We can disagree over the rights of herd immunity, but those who maintain that refusal to vaccinate hurts only the one who refuses, as the OP argued, are just plain ignorant of the facts.

Pneumonia is caused by bacteria, the flu by a virus.

Wow. Then I guess viral pneumonia is a myth.

"Pneumonia" is term used to describe a disease where the lungs start to fill with fluid. This can result from a wide range of causes, many of which are bacterial infections, but it can also be caused by viruses, fungi, parasites, or other causes.

Prove herd immunity works - show us studies / tests / real results.
You won't be able to (just a hint).

You really should have read the Wikipedia article on herd immunity before posting this, as it details just such a case study, which quite definitely confirmed the concept.

*sigh* Every vaccination debate we get this ignorant argument. Vaccinations, like everything in life, aren't 100% guaranteed. They're very effective, but they don't *always* work. Also ,there are people who can't have a vaccine for legitimate reasons (often a compromised immune system). The people for whom the vaccine doesn't take, and the people who legitimately can't get vaccinated are protected if enough people *are* effectively vaccinated because there aren't enough viable carriers. This is called "herd immunity." That is why everyone who can be vaccinated needs to be vaccinated--not just for their own protection but the protection of others.

The entire guilty until proven innocent is for criminal and civil trials, not for employment.

I think you meant "Innocent until proven guilty." And it's just criminal trials, for the most part. Civil trials are usually preponderance of evidence.

"Snot here, Captain." "What's not there, Snotty?"

No, Harry Mudd's not *supposed* to be good-looking. That's part of the character.

Yes, in the USA you can craft _valid_ contracts, that are against the law.

Um, no, you can't

Did you read the words "new law" in the post up there?

I did. Did you read that the new law does not in fact require kids to turn over their passwords? That's the schools' own bright idea, using the law as an excuse.

Somebody who goes to college and passes some courses but doesn't graduate has succeeded. Just not as much as someone who graduates. Someone who goes to college and doesn't learn anything there doesn't get anything for it. You won't be rewarded just because you stepped onto a college campus.

Just read his life story, it's clear that trying does pay off.

No, trying plus amazing talent pays off. There are lots of other artists who tried as hard as Van Gogh. You've never heard of them. Why? Because they sucked.

The heart of his speech is that people should only be rewarded for success, not for trying. It is based on the false belief that success is entirely based on your innate nature, rather than on the tools you are given or the environment you are in.

No, it's based on the true belief that only success produces the rewards to pay you with. If you want to paid for trying but not succeeding, you have to take the pay out of the rewards gained by the people who actually succeeded.

The world doesn't pay off on a "good try." That's not to say that a helping hand is wrong, but you should be aware that ultimately it all comes from somebody who tried and succeeded.

Losing 60 bombers out of 291 is plenty good enough--they may not have stopped that raid, but there's no way you can sustain a bombing effort with those kinds of losses. Fortunately, the Schweinfurt raid was exceptionally bad--and flak, by the way, was responsible for only a small part of those losses. German fighters were the main line of defense against Allied bombers, not flak. Until the invention of surface-to-air missiles, ground fire was little more than an annoyance to most aerial attacks.

i think it actually might be violating HIPAA

Nope. Because they're not covered by HIPAA. Only "covered entities" have to comply with HIPAA privacy regulations and, guess what? The government is not a covered entity.

And if the cops never try to use the radar scans as evidence, how will you show that they scanned you at all? In fact, how you will ever suspect that they scanned you so you can try to show they did?

then that would explain why people are still connecting their critical infrastructure directly to the Internet.

More simply explained. People's bosses aren't willing to pay for properly isolating their infrastructure because

a) they don't understand

b) they don't care

and c) they want direct access to their stuff from wherever they are, just like the vendor promised.