Ok, so you have confirmed that you are lying as opposed to being ignorant. It is clear that you don't know how guns actually work. You make the comparison between an unlikely, if not impossible situation, and compare it to an unlikely if not impossible situation. You then get condescending because everyone does not make the conclusions that guns must be evil due to your faultily logic. Finally, when called on your faulty logic, you go into denial mode, and try to claim that pointing out your faulty logic proves your point.
"guns are used in the way that they are and how comparing them to other weapons such as meat cleavers is just total crap."
More dishonesty. Try comparing them to cars and bottles of gasoline.
Ahhh, hyperbole. You do know what a 'yard' is right? And what a hundred of them looks like? Let me put it in perspective for you. It's the length of a football field. When is the last time there was a mass shooting where a kid was shooting people from a hundred yards away? I'm guessing it was right after the mass stabbing. If you are lying, it isn't really logic now is it?
The reason you have to keep repeating this piece of "logic" is that it is utter BS, so people dismiss you as not having valid input. If you want to try to rephrase your comment in a way that doesn't sound like you are either intentionally trying to deceive, or like you don't know what a yard is, I would be happy to respond.
"e.g. libel and slander, producing kiddie porn, etc."
Easy. Just redefine the age of majority to 200 years, and all porn is kiddie porn. Of course, this also solves all sorts of other constitutional problems, as it is well accepted that The Constitution does not apply to those under the arbitrarily chosen age of majority.
"The fact is that an awful lot of kids in school in the US can get very easy access to weapons that allow them to kill people very easily."
ALL kids have access to weapons that allow them to kill people very easily. This is not only in the US, but in every country in the world. Don't fall for the "guns are evil" line. Don't underestimate the amount of damage that can be done with a glass jug of gasoline combined with a bicycle lock, or a car. Removing access to weapons is simply not physically possible.
While I do disagree with your reasoning. I agree with your conclusion.
I still remember, as boy in the early 80's, getting the opportunity to take a cruse on a navy ship. Seeing the targeting equipment on that ship gave me a real appreciation for just how realistic the graphics on Missile Command were. They were darn near indistinguishable from the real thing.
Actually, that is exactly what it means. Your statement is an ad hominem argument. I may not agree with people who think a big magic ghost in the sky made everything just like it is, but saying that their statements are not even in the equation because they are unworthy doesn't make the controversy go away.
That argument requires you to believe that it is ok for you to create a huge hassle for the entire country so that you can passive aggressively force all of your peers to hang out with you.
Uh, the humans are supposed to be the Islamic extremists. The Cylons are supposed to be the Americans/Christians. They have been very clear about that. The fact that the Cylons are supposed to be America is a poor attempt at being edgy and anti-establishment.
I have taken it more as a crappy attempt to model the Iraq war, and TRYING to be deep. It is basically wanna-be intellectualism. They are basically shouting "See how complex we are? We are smart writers!"
"Why would he lie about such a thing if it were so easily disproved? He would risk his entire "believability capital" on such a silly thing?"
This is what is known as "the big lie". The idea is that people are more likely to believe a lie that is big than one that is small. It is like saying that I couldn't have murdered my wife. The garbage bags in my garage with large quantities of her blood proves it! After all, why would I keep her blood in my garage if it could so easily prove that I killed her. Why would I risk my entire "believability capital" on such a silly thing?
We saw a similar thing when Apple released the iPod. The claim that they could not have built the iPod with a consumer replaceable battery is simply absurd, but we hear it over and over again.
Your right that I was unnecessarily condescending. Sorry. That being said, you are still wrong in your comparison. The fact that C64 word processors did not swap to disk was in no way even close to a hardware limitation. It was a software choice. The same can be said for the choice to swap out a DVD. The point is that the ratio of memory size to data size was far better in the C64 days than it is today. Whether the software was as well designed in the C64 days compared to today has no bearing on the hardware resources available.
