Adding yet more bits.

---

Since on the web Nature is available via subscription only (and since I don't have a subscription), I've got to make do with second hand information - information garnered via third hand information, and if I'm not mistaken, my first glimpse of this particular study was from what would be considered fourth hand information - a report of a report of a report of the "real" thing.

Do we need these additional links, all of which seemed to quote the same parts of the study that I've now posted as well? Frankly, in this case at least, and probably in others as well, the answer is yes. Since the Nature study isn't freely accessible, the best we can do is find someone who (somewhat extensively) quotes it. But not only for that reason. I doubt that I'd have any logical reason to be on the lookout for a study like this, meaning that it's the sort of item which I can only serendipitously stumble upon, and the more pages that refer to it, the greater my chances of actually doing so.

---

Go to: That's a lot of talk, or
Go to: Look Ma, I'm on (surveillance) camera!, or
Go to: Holding on / Letting go.