When she's on record as saying things like "If you give us a safe vaccine, we'll use it. It shouldn't be polio versus autism." (and she is), to me that's as good as saying, "The current polio vaccine causes autism." Other classic Jenny quotes that don't jibe with her current stance:

"Without a doubt in my mind, I believe that vaccinations triggered Evan's autism."

"People are also dying from vaccinations. Evan, my son, died in front of me for two minutes. You ask any mother in the autism community if we'll take the flu, the measles, over autism and day of the week. I think they need to wake up and stop hurting our kids."

So yeah, she's not anti-vaccine, she just doesn't feel that the current vaccines are safe and that you shouldn't take any that aren't. That's not misrepresenting her position, that's just repeating her words.

I believe it was none other than the great Homer Simpson himself who once described beer as "the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems."

Which is in its very nature another way of stating that combining multiple vaccines is somehow less safe than giving multiple shots, which as far as I know has never been proven.

Yes, because they're asking for what feels safer instead of what actually is safer, in this case leaving their children unimmunized for longer than they have to be even if they eventually "catch up" to the full schedule.

In fairness, at that point he'd only been alive for 180 days. For the sake of argument, let's assume that this hit randomly and see if we can rule it out.

For the subset of kids who suffer the same issues as your son, even assuming they could hit at any time during those first six months, the normal CDC schedule of vaccines at birth, 1, 2, 4 and 6 months means that there's a 2.7% chance of the effect hitting on the day of a vaccine. You mention that the affect was the day after the vaccine, so if we could only the same-day and next-day chances, that's covering 5.4% of the child's life.

Those are actually pretty good odds, considering that we rarely hear specific timing about kids affected outside of a normal vaccine schedule. I'm very sorry that your child was affected, and as a parent of two myself thoughts like that scare me as well, but I'm not seeing an evidence of causation here.

Since the well-known plural of anecdote is data, I'll offer up that I had measles when I was 17 (I had been vaccinated, but I was also suffering from CMV mono at the time which weakens your immune system something fierce - vaccinations are probably why none of my friends caught it from me though). Put me in the hospital for close on two weeks, of which I remember about a day. Its no laughing matter.

From TFA: "What may surprise you is that this record includes unique customer identifiers, as well as the location and date/time for the start and end of each journey."

The unique ID? Yeah, maybe that's a problem, likely not that big a deal but also easy enough to get rid of (although if we do that, we lose the ability to track joined journeys, identify frequent vs. infrequent users, &c. But that's not the point here.

Identifying which bike stations you check a bike out from and return a bike to is very different from identifying your movements across London. Very different indeed. I'd argue that you do have an expectation of privacy when you stop along the way to get a cup of coffee, a bit of nookie, or a gyro. As a public transportation user, though, your checkin and checkout actions are totally different than your route.

In fact, it'd be damned useful to be able to see and show that you did - or did not - retrieve or return a bike at a particular place and time. Its also useful to be able to tell where that bike went in the future.

Think about library books. Even in the "olden days," it was frequently possible to see who checked out a book, when they got it, and when they returned it. You couldn't, however, tell whether or not they liked it, if they read it in the bathtub, or if they let their SO read a page or two along the way.

Same here, just with bikes. Sorry guys, no news.

And if you already know the start- and end-points of the bike ride to refine the data, its not actually all that hard to predict the route, or useful to confirm it.

And yet SQL has been around for decades and has a massively greater installed-base than even the most popular NoSQL tools. How many people out there do you think really understand MongoDB's nuances at scale (remember, if we're not talking billions of rows then it really doesn't matter what tool is being used, including bog-standard MySQL).

All of your arguments - and they are real, and well-reasoned - apply to the NoSQL space far more than the SQL space.

Yes, but who're you going to crew it with, convicts? They'll just build another one and throw rocks at us.

I always thought that a bunch of hard-working 18yo guys had more than enough supper capacity, even when just powered by slop and beer.

Are you reporting across customers? If not, then sharding totally takes care of your problem. If so, then a combination of sharding and some meaningful aggregation may.

It really sounds like you've already decided on a solution and are looking for affirmation rather than advice. I've regularly inserted millions of rows into a simple 3-node MySQL cluster (unsharded) every day for years... if you don't like SQL, that's fine, but what you're asking for sure sounds like a problem that a halfway competently set up SQL system can handle without breaking a sweat, and almost all of the problems have been encountered, documented, and solved already.

That's fine.

Selling little bottles of very expensive water with labels that very carefully imply that they do, indeed, cure diseases (while legally not saying anything of the sort) to people who don't know any better is what gets people up in arms.

Forgot that bit - again, they're not describing the rules that they use (which is the whole idea of a patent - you publish what would otherwise be your trade secrets and in exchange you get government protection against anyone copying them without paying you for a small amount of time), they're describing the idea that there could be rules to determine whether you're scrolling, dragging, or flipping apps/tabs.

Big difference.

That's still massively vague and far-reaching. They should be able to patent the specific heuristics themselves. They should not be able to patent the idea of using heuristics to figure out what to do.

Its like patenting the cotton gin as follows:

Without specifics, they're still describing the idea of a rubber-band display. You could build one using all of your own formulae for behavior and appearance, and you'd still be in violation of their patent.

That swap is rarely going to make either side happy.