"I'm not sure why you want to load a full DVD into RAM either. I can't think of any good reason to do that."
For the same reason that you would want to load an entire paper into memory. So that you don't have to have to swap out to magnetic media when you move around in the data. Just because we have figured out some software tricks to ease the pain that data is increasing faster than memory, doesn't mean that it isn't happening.
I'm not saying that most people are filling Gig-E. I'm just pointing out that saying X is enough, has historically not been accurate, and your C64 analogy was backwards.
"Of course we know what happened to the slave owners - they lost their legal right to own slaves entirely. Who knows how this will affect the RIAA's right to own copyrights."
You know, that is a good point. Just as most people assume that the 'owning' of information will never be outlawed, there was a time that many believed that the 'owning' of people will never be outlawed. As copyright now stands, we are quickly moving to a slave state. All communication is derivative. All recorded history is... well... recorded. We are young enough that it is still technically possible to function without using copyright material. Every year though, that becomes harder and harder. Much as you cannot just go out into the woods and become a mountain man anymore, the day will soon come that one will not be able to exist in society without using copyright material, and by extension, be under control of those who 'own' the information. It will still be a little while yet, but we are now standing on the cusp of the share cropper stage. We can only hope that outrage is fermented enough to save us, and our future owners are denied their 'property' before things get too bad.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "there is a place for proprietary software" so much as "don't pick on the kid who has most of the equipment or he might just take his ball and go home." Someday all companies might move to open source, but until then, we don't want to drive them away from even considering it.
You only see it that way because you don't understand how computers work. A C64 that did swapping out to magnetic media was going to easily hold every paper you were going to write. Today, we don't run out of memory when we load a DVD because we swap out data. most machines today are still 32-bit Windows. That means 3.5 gigs of ram. A single layer DVD is 4.7 gigs. If you try to load your entire DVD into memory, the way you did your paper on your C64, you are going to easily run your machine out of memory. Disk swapping is an ugly software hack that we have to deal with because memory has not even come close to keeping up with the amount of data we want to put in our computers. Back in the 8 bit days, it was even common to use some of your memory as a ram disk. This would be unheard of today.
You touch on a piece that is often missed. It is a bad choice to only hire 'superstars'. Quite simply, not every problem is going to be interesting. There is very often going to be grunt work, or simple things that just need to get done. Your 'superstars' are going to get board really quick when they have to do grunt work. You would be much better off, hiring people of various skill levels, make sure that they know where they are, and match up really good developers with some that are not as good. Of course, to truly be a 'superstar', you have to be able to understand and appreciate the contributions that those with less coding skill often bring to a project.
At my work, I am teamed up with another developer that will simply never be a 'superstar'. She consistently needs help on code that is just not that difficult for me to write. That being said, she is immensely productive. She knows what level of code she can handle, and she does a LOT of work that, while I could do if need be, I would be far less interested in than the work I do. This would lead to lower quality code, and job dissatisfaction. Her presence on the team gives far more to the company than any 'superstar' could bring.
The key is that she knows what she does well, I know what I do well, and we appreciate each others contributions.
Now, maybe the question wasn't about 'superstar' coders, but in employees in general. If so, it didn't come off that way to me.
The problem is that it is impossible to protect all cultures, so unless you are going to start going to start identifying some cultures as being more worthy of protection than others, you have to accept that cultures die out, and are replaced with new ones. After all, the cultured I grew up in allowed parents to punish their children when they did wrong. It included pilling a group of kids in the back of a pickup truck to ride out into the woods for a camping trip. It included taking fingernail clippers on a plane trip.
If we get to sue for losing our culture, where do I sign up for my check?
