Wakefield's paper in 2010, after an investigation revealed not only poor science but also financial conflicts of interest. Wakefield was stripped of his medical license a year later.

Nevertheless, what John Oliver calls "scary vaccine stories" continue to circulate. And this can translate into real challenges. There are now 11 states where the number of unvaccinated kids is on the rise, according to STAT News.

Oliver is determined to follow the science, however. At the end of the episode, he announced that he plans to vaccinate his 19-month-old son "fully and on schedule."

Watch the full "Last Week Tonight" episode:

SEE ALSO: Economists have a fascinating theory about why fake news goes viral

DON'T MISS: This Cornell scientist saved an $11-million industry — and ignited the GMO wars

Join the conversation about this story »

For all the emphasis we place on romantic relationships, they seem to involve a lot of guesswork.

Look at the language we use to describe love: Instead of choosing to love someone, you fall for them. When you're attracted to someone, you say you're into them, or you're feeling it. Spontaneity is key too — one partner is expected to initiate sex and marriage proposals when the feeling is right. They're not things partners sit down together and plan.

Relying on intuition and surprises can be romantic, but that also creates ripe terrain for miscommunication in a relationship. In a recent New York Times "Modern Love" column, Mandy Len Catron says she and her partner have found a better way.

It involves something they call a relationship contract.

For the last two years, Len Catron and her boyfriend have signed and dated a four-page, single-spaced document that addresses everything from how long house guests can stay to who's responsible for paying a certain bill.

"Our contract addresses much of what must be negotiated in any relationship," Len Catron wrote.

While it might not sound as fun and whimsical as most conventional approaches to relationships, some experts say the method could have positive results for some couples. Others, however, say it could spell disaster. Read on to find out if a relationship contract could work for you.

The positives of a relationship contract

Some experts say the idea of a relationship contract could help ensure clear communication and prevent one partner from feeling like his or her needs aren't being met.

Bat Sheva Marcus, the clinical director of The Medical Center For Female Sexuality, says this could prove especially helpful when it comes to something like sex. Most happy couples, Marcus explains, have what she calls a "sex schedule"— perhaps without realizing it.

"Like anything nice in your life, if you want something nice to happen, you've got to schedule it," she told Business Insider.

If a relationship contract takes time to outline these parameters, it could be a big help.

The same idea goes for big life decisions. If it helps set a foundation for couples to be more collaborative in their approach to big life decisions, a relationship contract could be healthy, studies suggest. A report from the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia that looked at more than a thousand adults found that couples who took time to talk through big decisions together (as opposed to sliding through them somewhat haphazardly) were happier individually and as a couple later on.

"Deciding rather than sliding revolves around commitment — not just to each other, but to the decision itself," Galena K. Rhoades, a University of Denver psychology professor and licensed marriage counselor who co-authored the report, wrote in an article for The Atlantic.

This collaborative approach to commitments is a role that Len Catron's contract seems to fulfill, especially when it comes to big decisions like moving in together. After carefully considering the pros and cons of cohabitating, Len Catron wrote that she and her boyfriend came across a book about marriage contracts.

"We liked the idea and realized we could take this approach to living together," Len Catron wrote. And it helped.

"I know it sounds idealistic, but I've had relationships that left me feeling lonely and small. This time I wanted to be more intentional about looking outward as much as we look in," wrote Len Catron.

The negatives

For some couples, a relationship contract may not work. John Gottman, a psychology professor at the University of Washington and a marriage therapist who has been studying couples for decades, believes it could even threaten the health of a relationship.

"Based on the literature and research on relationships, the contracting idea is not a pathway to staying in love," Gottman told Business Insider. "Quite the contrary."

If each partner in a relationship sees his or her action of deserving of an equal "quid pro quo"-like response, that could spell disaster. It's something Gottman said he has seen many times.

Still, the idea that couples must continue to put in conscious and intentional effort to maintain their relationship — i.e. to stay in love — is something he believes in quite strongly.

What is required for staying in love for a lifetime is a three-pronged approach that Gottman calls "the magic trio." It includes physiological calm, even during conflict (he likened the relationship to a port in a storm), trust, and commitment. Strengthening each of those prongs requires a lot of intent and work, but it pays off, Gottman said.

Ultimately, whether or not you choose to use something like a relationship contract, it all comes back to seeing love as a choice or action and taking responsibility for building and maintaining a relationship.

"Writing a relationship contract may sound calculating or unromantic, but every relationship is contractual; we're just making the terms more explicit," wrote Len Catron. "It reminds us that love isn't something that happens to us — it's something we're making together."

