What makes ID not a science is that it can't be *disproved*
Neither can SETI's hypoth. Not finding something is *not* proof of ETI absense. Absense of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absense. And it is possible that we could find a signal that would later stop when we try to fly there to inspect it. For example, a moving beacon that enteres orbit and disintigrates. They are both in the same limited falsification boat. Thus, if you fail ID, then you have to fail SETI-like projects also.
No, both of you are wrong.
There's plenty of good science that can't be proved or disproved. What people are usually talking about in these situations is the claim that the theory in question must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible in principle to observe something that would show the theory to be incorrect. In the case of so-called 'Intelligent Design' (or 'Creationism' etc), there is no observation that could possibly show that ID/Creationism is false.
In the case of a search for something concrete (like an extraterrestrial civilization) on the other hand, it is quite possible--in principle--to make observations that would show a theoretical statement such as 'there are one or more extraterrestrial civilizations' to be false. The practicality of actually doing so is entirely irrelevant.
While I can't argue with you that it's common practice for governments of all stripes to employ FUD for their own not-necessarily-very-pure purposes, I think you've rather missed the point.
It really doesn't matter if this virus is the cause of the next pandemic or if it's some other bug. The fact is that being somewhat prepared for a pandemic is a good idea. We've seen these things often enough historically to know that a) not understanding them (e.g. bubonic plague in the middle ages) or b) not being able to do anything about them (e.g. the 1918 flu) can be catastrophic.
Planning for such events could be a big help with (a), and also gives us a good leg up on (b) (especially in the sense of planning the appropriate prophylactic measures).
The pandemic threat is much like the earthquake threat in the Pacific Northwest and in California. Disastrous earthquakes will strike (probability: 1.0), but we don't know when. Being somewhat prepared for a quake (e.g. handy survival kits for individuals, disaster-response drills for emergency services, and seismic upgrades for everyone) is, nevertheless, a good idea.
I think that Crichton is probably an idiot, so we may be that much in agreement.
But to think that Shelley's work--and probably Crichton's too, though I can't say, not having read any of his books--is only a warning against the potential excesses of science is fantastically shallow. Frankenstein's creature can equally well be understood as political allegory or really, allegory for anything that might come back to bite you on the ass; think about the western (and other) powers training of the Afghan Mujahideen for example for example...
Literature is typically much more subtle than it seems when you just read the Cliff's Notes versions.
You're proposing multiple such backbones. Find a way to squeeze $1,000 out of every man, woman, and child in the U.S., and you're probably in the ballpark.
SMOKING AFFECTS OTHER PEOPLE. There's this little thing called second-hand smoke. I seem to recall it being actually worse than first-hand smoke, since the first-hand smoker at least has a filter.
Fair enough so far...
And back on topic again... yeah, banning incandescent light bulbs is stupid.
But if we're to take you seriously on the first point, then this is total nonsense.
The express purpose of banning incandescent bulbs is to reduce harmful emissions by lessening the total amount of fossil-fuels burned in California, because YOUR ENERGY USE AFFECTS OTHER PEOPLE.
This might be a stupid law, but it most definitely is not stupid for the reason you gave.
What the heck are you talking about? What is it that you're saying you should be able to do with this HTML that you can't do with frames in the same amount of code?
But besides the first point's incomprehensibility, the second point:
But no sir! They even had to remove the target attribute from XHTML Strict! Notice how my code would have been XHTML+CSS valid without this restriction that makes me write more hacks (rel="external" and an ugly JS to add the target attributes on page load).
...is ridiculous. If you need the target attribute so badly, use HTML 4.0 Transitional or xhtml 1.0 Transitional. No problems. Better yet, if you're using frames, why not use the right doctype in the first place? iframes and target attributes are alive and well in xhtml 1.0 Frameset...
...found on the side of one of those mini front-end loaders, and accompanied by a crazy little graphic showing a person getting crushed by the machine:
That's a huge freaking difference, unless of course you still cling to the classic pinnicle of indoctrination, "the government is the people". You don't really believe that, do you?
