- Enabling "god view" to allow party attendees to watch "important people" move around New York in real time 
I wasn't tracking and didn't really know anything about this stuff (except for ) until last night. All I knew was that my little sis got gouged a lot with the price point changes and that when I tried to use it, I ran into so many basic issues with the app, including accepting payment methods (they managed to SMS and email ads to me immediately, though) that I resorted to the local taxi apps, which did the trick and I never went back. Now, I may check out Lyft.
I'm pretty sure that this has been happening at least as early as Mountain Lion. I felt really violated when I discovered it - I use TextEdit as a scratchpad, so it's always full of random notes (and a temporary copy-paste spot for private keys, double-plus-ungood!). Not to mention financial data into Numbers - those were being synced automatically, too.
Another gotcha I noticed around the same time - Notes from iPhone are automatically stored to the primary email account. So I had my private scratchpad phone notes stored on my corp account's Notes folder with no easy and obvious way to re-associate them to the correct account.
It's easy to disable, but as the writer notes, that's not the point - if you don't know it's happening, there's not much you can do, just feel your stomach drop, disable it, then get to work figuring out how much damage was caused (i.e., get to swapping keys, ugh...).
Seconding the frustration. The best comment in this entire thread is [dead]. Anyone browsing with showdead set to no (and anyone browsing without logging in) will never see this content, and it's incredibly unjust as--in this case especially--it's something everyone should read.
Thank you for pointing out that there's a dead comment worth reading. I turned showdead on, and it absolutely was.
I just want to restate what jen_h said: Everyone should turn on showdead and read that comment. In addition to the comment being comprehensive, they also claim to have worked for the NSA. If that's true, then they have a unique and important perspective on this issue.
Comments from brand-new accounts posting from Tor IPs get killed by default, because of past abuses by trolls.
When someone lets us know about them, we unkill good comments that should obviously not be dead. Since there are too many posts for anyone to see them all, we rely on all of you to help us. The reliable way to do that is by emailing a link to email@example.com. General complaints are less likely to reach us, for the same reason that the original problem probably didn't.
We have a plan that I'm optimistic will greatly improve this situation. It involves turning most of this moderation, including what's [dead] vs. not, over to the community. But we don't know yet when we'll be able to implement it.
Anecdotal evidence, for sure (and IANAD/IANYD), but I've found that fasting eliminates my food sensitivities (both water fasts and apple fasts, where you just eat an apple or two a day, have done the trick for me). They eventually come back after a month or so (no science behind it, but it feels like a slow buildup of whatever was initially bothering me), at which point, I can fast again with similar positive result. I find it's safer/healthier than living on Prilosec...
Mine frayed and shorted after less than a year. Like any Apple product owner, this wasn't the first time an Apple cord fell to pieces, and at one point in the past (before October 2011), I even brought it back to the Apple Store and they replaced my cables no questions asked, great service.
This time, however, when I brought my adapter and cables into the store for them to look at (kind of an inconvenience, don't live near one), I was told by a Genius that no one has problems with their laptop adapters and phone cables, no one in the store has ever had a problem with them, no one ever brings them to the store frayed, and that I must abuse my hardware and there was nothing they could do to help. I actually had to resort to pulling up a link to the class action suit to prove him wrong, absolutely terrible experience. With manager assistance, they reluctantly agreed to replace it since they saw my computer was one week off AppleCare, but added notes to my account to ensure that they would never do it again...and stressed that power adapter frays aren't in the scope of AppleCare.
I was really surprised and disappointed by the whole experience - and can only assume that there's massive pressure from above to avoid replacing them as they're so expensive and that results in Genius staffers acting incredulous and telling stories when you show them your long, thin fire hazards (frustrated during the exchange, I made a comment about how the knockoff iPhone cords are so much more reliable and less fire-hazardy, and he then made a point to closely inspect my frayed-Apple cords to ensure that they weren't knockoffs like I was some kind of fraudster, oof).
Anyway, reinforced those things immediately (still frustrated on a daily - the brick gets boil-an-egg hot and sneezing will cause the adapter to pop out) and I'll be doing what I can to avoid visiting ye olde Apple Store in the future.
Most women (and men--Julie's story rang true to me--and also reminded me of persecution some guys I've worked with have endured) protest and, when nothing changes, quit to preserve their health and sanity. They don't sue. They don't get fanfare for it. They quietly resign and move to other pastures. And nothing changes for their coworkers (and other women and men in the industry) who are also harassed.
Resigning and talking about it is actually pretty courageous. She doesn't win, she gets a stigma. Her company doesn't win, it gets a stigma. But the spectators with their mouths agog realize that this kind of mismanagement/harassment is not only happening under noses, but also being noticed externally (it's endemic; while women and minorities likely deal with it a lot more, it's not just gender-based, it often happens to the lawful-good no matter what gender or race in small tech companies) and, for a brief time, these companies pull themselves together and become better places to work, if only because it's expensive and time-consuming and morale-killing to fuck this stuff up.
There's no way to know unless someone comes out and says it explicitly, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that the aforementioned "spies" emailed specific chat logs to her. In a toxic environment, that kind of stuff gets passed around willy-nilly. That's the first conclusion I jumped to after reading the TechCrunch article, anyway.
Did they record overt threats as opposed to stereotyped? As a little girl competing against boys in spelling bees and other academic competitions, I'm sure that there were stereotyped threats, but I was at the time too young (and too antisocial w/regard to peer group influence and too prideful) to regard them. But actual threats from the boys I competed against managed to be effective to back me down from beating them. Like boxing, there's a huge psychological component, which children may not be wholly prepared to combat.
