Because it's so simple to authenticate all parties to the broker. Now we've gone from trusting the merchant, the shopper, and the bank, to trusting the merchant, shopper, bank, and broker. That's the problem here: every solution that relies on trust instead of hardware cryptographic implementations is equally broken.
The smart cards in the EMV system are indeed the way to go, because they are issued by the bank, and your bank stores your account's secret in them. The bank's trust never leaves the bank's systems.
EMV limits fraud only to a person who physically has the card in their possession (and who knows the PIN, assuming your card requires a PIN.) As a customer, you don't have to trust that BigMart's cash register is paying the right company or not, because you're walking out the door with your paid-for stuff. BigMart's transaction security is BigMart's problem. You don't have to trust BigMart (or a hacker) to not steal your account number, because without the authentication coming from the smart chip, the bank should refuse any transactions. It doesn't even matter much if they steal your account number and your PIN, because without the chip they still can't recreate the authentication. And if a sophisticated hacker with an ion-beam manages to read the secret from the chip, it only violates your one card; not your other accounts, not someone else's account, and not the bank's master secret.
Yeah, someone else pointed that out, too. Thanks for keeping me honest.
And I did read somewhere there was an estimate of $145 for the camera hardware, and something like $45 for the additional installation. Quickly walking your numbers backwards, that pushes the value of a life to about $12 million.
It may be a touch high, but the victims are primarily toddlers, so it's likely going to be higher than the $6 million figure for the average person my state's DOT uses anyway.
No, these deaths are very preventable with a camera. The camera is incredibly easy to use, and intuitive. The screen is the way most people with them drive in reverse - it's not "check the screen and then use the mirror", it's "watch the screen while you back up". If anything, people with backup cameras don't look out the windows enough to check the rest of their surroundings.
I've seen aftermarket systems that place a small cell-phone-sized display in the rear view mirror. It lights up and is visible only when the car is in reverse. It doesn't require any re-engineering of the dashboard console. But since carmakers redesign their consoles annually, it shouldn't be much of a problem anyway.
I find the combination of a backup camera (with its 180 degree view) plus ultrasonic bumper sensors that face left and right provide an excellent amount of awareness. The camera shows a clear view of the path and the area directly behind the car, while the rear mounted beepers let me know that something is approaching from the side, even if it's not visible in the highly distorted edges of the camera's field of view.
It's the front of the car that has the mm wave radar.:-)
Having known someone that ran over their daughter at age 4 when she ran out to wish him good by before he left, and killed her.
I sympathize with the tragedy but would a backup camera actually helped? If the child was running behind the car would the driver have had enough time to see and react to the presence of the child? It is quite possible the accident would have happened with or without a camera.
Seriously? Go back and read what you just wrote. Is there a reason for your deep-seated irrational hatred of safety equipment? Or are you just parroting a ridiculously untenable political position from some bigmouth on the TV?
A backup camera gives the driver the best possible chance of avoiding tragedy. I find the backup camera to provide an excellent view, and have never had a problem stopping when I see a pedestrian. Ultrasonic sensors help detect fast moving cross traffic, too, especially when the side views are obstructed by parked vans or trucks; but they give lots of false positives, especially when the bumper is slightly ahead of a wall or pillar. The combination of both, along with an attentive driver, works like three layers of defense.
Why are you Americans whining all the time? You used to be the pioneers, now you're the naysayers of the world.
We have this problem called "Misguided Conservatism" which is a group of people who believe that anything that costs them one fraction of one penny that provides any benefit to anyone besides themselves, that they should complain loudly and utter phrases like "nanny state", "obamacare", "liberals", "socialists", or "communists".
The reason these people are misguided is the voice of Rupert Murdoch echoes through the Fox News Network talking heads. Because a handful of billionaires wants to hang on to every penny they've ever stolen, they pay pink-faced fat white men to host "news" shows and yell about every millimeter of progress. These people, in turn, align themselves with fundamentalist religions, and drag in a large number of cultists who can be counted on to vote Republican regardless of the issues or the harm they may cause the environment, the economy, or even themselves. They also cater to other fringe loonies, such as anti-vaccination people, global climate change deniers, people who need anti-aircraft missiles to hunt squirrels, and the believers in the imminent apocalypse of mankind.
They used to have considered positions, rational arguments, and it was once possible to have an intelligent discussion with them based on facts. But the yellow journalists have gained unbalanced power over a lot of these unquestioning followers. Because they get their entire world view from a single unbalanced source, yet consider themselves well-informed, they can't be convinced of anything that isn't spoon-fed to them over the cable.