SEE ALSO: A psychologist who’s studied couples for decades says this is the best way to argue with your partner

DON'T MISS: These are the 36 questions one writer says can make you fall in love with a stranger

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How a 'sex schedule' could save your relationship

• Tory-DUP deal is the equivalent of an extra £530 per person in Northern Ireland over the next two years.
• £1 billion agreement signed between Theresa May and the DUP for 'confidence and supply' means the Conservative minority government will be propped up.
• The extra money is equivalent to a 5% increase in Northern Ireland's budget a year.
• Leading cabinet minister says that "we all as taxpayers... have an interest in Northern Ireland doing better."

LONDON — The deal between the Conservatives and DUP is the equivalent of an extra £530 per person in Northern Ireland over the next two years.

The £1 billion agreement, signed so the DUP would prop up the Tory minority government, amounts to a 5% increase in Northern Ireland's budget per year.

Prime Minister Theresa May has has also allowed further controls over an extra £500 million in already committed funds to the province.

Criticism of the deal has been fierce, with Wales' first minister Carwyn Jones labelling it as "a straight bung to keep a weak prime minister and a faltering government in office."

However, Sir Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, defended the deal on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, saying "we all as taxpayers, wherever we are, in England, Wales and Scotland, we all have an interest in Northern Ireland doing better.

"I saw it described, ridiculously today, as some kind of bung to the DUP. The DUP is not getting this money. The money is going to invest in the people of Northern Ireland."

So where will the £1 billion go?

The deal pledges money in a series of "additional financial support" for the province, with the money split over the two years across various projects.

£400 million is allocated to spend on infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland, including funding for York Street Interchange to ease congestion on Belfast's motorways. £75 million per year is to be spent on improving 'ultra-fast broadband' access.

£100 million is given to Northern Ireland in order to "address immediate pressures in health and education," which will anger under-pressure NHS trusts and education authorities across the rest of the UK. An additional £200 million is allocated to deliver 'health service transformation'.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said "cuts to vital public services must be halted right across the UK, not just in Northern Ireland."

Northern Ireland has a budget of £10 billion a year, so an extra £1 billion given to it over two years means a budget increase of 5%.

There are roughly 1.86 million people in Northern Ireland, so the Tory-DUP deal is worth the equivalent of about £530 per person in the province.

The region already received more public funding per head than the rest of the UK, with figures for 2015/16 showing £14,018 was spent per person, compared to £11,579 spent per person in the whole of the UK. Northern Ireland's deficit was also the highest per person, being £10 billion overall or £5380 per person.

However, £1 billion is only a small fraction of the UK's budget as a whole, which stood at about £770 billion in 2016/17.

Northern Ireland for a long period of the 20th century suffered from underfunding, and governments since the Good Friday Agreement have spent highly on the region in order to preserve peace. 

What else could the money be spent on?

£1 billion could recruit as many as 46,000 more nurses for the NHS for a year, based on the starting salary for a fully qualified nurse of £21,962 per year. The NHS currently has 285,000 nurses.

Based on the average house costing £160,000, the money could build 6,250 new houses across the country, the first step to solving our housing crisis.

The £1 billion could alternatively fund 37,000 students on a three-year degree course, if the student pays £9,000 a year in tuition fees.

What if the money was proportionally given to the rest of the UK?

Under the Barnett formula, the UK's devolved nations are given funds proportionally, based on population. The £1 billion given to Northern Ireland comes as a block grant and therefore is not part of that formula. Scotland's first minister Nicola Sturgeon said this was "sacrificing the very basic principles of devolution."

The SNP says that £2.9 billion in extra funding should be given to Scotland, while Welsh Labour has said that there should be £1.67 billion for Wales, if the money was spread out proportionally.

Is the extra funding for Northern Ireland a good thing?

It is clear that Northern Ireland does need more funding - it runs the biggest deficit per person of any region of the UK.

The £1 billion deal could also facilitate a return of an executive for Northern Ireland, as parties from both sides of the sectarian divide will want a say on how the money is spent. The deadline for Northern Ireland to form an executive is this Thursday.

If extra spending on Northern Ireland is what it take to ensure peace, then it is undeniably a good thing.

However, this deal has clearly been struck to keep the Conservative minority government in power. Worth £100,000,000 per DUP MP, it gives the Conservatives a majority on key votes, like the Queen's Speech and the budget.

The deal is also potentially a threat to the Northern Ireland peace process. Fomer prime minister John Major has warned that it will break the terms of the Good Friday Agreement and risk the return of violence to the province.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 'Do you even understand what you're asking?': Putin and Megyn Kelly have a heated exchange over Trump-Russia ties

What did LinkedIn look like the first time you visited the site in 2003?

How ugly was Yahoo in 1994?

We found the earliest versions of some of the most visited websites today, like Facebook, Google, and Buzzfeed.

Here's what the sites looked like then, and what they look like now. Web design has come a long way — oh, and the ads have gotten a lot more in-your-face.

(Jillian D'Onfro contributed to an earlier version of this post)

SEE ALSO: These are the 8 apps we can't live without

Wikipedia: Then (2001)

Wikipedia: Now

Weather.com: Then (1996)