My complaint isn't that the vaccine is bad. It is that the science is being reported and used badly. Numbers are being misused, and misrepresented. You are correct that the problem with the chicken pox vaccine is mostly how it is used, but the research on when the proper time to use it is badly done. The other factor to consider is that it is only effective in 80% of the recipients. This means that even if every man woman and child was dragged into the streets and forced to receive the vaccine, you would still have a thriving reservoir for the virus. It just means that your chances of catching it earlier would be reduced, which increases your chances of complication dramatically. I believe the numbers I have seen are that 5% of the cases of chicken pox are in adults, and 55% of the deaths are in adults. That is a pretty significant increase. That makes getting the disease as an adult about 20 times more dangerous.
"Note that if you accept that the chicken pox vaccine causes significant damage by leaving adults vulnerable, the logical conclusion is that all children should be infected with full blown chicken pox to protect them later in life. Yet we don't do that. Why not?"
In fact that is exactly what was being done just a generation ago. When a parents found out that a neighbors kid had chicken pox, they would send their children over to play with him. That is what is referred to as a "Pox Party". It allowed parents to deal with the chicken pox at a more convenient time, as well as allow them to have their children get it when they didn't have some other complication that would make things worse.
Of course, instead of increasing the risk of chicken pox for a short term financial gain, the shingles issue can be addressed by vaccinating against shingles as an adult. There is a shingles vaccine, which as I understand it is basically just a high dose chicken pox vaccine. Getting a vaccine that will not increase your chances of dieing seems like a much better idea than getting one that will.
I think it is absolutely stupid to prevent people who are out having real live sex from being able to see pictures of it. I cannot for a second believe that your (figuratively speaking) 15 year old daughter is going to be harmed by seeing a little porn after she finishes rinsing the cum out of her mouth. Yes that is crude, and a parent doesn't want to hear it, but there has been no time in history that adults (no matter what the law says) between the ages of 13 and 18 have not been having sex. Having laws that make it illegal to look at pictures showing exactly what you are doing is stupid. And yes, it is censorship, and it is bad.
Of course, I am a radical that thinks we should be working towards restoring the civil rights of 13 to 18 year old adults by moving the age of majority down instead of up.
"1) is there now a known lifetime vaccine for chicken pox?"
Just a few years ago, they thought that it would last 18-20 years. Just long enough to put every child that got it as recommended by the CDC at the point that they are uninsured and in a high risk taking group. Today they are saying ~5 years.
There is one known lifetime vaccine for chicken pox. It is called getting chicken pox. Actually catching the disease is the only known way to gain lifelong immunity.
I don't have good story on hand. The problem is that the CDC and the AMA recommend the vaccine for everyone. Once that happens, you are not likely to see a lot of dessent. Particularly when there is so much money to be made by supporting the recommendation. Here is a link to a document on the CDC's site that points out that the death rate from chicken pox prior to the vaccine was 100 per year. According to NASA, there are more people hit by lightning each than that and 92 a year of the strikes are fatal. We don't see a nationl push to start dressing our population in rubber suits. That and avoiding a lightning strike does not increase your odds of being killed by lightning later in life. No one is disagreeing that catching chicken pox as an adult is WAY more dangerous than as a kid. The pro-vaccine folks are just not discussing it at all.
Now, I don't suggest you take my word for it. Go to the very people that are recommending the vaccine. Just don't accept their recommendation. Look at their core data. Run the numbers yourself. Then ask yourself the appropriate questions. Does the immediate risk prevention outweigh the long term increase in risk. Is the chances of death REALLY more than what I take on a daily basis with hundreds of other activities I do? Is my child likely to be insured and able to afford to keep getting boosters for the rest of their life? Is my child going to actually go through the effort of keeping up on the booster shots for the rest of their life? Is the increased risk of adult death for my child worth the money I can make by not missing a weeks worth of work? Is it important enough to me that the public school gets that extra weeks worth of funding for my child not missing a week due to illness?
I don't know where you live, but I believe in most of the US, and definitly in California in particular, the chicken pox vaccine is mostly required for admittance to public schools. While they cannot force you to get the vaccine, the conversation goes like this:
School: Chicken Pox vaccines are required to attend school.
Parent: But I don't want my kid to get the vaccine.