The tiniest amount of progress comes only after a protracted fight, and people are exhausted from the fighting just to get something as simple as a backup camera law passed. You can see plenty of evidence of this right here in these Slashdot comments. I don't even think they understand how stupid they sound. And I certainly can't imagine what would go through their minds if such an easily preventable disaster befell their family.
Even so, it's still America. We can occasionally get shit done despite the large number of idiots.
Good point about the number of deaths prevented. But the summary's figure is far short of the figures of preventable deaths I heard, which was over 50% (I seem to recall the estimate at being over 90% preventable). If we set it at 150 per year, it's closer to the range. That figure also completely ignores injuries, which are much more numerous than deaths, but far less expensive; I don't have any idea what those would cost.
And all the talk of numbers still ignores the trauma caused by parents backing over small children, which are the majority of fatalities. We can't deny that there is a large component of "but what about the children?" to this.
Umm... this law is a direct result of that testing process you referred to in the phrase "time-tested". Time has shown that there are about 300 deaths per year due to backing over people. Time has also shown backup cameras to be highly effective at preventing these deaths. Backup cameras fix the "bug" (the blind spot behind and below the trunk of the car.)
If you think this makes a car too expensive, what price do you put on accidentally running over a human being? Let's say a dead person costs $6 million. (That was the price a few years ago from my state, who figured out the amount they'd spend on an unsafe road to fix the problem after a fatality.) If you were to spread the price of 300 dead people (6*300 = 1.8 billion dollars) and divide by the number of cars sold in the US per year (estimating 20 million) that works out to $90 per car sold. Multiply that by an average 10 year lifetime of a car and it works out to $900 per car. If a camera costs less than that, it's cheaper for society to require them to fix the problem.
Mathematically, it's cheaper to require the cameras than to live with the deaths they could prevent.
My company had a security policy that required iPhones to have PINs that met certain conditions, such as: no repeated digits, no consecutive digits can be an increment or decrement by one. The goal was to prevent people from picking 1111, 1234, etc. These rules were so restrictive that what they really did was reduce the number of potential PINs by about 33%.
Research on leaked PINs (at least here in America) has shown that over 50% of user-selected 4 digit PINs follow the pattern of dates, with the first two digits being 01-12 and the last two being 01-31. The silly rules eliminated months of 01, 10, 11, 12, and days of 01, 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, and 23. Given the additional factors that if a phone locks itself after 5 tries, and if a user has a 50% chance of having selected a date for their PIN, a thief would have to steal relatively few phones from employees (perhaps a couple dozen or so) before finding one that he could unlock just by trying random dates. He would improve that dramatically if he could learn the victim's birthdate, or other significant dates such as family birthdates, anniversaries, etc.
I'm not saying that the limiting rules you are opposed to are on the same level of broken as a poorly thought out corporate policy, but I do know that limiting rules have a significant compounding impact on the overall security of a system.
This thread is disappointing. I learned a long time ago that just because I lack imagination, doesn't mean an imaginative use doesn't exist.
For example: your freezer could be used as a cheap energy storage device that could offset the cost of peak electricity during summer air conditioning season. How? By burning cheap night electricity, it could lower the temperature to -40 degrees by 6:00 AM. During the day, it doesn't run at all, it just slowly rises to -5 degrees. Being hooked to the network allows it to know the current electricity pricing schedule.
I've seen prototypes of fridge-based scanners that track food in and out, allowing you go use a remote shopping list to do "replenishment" shopping. If your spouse or child uses the last of the milk without writing it on the list, you still have a current list whenever you're at the store.
My clothes washer and dryer are already on my network. They are located in my basement. The washer allows me to remotely start it an hour before I head home, so I don't have wet clothes sitting in it all day, growing mold and mildew. When a load is dry, I get an alert, even if I am out of earshot; so I can keep the clothes from wrinkling. The dryer will give me a status, but it will not allow me to remotely control it. The machines are also smart-grid ready, so when the electric company begins demand pricing, I'm ready.
There are plenty of good reasons to put more devices on the network, and people will undoubtedly come up with more.
I've melted a cheap aluminum egg poacher on an electric coil stove, so yes, they can get that hot. They normally are limited by the thermal mass of the water in the pot, which keeps them safely at the boiling temperature of water. Once the water is all gone, nothing stops the temperature from rising. That's why you see warnings on coffee pots and other appliances that say "DANGER - never run without water."