The issue is not black and white - and laying the entire issue at the feet of non-vaccinated is blatant propaganda. For example, the recent whooping cough outbreaks are due to the fact that the newer (safer!) acellular vaccines are just not as effective as the older (less safe) vaccines. Vaccinated populations are falling victim to whooping cough, as the current vaccines are not long-lasting enough. Reuters published a pretty good explanation of the issue in August of last year: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/01/us-whooping-cough-...
tl;dr: We need a new vaccine. Tilting at small populations of anti-vaxxers may feel satisfying, but it is ultimately counterproductive, especially in this case.
Ultimately unvaccinated people put the whole community at risk by reducing herd immunity. For pertussis the threshold is over 90% for prevention assuming that 100% of the population is immunized. If 10% are not immunized then your already behind for a disease with high transmission rates.
the recent whooping cough outbreaks are due to the fact that the newer (safer!) acellular vaccines are just not as effective as the older (less safe) vaccines
You have one historical fact misreported there. It is clear that the current acellular vaccines were adopted because of safety concerns about former cellular pertussis vaccines. What's actually NOT clear is whether those safety concerns really necessitated changing the vaccine formula. It appears that anti-vaccine activists may have exaggerated the risk profile of cellular vaccines and understated their effectiveness while campaigning to reduce vaccine use in general.
Billions of dollars aren't spent to modify a vaccine just to mollify a small community of questioners, who weren't even that great in number at the time of conversion. If anything, it would benefit the vaccine makers - fewer side effects to impede sales, and more sales because more boosters are needed (though I doubt there's anything that nefarious at play in this specific case).
Thanks for the link, but that study was very soon after the change and ignores the issue of whether vaccine effectiveness was the same (as history appears to be showing it was not). And that is the point. A small reduction of minor reported adverse effects for a large reduction of immunization effectiveness is usually not counted as a good trade-off by epidemiologists.
The understanding of the effects of vaccinating kid #1 isn't all about kid #1 being immune to the infection. Instead it is that kid #1 is x% less susceptible to contracting the infection if exposed.
So you might wonder, how could Small Pox be much extinct if the vaccine is only about 95% effective, and how have we wiped out an enormous number of diseases that caused immense suffering in the 20th century using vaccines that were not 100% effective in protecting the vaccinated from infection on an individual level?
The lesson is that common sense can be a terrible guide for even the roughest approximations of the dynamics of a system. Dispersion models explain the limits to how far water will trickle down through soil or the conditions under which wild fires will burn themselves out. The models for infectious diseases involve variables for the likelihood of transmission, mortality rates, how long you're contagious until you show symptoms, the percentage of population that is susceptible etc.
While even common sense will tell you that the best way to avoid a disease is to avoid contact, it might not tell you that vaccinating populations is largely about reducing exposure. Assume our hypothetical situation has kids one through eight living on a street and they only play with their immediate neighbor. Then let's assume that the kids have a natural resistance of 20%, but 60% if they are vaccinated. If kid #8 has the disease, what is kid #1's risk of exposure if everyone is vaccinated vs no one is vaccinated?
(1-20%)^6 = 26%
(1-60%)^6 = 0.4%
I think those numbers are astonishing and beat the tar out of what common sense has to say. Of course more realistic models would show many more links between nodes as well as lower transmission rates, but differences of even a hundredth of a percent in a population of 320 million is 32 thousand people.
The conversation begins with: "The issue is not black and white — and laying the entire issue at the feet of non-vaccinated is blatant propaganda." If we're going to use extreme language, then it is "blatantly wrong" to say it is "blatant propaganda". The portion of people who defect from or cooperate with vaccination programs does matter. It isn't much of a problem if there is one Jenny McCarthy, but it becomes a problem if she advocates on behalf of defection to everyone else in her playgroup, or worse to other parents around the country.
While it is a good instinct to assume that issues aren't simple, it is tempting to see issues as having "two sides" and that the middle ground must be reasonable. I don't understand why newer/safer vaccines being less effective is being presented as a middle ground. If the "two sides" are not vaccinating and vaccinating, then this argument would not be in between the two, but instead it should be an argument that is more extreme than a mere decision to vaccinate. And yet, I think it serves to create uncertainty instead, and ultimately fewer vaccinations and lower resistance in the population.
I remember reading somewhere that some of the whooping cough in the States was actually being transmitted by the vaccine itself in some cases - but Google isn't returning any unbiased search results right now on that one.
That is an extraordinary claim. Does someone else have a source to back that up? This argument would appear to vindicate the antivax movement, at least vis a vis whooping cough. That would be a shocking development.
The most reputable source I could find that touches on pertussis vaccinations and disease spread is http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/uc..., particularly this part: This research suggests that although individuals immunized with an acellular pertussis vaccine may be protected from disease, they may still become infected with the bacteria without always getting sick and are able to spread infection to others, including young infants who are susceptible to pertussis disease.
The study, conducted on animals, does not, however, suggest that the vaccine increases rate of disease spread, rather that vaccinated individuals can serve as unaffected and unsuspecting nodes of transmission. This can happen with the acellular type of vaccine, not the whole-cell.
Here we go - it's another strain one can still be colonized by, not pertussis, but parapertussis: http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-... ("An acellular whooping cough vaccine actually enhances the colonization of Bordetella parapertussis in mice; pointing towards a rise in B. parapertussis incidence resulting from acellular vaccination, which may have contributed to the observed increase in whooping cough over the last decade.")
tl;dr: "We missed a spot." Which is going to happen. I don't think it validates being anti-every-vaccine, but it does validate asking questions and furthering research (and ceasing the vilification of the population that does ask questions!).