School: Well, too bad. It's the law.
99.9% of parents: Ohhhh... Ok. I'll get my kid the vaccine.
00.1% of parents: No. It is illegal for you to require it. Either you will admit my child, or we will address this in a courtroom.
After that point, either the school has you sign a waiver and admits your child, or you actually have to hire a lawyer to get your child in school. You also have the option of home schooling, but, again, your talking about a very small percentage.
Contracting the chicken pox as a child is not the problem, because, as you clarified, if you are going to die from chicken pox, it is not really relevant as to how you caught it, and chicken pox is contagious enough that you are very likely to catch it eventually. You are also correct that the vaccine doesn't "CAUSE" chicken pox later in life. That is part of where the bad science comes in. It is taking representing the wrong question while technically being true. Whether chicken pox "CAUSES" chicken pox later in life is totally irrelevant to most people. What people really want to know, and what they think they are being told is "Are you more likely to die of chicken pox if you do not get the vaccine." We know that your chances of dieing from chicken pox as an adult is dramatically greater than if you are a healthy child. We also know that the chicken pox vaccine is a temporary measure. This leads to the fact that if you put off getting chicken pox until adulthood, you either have to be on a permanent medical regiment or you are now vulnerable to a highly contagious, common, life threatening disease. 3 years ago, they believed it would last for ~18-20 years. Now, they are finding it lasts ~5 years. 5 is actually better, as it is more likely that the kids will actually catch it.
While the CBC may not be recommending it, the CDC does. The wording a couple of years ago was dramatically stronger.
The problem with the booster is that when parents are bullied into getting their kids the vaccine, they now set them up for a lifetime of requiring medicine to keep from dieing. This is the stuff from sci-fi horror films.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, so you have confirmed that you are lying as opposed to being ignorant. It is clear that you don't know how guns actually work. You make the comparison between an unlikely, if not impossible situation, and compare it to an unlikely if not impossible situation. You then get condescending because everyone does not make the conclusions that guns must be evil due to your faultily logic. Finally, when called on your faulty logic, you go into denial mode, and try to claim that pointing out your faulty logic proves your point.
"guns are used in the way that they are and how comparing them to other weapons such as meat cleavers is just total crap."
More dishonesty. Try comparing them to cars and bottles of gasoline.
Ahhh, hyperbole. You do know what a 'yard' is right? And what a hundred of them looks like? Let me put it in perspective for you. It's the length of a football field. When is the last time there was a mass shooting where a kid was shooting people from a hundred yards away? I'm guessing it was right after the mass stabbing. If you are lying, it isn't really logic now is it?
The reason you have to keep repeating this piece of "logic" is that it is utter BS, so people dismiss you as not having valid input. If you want to try to rephrase your comment in a way that doesn't sound like you are either intentionally trying to deceive, or like you don't know what a yard is, I would be happy to respond.
"e.g. libel and slander, producing kiddie porn, etc."
Easy. Just redefine the age of majority to 200 years, and all porn is kiddie porn. Of course, this also solves all sorts of other constitutional problems, as it is well accepted that The Constitution does not apply to those under the arbitrarily chosen age of majority.
Now imagine your logic applied to the Underground Railroad.
"The fact is that an awful lot of kids in school in the US can get very easy access to weapons that allow them to kill people very easily."
ALL kids have access to weapons that allow them to kill people very easily. This is not only in the US, but in every country in the world. Don't fall for the "guns are evil" line. Don't underestimate the amount of damage that can be done with a glass jug of gasoline combined with a bicycle lock, or a car. Removing access to weapons is simply not physically possible.
While I do disagree with your reasoning. I agree with your conclusion.
I still remember, as boy in the early 80's, getting the opportunity to take a cruse on a navy ship. Seeing the targeting equipment on that ship gave me a real appreciation for just how realistic the graphics on Missile Command were. They were darn near indistinguishable from the real thing.