The stove should not be physically capable of "overheating".
My aluminum tea kettle sits on one of the burners when not in use. If that burner were turned on and left on, it would eventually evaporate the remaining water, melt, and likely catch fire. I also know some guys who hide dirty dishes in the oven in case of "unexpected company". A plastic dish heated to 450 would easily ignite a fire.
The stove won't overheat, but stoves don't exist in isolation.
I recommend you read The Architecture of Open Source Applications at http://aosabook.org/en/index.h... This book looks at many different open source projects, and can be a source of inspiration (and debate). You'll find some of what you're looking for in it.
Most population control does not require the involvement of people hunting for amusement. That argument in most cases is simply a red herring. The vast majority of hunting in the US is simply done for amusement and any other goals it accomplishes are purely incidental.
Actually, hunting is the primary method of population management used by our state's DNR. For the most part deer are essentially pests in a lot of areas - they're traffic hazards, they cause crop and property damage, and they attract undesirable predators such as coyotes. The DNR performs herd counts, predicts survival rates, and then sets a target for the sustainable number of deer in each region. It turns out the number of hunters and tags requested is quite well matched to the desired population size. Some years demand exceeds supply, and people miss out on tags. Some years supply exceeds demand, and the hunters are given license to take either bucks or does. They can region, so they're diverted to another region through the distribution of tags. When the hunt in an area is less successful, they may extend the season. Certain areas will sometimes require a special hunt. For example, in a metropolitan area they may bring in sharpshooters or bow hunters. They may add a second season.
We've also had times where the hunt has been very successful, but is then followed up by a brutal winter where a significant portion of the deer starve - we had a winter not too long ago where over 25% of the herd died as a result, and they took to actively feeding the deer.
If they didn't manage the herd via the hunt, what would you propose as an alternative? Letting cars run them over on the highways?
Our HR drones weed out resumes delivering exactly what the hiring manager asked for. If the hiring manager said "25+ years Java experience" then they would deliver only resumes that had 25 years of experience with Java - never mind that Java hasn't existed for 25 years, and the only candidates would be liars. If the manager puts "CompTIA Network+" on the list, then that's what the HR people deliver.
In our shop, (at least for developers) the manager asks the technical team to provide the list of qualifications to send to HR. There are some we can't get rid of: Bachelor's Degree for entering at that paygrade is a company policy. But if the team includes the kind of people who say "certs are bunk", then they won't ask for certifications.
When China engages in spying on corporate America, they spy on companies like Valspar for the formula the US Navy uses to protect warships from rust. They then give that information to Chinese firms to make durable paint for their own navy, and to turn a huge profit.
When the NSA spies on Huawei, they use the information to discover vulnerabilities they then go on to internally use to exploit the infrastructure of those who use them. They do not give the information to Cisco in order to make more efficient American routers (that are then made in China.).
So China uses industrial espionage to strengthen their military and economy. The NSA uses industrial espionage to weaken the security of everyone equally.
consider changes once all of the science organizations start running various charities, food shelves, hospitals, orphanages
And those activities are already tax exempt. If Microsoft gives a million dollars to a food shelf, you can be sure they deduct it off their taxes. No change there.
It's called "herd immunity", and it's what keeps an infectious disease from becoming a pandemic. It kicks in when about 80% of the population is immune. If you want to live in our society and interact with us, fixing our cars, exchanging pieces of filthy paper money for cheap plastic goods, volunteering to work with kids, whatever you do, yes, you should not be putting the rest of us at risk.
There's still a concern about vaccination rates, because vaccines are less than 100% effective. Herd immunity can help keep the vaccinated-but-still-unprotected from getting the disease. As long no more than 20% of the population is unprotected, the rest of us should be OK. Of course, if you live in Stupidville, where half of the population is voluntarily unvaccinated, then you get to learn about a different concept: the mortality rate.
I wish that vaccines were 100% effective so we wouldn't have to worry about the stupids weeding only themselves out. It would let you be free to expose yourself to a killer disease, with no skin off my nose. But they're not perfect. We need high voluntary rates to keep most of us healthy.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoosh!
Or was that a daa-daa-daa-daa sound and Steve Austin jumping over your head in slow motion?
Because of the well-known maxim: :-)
The faster you download, the bigger your penis gets
It's not the size of your bandwidth, but the motion of the torrents.
