The kid whose parents won't vaccinate them will also be protected by herd immunity. Herd immunity breaks done when there are a large number of unvaccinated individuals in close geographic proximity, in other words, exactly what you are proposing. It would seem a better solution would be to ensure these kids, who by the way are not refusing to be vaccinated (there parents are in control), to be spread throughout the school system instead of consolidated in one place. That is if the purpose is to protect everybody versus punish people.

Granted HIV and Hep C can't be spread by casual contact, but they can be spread by contact with bodily fluids. I shouldn't included TB, although it is interesting that there is a vaccine for it, but it is not required in the US for students. The over-reaction on Ebola is kind of what I am getting at. Yes, kids without vaccines are more likely to come down with measles, mumps, etc., but their ability to spread it is limited unless they are in contact with somebody with a compromised immune system such as the very young and very old or with somebody whose vaccine didn't take hold. For the former, it is unlikely that a school child would be in contact with such an individual at school. Their own family, yes, but that is the risk they take. For the latter, ineffective vaccine, they are at no greater risk than they are even if all of the people have had the shot.

Personally, I think the notion of these vaccines be dangerous is crazy. Is there some risk, yes, there is with everything. There's even risk that not having the vaccine and getting the disease will lead to complications. However, I don't think it is up to the government to quarantine people unless they are known to be infectious. People still have rights to seek medical treatment or not.

ps. thank you for not pointing out the misspelling of slope! I wish /. allowed edits.

You are still creating a "separate but equal" system, which the SCOTUS has said is a form of segregation. In this case, instead of segregating by color, it would be by religious belief, at least for those whose belief system didn't allow vaccinations. In addition, since the government would be doing this, you would still be putting the children without vaccinations at greater risk for contracting a disease, than if they were in a mixed class. The people at risk from the unvaccinated are the elderly and the very young. Neither of those two are likely to be in a school (k through 12).

So, you are wanting the government to treat a person with a religious belief you don't agree with differently than other people? Separate but equal didn't apply to segregated schools, why would they in this case? In addition, if it is not safe to have a non-vaccnated child in school for religious or philosophical reasons, then why would it be safe to have them in school because they physically can't take the vaccine?

It would seem that if a separate school were created it would be for all non-vaccinated students. Of course, then if this school is a hazard, do the teachers there get paid more for the additional risk they must endure? Also, if the government puts all non-vaccinated together in one school, aren't they increasing the likelihood that others will get sick, because if one does, it will spread (whereas in the general population, this might not occur)?

Don't get me wrong, I think vaccinations are important to have, even if they weren't totally safe (nothing in medicine is, btw). However, forcing them on people or segregating people is not the answer. Education is.

That is a dangerous road to take. If people who don't want vaccinations, for whatever reason are forced to have them because they endanger everyone else, what about those communicable diseases? Should everybody with HIV or hepatitis or TB be rounded up and quarantined? After all, they, too, endanger everyone else. Yes, there are vulnerable populations, the elderly and very young to many of the diseases there are vaccinations for, but what is the likelihood they would actually be exposed by a non-vaccinated kindergartner that they were not known to?

Does the government have the right to mandate medical treatment for the public? Vaccinations seem to be a minor thing, but if the government has the right to mandate that, then what about other more invasive things?

It seems a more sensible approach would be for the government to start promoting vaccinations through PSA and other means to educate the public for the need and then trust the public to do the right thing.

The problem with slippery slopes is that they are very easy to go down and next to impossible to climb back out.

I don't disagree. Plus, from the article, it hasn't been found in the wild on any linux installations. It speculates that it could be a problem, but, without either root access or direct access to the box, I don't see how.

At any moment t, the particle behaves in manner a, so while t-1,t-2,t-3, may appear to show the particle behaving in a manner b, when those prior times were the actual times the particle would have still acted in manner a. If somehow, our observation of past t is different then current t, then something else must have occurred that we are not aware of, possibly entangled particles or even the act of observation.

While I don't doubt what you say, I am curious how would there be data to show physics working backward in time? How would you even test for something like that?

From what I gather from the linked articles from the summary link, you need root and command line access to install it, but after it is installed, it doesn't take root to activate it. That said, if somebody has access to root or the command line, you need a new security administrator.

From the article link to from the article in the summary:

It might be because you need root and command line access to install it. After that, however, it can be activated without root.

It would seem that if your business has an interest in the direction that something like OpesnSSL is going, then said business will provide developers to work on it. While there are always going to be freeriders, they don't cost you any more to the develop the software than if there were not. On the other hand, if you owned the software instead of relying on the community to do the brunt of the development work for you, then you would be in a position to sell it to the supposed freeloaders. Of course, your costs would go up to develop it totally in house and there is no guarantee they would pay versus going elsewhere. It seems like everybody wins with the current system.

Because they aren't biologists or some other -ist.

It's ironic that if news networks simply reported the news instead of editorializing it, they wouldn't be liberal or conservative, they would just be news.

$24 million sounds like a lot, but it is just a fraction of what was lost to hackers. Tor is an easy target, though, it will have little impact. It lets the country think something is being done, but it will have little impact. It's kind of like going after college kids for downloading songs and movies when in SE Asia, they are being duplicated by the truck load for resale.

Tor just makes it hard to track who did it. Banks and financial institutions need to beef up their security regardless of tor or not.

Simulations have always been part of science. They are called mathematical models and they usually exist until a better, more refined model comes about.