Open a few windows on Firefox, and you'll exceed that anyway.
Mandatory? Fascism much?
It isn't "fascism" to say your unvaccinated-child may not infect my too-young-to-be-vaccinated child with a preventable disease and risk his life/kill him. In general, your "freedom" to choose an activity end at the point that you're harming another person.
They also have a big messaging problem. When a person gets a polio vaccine the assumption is that they won't get polio. Yet every year these same people hear the newscasters saying that they should get a flu vaccine. The words don't mean the same thing to the public as they do to the researchers or the doctors. If they would clean up the language I suspect their success rates would improve.
We have a problem, but it is only partly the "messaging." The other part is the "population that can barely read at an aggregate 4th grade level" problem. Specifically, we live in a nation of morons that squeaks through high school with a minimal amount of required "hard-science" and can even get university degrees that require minimal or zero science education (Bachelor of Arts, anyone?) and can then consider themselves "educated" besides knowing neither jack nor shit beyond 12th grade science, and only having a passing familiarity with even that basic level of material.
Certainly if every newscaster mentioned, every time they mentioned flu vaccinations, that it was a vaccination for specific flus and that you can still get other flus, that might help. But if Americans weren't so fucking blidningly stupid when it comes to science, more of us would be able to imply such information by using our noodles.
However, the problem is that the school boards have also allowed exclusions for "religious or personal beliefs", which is a crock.
Exemptions for religious beliefs are a crock? Those are well supported in the case law. School boards allow them because the case law says they'll lose if they try to fight it in Court and most school districts don't have spare cash laying around to throw at lawyers.
Religious and personal beliefs are a crock in this situation. Specifically, your right to believe that vaccinations are a direct ejaculation from Satan's loins is one thing, but when your unvaccinated child goes to a park and spreads the disease to younger children, too young to be vaccinated, that's the point where their religious beliefs become irrelevant.
You have the right to believe anything you want--what you don't have the right to do is risk other peoples' lives for your beliefs.
Professor Hubert Farnsworth: And this is my Universal Translator. Unfortunately, so far it only translates into an incomprehensible dead language.
Cubert J. Farnsworth: [into the translator's microphone] Hello.
Translator Machine: Bonjour!
Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Crazy gibberish!
Best. Throwaway. Shot. At. The. French. Ever.
Why not translate it into a useful language, like Klingon?
"...but you'll never in our lifetime get people "comfortable" with some creepy asshole filming them out in public. "
are you young? I can see many technologies in use today that would be seen as 'creepy' and never going to be accepted in the 70's.
People will get used to it, because people can get use to anything.
People might "get over" in broad strokes the concept of stationary security cameras, but I have a hard time believing we'll ever be "A-Okay" with roving glassholes filming everything, everywhere, including them. Consider: Still cameras have existed for 150+ years and to-this-day we have violent physical confrontations involving people who don't want to be photographed by creepy strangers on the street. I have a hard time believing a technology to make such rude and invasive behavior "normal" is going to work. Probably the early adopters will just keep getting beaten up until the fad ends and the next "revolutionary useless technology" comes along.
Given that much more hidden spy cameras are available for far less than the $1500 cost of Glass, what will it take for general acceptance to finally take hold?
Your question is nonsensical: Those people would likely be even more furious if they knew your clothes were covered in pinhole spy cameras.
The problem is people don't like having creepy strangers record them in public, regardless of whether they have the "right" to do so or not. The issue is the human discomfort and you might get to a point where people won't just kick your ass for looking at them while wearing Google Glass (or similar invasive, idiotic, and useless products) but you'll never in our lifetime get people "comfortable" with some creepy asshole filming them out in public. Nor will you ever get them comfortable with the perception that they're being recorded.
I wonder what the over/under on somebody hacking Google Glass to disable the "recording" light is--assuming such a hack doesn't exist already in the wild and we just haven't heard about it.
The constitutional protections, and by extension US citizens, take in in the ass yet again.
I am not aware of a constitutional right to commit fraud. The project this person agreed to appear in bore zero resemblance to this one, and while it is true--she definitely has no right to control the work product she agreed to appear in, she has every right to sue over this other work that essentially puts her in the crosshairs of terrorists--totally without permission.
Oh, that's right. Unregulated currency free from government interference. Enjoy!
Yeah, there aren't enough breaths of air in this world for all of the well-deserved "I told you so"s that will be thrown around...