Because it's so simple to authenticate all parties to the broker. Now we've gone from trusting the merchant, the shopper, and the bank, to trusting the merchant, shopper, bank, and broker. That's the problem here: every solution that relies on trust instead of hardware cryptographic implementations is equally broken.
The smart cards in the EMV system are indeed the way to go, because they are issued by the bank, and your bank stores your account's secret in them. The bank's trust never leaves the bank's systems.
EMV limits fraud only to a person who physically has the card in their possession (and who knows the PIN, assuming your card requires a PIN.) As a customer, you don't have to trust that BigMart's cash register is paying the right company or not, because you're walking out the door with your paid-for stuff. BigMart's transaction security is BigMart's problem. You don't have to trust BigMart (or a hacker) to not steal your account number, because without the authentication coming from the smart chip, the bank should refuse any transactions. It doesn't even matter much if they steal your account number and your PIN, because without the chip they still can't recreate the authentication. And if a sophisticated hacker with an ion-beam manages to read the secret from the chip, it only violates your one card; not your other accounts, not someone else's account, and not the bank's master secret.
If we ever get there.
Yeah, someone else pointed that out, too. Thanks for keeping me honest.
And I did read somewhere there was an estimate of $145 for the camera hardware, and something like $45 for the additional installation. Quickly walking your numbers backwards, that pushes the value of a life to about $12 million.
It may be a touch high, but the victims are primarily toddlers, so it's likely going to be higher than the $6 million figure for the average person my state's DOT uses anyway.
No, these deaths are very preventable with a camera. The camera is incredibly easy to use, and intuitive. The screen is the way most people with them drive in reverse - it's not "check the screen and then use the mirror", it's "watch the screen while you back up". If anything, people with backup cameras don't look out the windows enough to check the rest of their surroundings.
I've seen aftermarket systems that place a small cell-phone-sized display in the rear view mirror. It lights up and is visible only when the car is in reverse. It doesn't require any re-engineering of the dashboard console. But since carmakers redesign their consoles annually, it shouldn't be much of a problem anyway.
Where do you live so I know never to go there.
Earth. It's populated with bad drivers. Don't go there unless you have to; bring your own towel if you do.
I find the combination of a backup camera (with its 180 degree view) plus ultrasonic bumper sensors that face left and right provide an excellent amount of awareness. The camera shows a clear view of the path and the area directly behind the car, while the rear mounted beepers let me know that something is approaching from the side, even if it's not visible in the highly distorted edges of the camera's field of view.
It's the front of the car that has the mm wave radar. :-)
Having known someone that ran over their daughter at age 4 when she ran out to wish him good by before he left, and killed her.
I sympathize with the tragedy but would a backup camera actually helped? If the child was running behind the car would the driver have had enough time to see and react to the presence of the child? It is quite possible the accident would have happened with or without a camera.
Seriously? Go back and read what you just wrote. Is there a reason for your deep-seated irrational hatred of safety equipment? Or are you just parroting a ridiculously untenable political position from some bigmouth on the TV?
A backup camera gives the driver the best possible chance of avoiding tragedy. I find the backup camera to provide an excellent view, and have never had a problem stopping when I see a pedestrian. Ultrasonic sensors help detect fast moving cross traffic, too, especially when the side views are obstructed by parked vans or trucks; but they give lots of false positives, especially when the bumper is slightly ahead of a wall or pillar. The combination of both, along with an attentive driver, works like three layers of defense.
Why are you Americans whining all the time? You used to be the pioneers, now you're the naysayers of the world.
We have this problem called "Misguided Conservatism" which is a group of people who believe that anything that costs them one fraction of one penny that provides any benefit to anyone besides themselves, that they should complain loudly and utter phrases like "nanny state", "obamacare", "liberals", "socialists", or "communists".
The reason these people are misguided is the voice of Rupert Murdoch echoes through the Fox News Network talking heads. Because a handful of billionaires wants to hang on to every penny they've ever stolen, they pay pink-faced fat white men to host "news" shows and yell about every millimeter of progress. These people, in turn, align themselves with fundamentalist religions, and drag in a large number of cultists who can be counted on to vote Republican regardless of the issues or the harm they may cause the environment, the economy, or even themselves. They also cater to other fringe loonies, such as anti-vaccination people, global climate change deniers, people who need anti-aircraft missiles to hunt squirrels, and the believers in the imminent apocalypse of mankind.