Actually, that is exactly what it means. Your statement is an ad hominem argument. I may not agree with people who think a big magic ghost in the sky made everything just like it is, but saying that their statements are not even in the equation because they are unworthy doesn't make the controversy go away.
That argument requires you to believe that it is ok for you to create a huge hassle for the entire country so that you can passive aggressively force all of your peers to hang out with you.
Uh, the humans are supposed to be the Islamic extremists. The Cylons are supposed to be the Americans/Christians. They have been very clear about that. The fact that the Cylons are supposed to be America is a poor attempt at being edgy and anti-establishment.
I have taken it more as a crappy attempt to model the Iraq war, and TRYING to be deep. It is basically wanna-be intellectualism. They are basically shouting "See how complex we are? We are smart writers!"
"Why would he lie about such a thing if it were so easily disproved? He would risk his entire "believability capital" on such a silly thing?"
This is what is known as "the big lie". The idea is that people are more likely to believe a lie that is big than one that is small. It is like saying that I couldn't have murdered my wife. The garbage bags in my garage with large quantities of her blood proves it! After all, why would I keep her blood in my garage if it could so easily prove that I killed her. Why would I risk my entire "believability capital" on such a silly thing?
We saw a similar thing when Apple released the iPod. The claim that they could not have built the iPod with a consumer replaceable battery is simply absurd, but we hear it over and over again.
Your right that I was unnecessarily condescending. Sorry. That being said, you are still wrong in your comparison. The fact that C64 word processors did not swap to disk was in no way even close to a hardware limitation. It was a software choice. The same can be said for the choice to swap out a DVD. The point is that the ratio of memory size to data size was far better in the C64 days than it is today. Whether the software was as well designed in the C64 days compared to today has no bearing on the hardware resources available.
"I'm not sure why you want to load a full DVD into RAM either. I can't think of any good reason to do that."
For the same reason that you would want to load an entire paper into memory. So that you don't have to have to swap out to magnetic media when you move around in the data. Just because we have figured out some software tricks to ease the pain that data is increasing faster than memory, doesn't mean that it isn't happening.
I'm not saying that most people are filling Gig-E. I'm just pointing out that saying X is enough, has historically not been accurate, and your C64 analogy was backwards.
"Of course we know what happened to the slave owners - they lost their legal right to own slaves entirely. Who knows how this will affect the RIAA's right to own copyrights."
You know, that is a good point. Just as most people assume that the 'owning' of information will never be outlawed, there was a time that many believed that the 'owning' of people will never be outlawed. As copyright now stands, we are quickly moving to a slave state. All communication is derivative. All recorded history is... well... recorded. We are young enough that it is still technically possible to function without using copyright material. Every year though, that becomes harder and harder. Much as you cannot just go out into the woods and become a mountain man anymore, the day will soon come that one will not be able to exist in society without using copyright material, and by extension, be under control of those who 'own' the information. It will still be a little while yet, but we are now standing on the cusp of the share cropper stage. We can only hope that outrage is fermented enough to save us, and our future owners are denied their 'property' before things get too bad.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "there is a place for proprietary software" so much as "don't pick on the kid who has most of the equipment or he might just take his ball and go home." Someday all companies might move to open source, but until then, we don't want to drive them away from even considering it.
You only see it that way because you don't understand how computers work. A C64 that did swapping out to magnetic media was going to easily hold every paper you were going to write. Today, we don't run out of memory when we load a DVD because we swap out data. most machines today are still 32-bit Windows. That means 3.5 gigs of ram. A single layer DVD is 4.7 gigs. If you try to load your entire DVD into memory, the way you did your paper on your C64, you are going to easily run your machine out of memory. Disk swapping is an ugly software hack that we have to deal with because memory has not even come close to keeping up with the amount of data we want to put in our computers. Back in the 8 bit days, it was even common to use some of your memory as a ram disk. This would be unheard of today.
