I hate to boast, but ... I've written something on a combat between a STL starship and a system defense system. The definitive, I'm sure http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showthread.php?t=9501/ to wit:

The AI network on board the starship the Chandrasurya was having a nightmare - as AI's go. It had concluded recently - about three or four years back - that the increasing number of micrometeorite impacts on its hull were not accidental at all. Micrometeorites do not in general leave an ionic trail behind them. It had used as much of the micrometeorite defense as was feasible; had upgraded its security environment to careful; but had not yet decided it was now critical. The hull was losing a microscopic amount of integrity, but the Chandrasurya had only reached the heliopause of Alpha Centauri. It predicted that on the grounds of the increasing number of impacts, it would soon reach a maximum level of impacts when it had decelerated to orbital speeds and had reached the Lagagrange 1 point between the two stars. At that stage hull integrity would be seriously, even fatally, compromised.

When you can accelerate a pack of micrometeorites to a high-enough speed, you don't need to be particularly precise in your aiming; when you're aiming at something travelling at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, you don't need a vast amount of mass. And the aim is to degrade hull integrity, as a starship breaking up from braking stress at speed is such a pretty sight!

Next they'll be requiring dive-bombing capacity in their passenger jets! And ejection seats in submarines!

Facetiously, fast aerial transport needs fuel with a high MMBTU and a light weight. A non-nuclear submarine needs a lot of batteries to move underwater for any reasonable length of time.

That number of batteries constitutes a weight penalty for an aircraft. That quantity of light jet fuel constitutes a massive buoyancy chamber for a submarine. And burning off the fuel to permit their use as ballast tanks in order to submerge ... sends a terror-induced shiver up my spine. It puts a new meaning into Overuse Syndrome.

To be blunt, it's a non-starter.

I'm disappointed that more media sources haven't picked up on how clever the wording is when ID is discussed. Suggesting that we teach students "both sides of the controversy" sounds wonderfully reasonable, but it means you accept that there is a debate, and that there are two sides to discuss. Wonderful PR work.

A blunt anology is to holocaust denial; should we teach students in schools the version of history espoused by ring-wing neo-nazi groups? After all, we should show them both sides of the debate.

(Note that I don't think this kind of attack need lead to bad science in schools: you can have great fun accepting that neo-Darwinistic evolution is 'just a theory', as you can then discuss testability, predictions etc, and how it's doing against the evidence and what changes had to be made. Now do the same with ID - no testability, no predictions etc. Now pick the theory you want to use. For bonus points, discuss why ID is simply a stupid idea using Gould's separation of magisteria, or Fowler's mythos vs logos viewpoints.)

Way back in the mists of history -- figure the mid-'90s, give or take an IPO or two -- I used to do some odd bits of print design for a blindness-related non-profit here on the East Coast. One day, when conversation turned to the org's web presence, they mentioned how they had been quite deliberate in "oversizing" everything on their site to cater to users with failing eyesight -- mostly the elderly, as it turns out. Taking a look at the site today, it appears that not much has changed, so I guess the philosophy must still be working for them.

Mind you, this was a destination with an already assumed audience of seniors/others with vision problems. Should the same thinking be carried over to a more general-interest site that caters largely to a 50+ demographic (wine, opera, public radio/TV)?* Sure. Perhaps in not so drastic a manner as that first example, but hey, it never hurts to remember that those users most likely to need oversized type/graphics -- seniors -- are also the ones are least likely to understand client-side fixes like text-zoom and adjusting monitor resolution.*

My best guess is that some clearly marked CSS controls on the page might be the best compromise between wanting a clean, elegant design and offering maximum readability to users. Worth thinking about, at least...

*This and all other groundless generalizations in this post are the property of the Poster. And Major League Baseball.

How would you like people to take money from you? Even for charitable causes, I would object.

Perhaps Mr. Soros does give to charity. I don't know. I know his wealth and the business he creates provides jobs for many thousands of people, who in turn can give to charity.

The solution to poverty is work. Either start your own business or hire on. Poor countries are that way due to poor governments--usually dictatorships of some sort.

Charity is good for emergency aid and to educate people on how to support themselves. But as an on going way of supporting life, it is demeaning.

The problem of poverty (not income inequity--that's not a problem, as long as one's basic needs are met) has a combined cause of lack of opportunity (the whole country is poor and thwarts free enterprise--see Zimbwabwe) and lack of education. Both need to be solved.