They used to have considered positions, rational arguments, and it was once possible to have an intelligent discussion with them based on facts. But the yellow journalists have gained unbalanced power over a lot of these unquestioning followers. Because they get their entire world view from a single unbalanced source, yet consider themselves well-informed, they can't be convinced of anything that isn't spoon-fed to them over the cable.
The tiniest amount of progress comes only after a protracted fight, and people are exhausted from the fighting just to get something as simple as a backup camera law passed. You can see plenty of evidence of this right here in these Slashdot comments. I don't even think they understand how stupid they sound. And I certainly can't imagine what would go through their minds if such an easily preventable disaster befell their family.
Even so, it's still America. We can occasionally get shit done despite the large number of idiots.
Good point about the number of deaths prevented. But the summary's figure is far short of the figures of preventable deaths I heard, which was over 50% (I seem to recall the estimate at being over 90% preventable). If we set it at 150 per year, it's closer to the range. That figure also completely ignores injuries, which are much more numerous than deaths, but far less expensive; I don't have any idea what those would cost.
And all the talk of numbers still ignores the trauma caused by parents backing over small children, which are the majority of fatalities. We can't deny that there is a large component of "but what about the children?" to this.
Umm... this law is a direct result of that testing process you referred to in the phrase "time-tested". Time has shown that there are about 300 deaths per year due to backing over people. Time has also shown backup cameras to be highly effective at preventing these deaths. Backup cameras fix the "bug" (the blind spot behind and below the trunk of the car.)
If you think this makes a car too expensive, what price do you put on accidentally running over a human being? Let's say a dead person costs $6 million. (That was the price a few years ago from my state, who figured out the amount they'd spend on an unsafe road to fix the problem after a fatality.) If you were to spread the price of 300 dead people (6*300 = 1.8 billion dollars) and divide by the number of cars sold in the US per year (estimating 20 million) that works out to $90 per car sold. Multiply that by an average 10 year lifetime of a car and it works out to $900 per car. If a camera costs less than that, it's cheaper for society to require them to fix the problem.
Mathematically, it's cheaper to require the cameras than to live with the deaths they could prevent.
My company had a security policy that required iPhones to have PINs that met certain conditions, such as: no repeated digits, no consecutive digits can be an increment or decrement by one. The goal was to prevent people from picking 1111, 1234, etc. These rules were so restrictive that what they really did was reduce the number of potential PINs by about 33%.
Research on leaked PINs (at least here in America) has shown that over 50% of user-selected 4 digit PINs follow the pattern of dates, with the first two digits being 01-12 and the last two being 01-31. The silly rules eliminated months of 01, 10, 11, 12, and days of 01, 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, and 23. Given the additional factors that if a phone locks itself after 5 tries, and if a user has a 50% chance of having selected a date for their PIN, a thief would have to steal relatively few phones from employees (perhaps a couple dozen or so) before finding one that he could unlock just by trying random dates. He would improve that dramatically if he could learn the victim's birthdate, or other significant dates such as family birthdates, anniversaries, etc.
I'm not saying that the limiting rules you are opposed to are on the same level of broken as a poorly thought out corporate policy, but I do know that limiting rules have a significant compounding impact on the overall security of a system.
This thread is disappointing. I learned a long time ago that just because I lack imagination, doesn't mean an imaginative use doesn't exist.
For example: your freezer could be used as a cheap energy storage device that could offset the cost of peak electricity during summer air conditioning season. How? By burning cheap night electricity, it could lower the temperature to -40 degrees by 6:00 AM. During the day, it doesn't run at all, it just slowly rises to -5 degrees. Being hooked to the network allows it to know the current electricity pricing schedule.
I've seen prototypes of fridge-based scanners that track food in and out, allowing you go use a remote shopping list to do "replenishment" shopping. If your spouse or child uses the last of the milk without writing it on the list, you still have a current list whenever you're at the store.
My clothes washer and dryer are already on my network. They are located in my basement. The washer allows me to remotely start it an hour before I head home, so I don't have wet clothes sitting in it all day, growing mold and mildew. When a load is dry, I get an alert, even if I am out of earshot; so I can keep the clothes from wrinkling. The dryer will give me a status, but it will not allow me to remotely control it. The machines are also smart-grid ready, so when the electric company begins demand pricing, I'm ready.
There are plenty of good reasons to put more devices on the network, and people will undoubtedly come up with more.
I've melted a cheap aluminum egg poacher on an electric coil stove, so yes, they can get that hot. They normally are limited by the thermal mass of the water in the pot, which keeps them safely at the boiling temperature of water. Once the water is all gone, nothing stops the temperature from rising. That's why you see warnings on coffee pots and other appliances that say "DANGER - never run without water."