You touch on a piece that is often missed. It is a bad choice to only hire 'superstars'. Quite simply, not every problem is going to be interesting. There is very often going to be grunt work, or simple things that just need to get done. Your 'superstars' are going to get board really quick when they have to do grunt work. You would be much better off, hiring people of various skill levels, make sure that they know where they are, and match up really good developers with some that are not as good. Of course, to truly be a 'superstar', you have to be able to understand and appreciate the contributions that those with less coding skill often bring to a project.
At my work, I am teamed up with another developer that will simply never be a 'superstar'. She consistently needs help on code that is just not that difficult for me to write. That being said, she is immensely productive. She knows what level of code she can handle, and she does a LOT of work that, while I could do if need be, I would be far less interested in than the work I do. This would lead to lower quality code, and job dissatisfaction. Her presence on the team gives far more to the company than any 'superstar' could bring.
The key is that she knows what she does well, I know what I do well, and we appreciate each others contributions.
Now, maybe the question wasn't about 'superstar' coders, but in employees in general. If so, it didn't come off that way to me.
The problem is that it is impossible to protect all cultures, so unless you are going to start going to start identifying some cultures as being more worthy of protection than others, you have to accept that cultures die out, and are replaced with new ones. After all, the cultured I grew up in allowed parents to punish their children when they did wrong. It included pilling a group of kids in the back of a pickup truck to ride out into the woods for a camping trip. It included taking fingernail clippers on a plane trip.
If we get to sue for losing our culture, where do I sign up for my check?
Hehe... If you don't see what is wrong with what I quoted you as saying, there really isn't any more to be said.
Do you have a link for this? I looked up "guy bouncing in the middle of pool" and couldn't find anything.
What you wrote here pretty well sum things up:
"Hell guy, most of your posts are even coherent English and you're calling ME out?"
That is a total red herring. If it were truly even part of the equation, we would see cities enacting anti-gum chewing laws.
My complaint isn't that the vaccine is bad. It is that the science is being reported and used badly. Numbers are being misused, and misrepresented. You are correct that the problem with the chicken pox vaccine is mostly how it is used, but the research on when the proper time to use it is badly done. The other factor to consider is that it is only effective in 80% of the recipients. This means that even if every man woman and child was dragged into the streets and forced to receive the vaccine, you would still have a thriving reservoir for the virus. It just means that your chances of catching it earlier would be reduced, which increases your chances of complication dramatically. I believe the numbers I have seen are that 5% of the cases of chicken pox are in adults, and 55% of the deaths are in adults. That is a pretty significant increase. That makes getting the disease as an adult about 20 times more dangerous.
"Note that if you accept that the chicken pox vaccine causes significant damage by leaving adults vulnerable, the logical conclusion is that all children should be infected with full blown chicken pox to protect them later in life. Yet we don't do that. Why not?"
In fact that is exactly what was being done just a generation ago. When a parents found out that a neighbors kid had chicken pox, they would send their children over to play with him. That is what is referred to as a "Pox Party". It allowed parents to deal with the chicken pox at a more convenient time, as well as allow them to have their children get it when they didn't have some other complication that would make things worse.
Of course, instead of increasing the risk of chicken pox for a short term financial gain, the shingles issue can be addressed by vaccinating against shingles as an adult. There is a shingles vaccine, which as I understand it is basically just a high dose chicken pox vaccine. Getting a vaccine that will not increase your chances of dieing seems like a much better idea than getting one that will.
I think it is absolutely stupid to prevent people who are out having real live sex from being able to see pictures of it. I cannot for a second believe that your (figuratively speaking) 15 year old daughter is going to be harmed by seeing a little porn after she finishes rinsing the cum out of her mouth. Yes that is crude, and a parent doesn't want to hear it, but there has been no time in history that adults (no matter what the law says) between the ages of 13 and 18 have not been having sex. Having laws that make it illegal to look at pictures showing exactly what you are doing is stupid. And yes, it is censorship, and it is bad.