The stove should not be physically capable of "overheating".
My aluminum tea kettle sits on one of the burners when not in use. If that burner were turned on and left on, it would eventually evaporate the remaining water, melt, and likely catch fire. I also know some guys who hide dirty dishes in the oven in case of "unexpected company". A plastic dish heated to 450 would easily ignite a fire.
The stove won't overheat, but stoves don't exist in isolation.
I recommend you read The Architecture of Open Source Applications at http://aosabook.org/en/index.h... This book looks at many different open source projects, and can be a source of inspiration (and debate). You'll find some of what you're looking for in it.
Most population control does not require the involvement of people hunting for amusement. That argument in most cases is simply a red herring. The vast majority of hunting in the US is simply done for amusement and any other goals it accomplishes are purely incidental.
Actually, hunting is the primary method of population management used by our state's DNR. For the most part deer are essentially pests in a lot of areas - they're traffic hazards, they cause crop and property damage, and they attract undesirable predators such as coyotes. The DNR
performs herd counts, predicts survival rates, and then sets a target for the sustainable number of deer in each region. It turns out the number of hunters and tags requested is quite well matched to the desired population size. Some years demand exceeds supply, and people miss out on tags. Some years supply exceeds demand, and the hunters are given license to take either bucks or does. They can region, so they're diverted to another region through the distribution of tags. When the hunt in an area is less successful, they may extend the season. Certain areas will sometimes require a special hunt. For example, in a metropolitan area they may bring in sharpshooters or bow hunters. They may add a second season.
We've also had times where the hunt has been very successful, but is then followed up by a brutal winter where a significant portion of the deer starve - we had a winter not too long ago where over 25% of the herd died as a result, and they took to actively feeding the deer.
If they didn't manage the herd via the hunt, what would you propose as an alternative? Letting cars run them over on the highways?
Our HR drones weed out resumes delivering exactly what the hiring manager asked for. If the hiring manager said "25+ years Java experience" then they would deliver only resumes that had 25 years of experience with Java - never mind that Java hasn't existed for 25 years, and the only candidates would be liars. If the manager puts "CompTIA Network+" on the list, then that's what the HR people deliver.
In our shop, (at least for developers) the manager asks the technical team to provide the list of qualifications to send to HR. There are some we can't get rid of: Bachelor's Degree for entering at that paygrade is a company policy. But if the team includes the kind of people who say "certs are bunk", then they won't ask for certifications.
When China engages in spying on corporate America, they spy on companies like Valspar for the formula the US Navy uses to protect warships from rust. They then give that information to Chinese firms to make durable paint for their own navy, and to turn a huge profit.
When the NSA spies on Huawei, they use the information to discover vulnerabilities they then go on to internally use to exploit the infrastructure of those who use them. They do not give the information to Cisco in order to make more efficient American routers (that are then made in China.).
So China uses industrial espionage to strengthen their military and economy. The NSA uses industrial espionage to weaken the security of everyone equally.
See the difference? Me neither.
consider changes once all of the science organizations start running various charities, food shelves, hospitals, orphanages
And those activities are already tax exempt. If Microsoft gives a million dollars to a food shelf, you can be sure they deduct it off their taxes. No change there.
I'd rather have equal taxation for churches.
Q: You know what they call a "natural cure" that has been tested and found to work?
A: Medicine.
It's called "herd immunity", and it's what keeps an infectious disease from becoming a pandemic. It kicks in when about 80% of the population is immune. If you want to live in our society and interact with us, fixing our cars, exchanging pieces of filthy paper money for cheap plastic goods, volunteering to work with kids, whatever you do, yes, you should not be putting the rest of us at risk.
There's still a concern about vaccination rates, because vaccines are less than 100% effective. Herd immunity can help keep the vaccinated-but-still-unprotected from getting the disease. As long no more than 20% of the population is unprotected, the rest of us should be OK. Of course, if you live in Stupidville, where half of the population is voluntarily unvaccinated, then you get to learn about a different concept: the mortality rate.
I wish that vaccines were 100% effective so we wouldn't have to worry about the stupids weeding only themselves out. It would let you be free to expose yourself to a killer disease, with no skin off my nose. But they're not perfect. We need high voluntary rates to keep most of us healthy.
You've clearly never had a hammer bounce back and hit you in the head.
After reading *that* randomly ugly formatted text, I'm not so sure that's a given.