Of course, I am a radical that thinks we should be working towards restoring the civil rights of 13 to 18 year old adults by moving the age of majority down instead of up.
"1) is there now a known lifetime vaccine for chicken pox?"
Just a few years ago, they thought that it would last 18-20 years. Just long enough to put every child that got it as recommended by the CDC at the point that they are uninsured and in a high risk taking group. Today they are saying ~5 years.
There is one known lifetime vaccine for chicken pox. It is called getting chicken pox. Actually catching the disease is the only known way to gain lifelong immunity.
I don't have good story on hand. The problem is that the CDC and the AMA recommend the vaccine for everyone. Once that happens, you are not likely to see a lot of dessent. Particularly when there is so much money to be made by supporting the recommendation. Here is a link to a document on the CDC's site that points out that the death rate from chicken pox prior to the vaccine was 100 per year. According to NASA, there are more people hit by lightning each than that and 92 a year of the strikes are fatal. We don't see a nationl push to start dressing our population in rubber suits. That and avoiding a lightning strike does not increase your odds of being killed by lightning later in life. No one is disagreeing that catching chicken pox as an adult is WAY more dangerous than as a kid. The pro-vaccine folks are just not discussing it at all.
Now, I don't suggest you take my word for it. Go to the very people that are recommending the vaccine. Just don't accept their recommendation. Look at their core data. Run the numbers yourself. Then ask yourself the appropriate questions. Does the immediate risk prevention outweigh the long term increase in risk. Is the chances of death REALLY more than what I take on a daily basis with hundreds of other activities I do? Is my child likely to be insured and able to afford to keep getting boosters for the rest of their life? Is my child going to actually go through the effort of keeping up on the booster shots for the rest of their life? Is the increased risk of adult death for my child worth the money I can make by not missing a weeks worth of work? Is it important enough to me that the public school gets that extra weeks worth of funding for my child not missing a week due to illness?
I don't know where you live, but I believe in most of the US, and definitly in California in particular, the chicken pox vaccine is mostly required for admittance to public schools. While they cannot force you to get the vaccine, the conversation goes like this:
School: Chicken Pox vaccines are required to attend school.
Parent: But I don't want my kid to get the vaccine.
School: Well, too bad. It's the law.
99.9% of parents: Ohhhh... Ok. I'll get my kid the vaccine.
00.1% of parents: No. It is illegal for you to require it. Either you will admit my child, or we will address this in a courtroom.
After that point, either the school has you sign a waiver and admits your child, or you actually have to hire a lawyer to get your child in school. You also have the option of home schooling, but, again, your talking about a very small percentage.
Contracting the chicken pox as a child is not the problem, because, as you clarified, if you are going to die from chicken pox, it is not really relevant as to how you caught it, and chicken pox is contagious enough that you are very likely to catch it eventually. You are also correct that the vaccine doesn't "CAUSE" chicken pox later in life. That is part of where the bad science comes in. It is taking representing the wrong question while technically being true. Whether chicken pox "CAUSES" chicken pox later in life is totally irrelevant to most people. What people really want to know, and what they think they are being told is "Are you more likely to die of chicken pox if you do not get the vaccine." We know that your chances of dieing from chicken pox as an adult is dramatically greater than if you are a healthy child. We also know that the chicken pox vaccine is a temporary measure. This leads to the fact that if you put off getting chicken pox until adulthood, you either have to be on a permanent medical regiment or you are now vulnerable to a highly contagious, common, life threatening disease. 3 years ago, they believed it would last for ~18-20 years. Now, they are finding it lasts ~5 years. 5 is actually better, as it is more likely that the kids will actually catch it.
While the CBC may not be recommending it, the CDC does. The wording a couple of years ago was dramatically stronger.
The problem with the booster is that when parents are bullied into getting their kids the vaccine, they now set them up for a lifetime of requiring medicine to keep from dieing. This is the stuff from sci-fi horror films.