Actually, this is true enough, and it's part of the reason why the always-increasing surveillance is a problem—your n x 10^6 fellow citizens are "the most dangerous force that could possibly exist."
No doubt most of our countrymen are nice enough on their own, but we should be exceedingly reluctant to increase their aggregate power in even the most minimal ways...
"Now here is the problem: where is the responsibility? Is it also Target's responsibilty to pay for the blind's computer access equipment? Do they have to provide them transport to and from the store, since they can't drive on their own? Does there need to be a guy with a megaphone standing on every Target billboard declaring the contents of the sign in an audible format?"
Nice straw man. You, along with many others, are ignoring (wilfully?) the fact that Target has had to explicitly decide to make their site inaccessible. Take a look at their site as it is right now; they've chosen to use images for functional links and they have rarely, if ever, included an alt attribute in the image element where all they would have needed to do was bloody-well duplicate the text already in the image in the alt attribute. They have taken a medium that's fundamentally accessible (i.e. one which, by virtue of being text-based, can be intelligently parsed by a screenreader), and intentionally or ignorantly rendered it inaccessible.
Not only are they morons for apparently not understanding accessibility concerns, they must also be pretty dim-witted about e-commerce if they're too dense to provide textual equivalents for the UI elements required to make purchases.
"It's not immediately evident what the way of reconciling disability with this new medium should be"
What is evident is that you're not well-informed enough to be commenting on this event; check items 25 through 34 of the complaint and get back to us. Basic compliance with the WAI Guidelines or Section 508's guidelines (though not required by law for private industry) would likely have prevented this ever becoming an issue for Target--as would simply running the cart application's code through the w3c validator and correcting the resulting errors...
Slashdot Mirror
No, both of you are wrong.
There's plenty of good science that can't be proved or disproved. What people are usually talking about in these situations is the claim that the theory in question must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible in principle to observe something that would show the theory to be incorrect. In the case of so-called 'Intelligent Design' (or 'Creationism' etc), there is no observation that could possibly show that ID/Creationism is false.
In the case of a search for something concrete (like an extraterrestrial civilization) on the other hand, it is quite possible--in principle--to make observations that would show a theoretical statement such as 'there are one or more extraterrestrial civilizations' to be false. The practicality of actually doing so is entirely irrelevant.
Mod parent up. At the risk of sounding paranoid, I take this to be the real issue here.
While I can't argue with you that it's common practice for governments of all stripes to employ FUD for their own not-necessarily-very-pure purposes, I think you've rather missed the point.
It really doesn't matter if this virus is the cause of the next pandemic or if it's some other bug. The fact is that being somewhat prepared for a pandemic is a good idea. We've seen these things often enough historically to know that a) not understanding them (e.g. bubonic plague in the middle ages) or b) not being able to do anything about them (e.g. the 1918 flu) can be catastrophic.
Planning for such events could be a big help with (a), and also gives us a good leg up on (b) (especially in the sense of planning the appropriate prophylactic measures).
The pandemic threat is much like the earthquake threat in the Pacific Northwest and in California. Disastrous earthquakes will strike (probability: 1.0), but we don't know when. Being somewhat prepared for a quake (e.g. handy survival kits for individuals, disaster-response drills for emergency services, and seismic upgrades for everyone) is, nevertheless, a good idea.
I think that Crichton is probably an idiot, so we may be that much in agreement.
But to think that Shelley's work--and probably Crichton's too, though I can't say, not having read any of his books--is only a warning against the potential excesses of science is fantastically shallow. Frankenstein's creature can equally well be understood as political allegory or really, allegory for anything that might come back to bite you on the ass; think about the western (and other) powers training of the Afghan Mujahideen for example for example...
Literature is typically much more subtle than it seems when you just read the Cliff's Notes versions.
What the heck are you talking about? What is it that you're saying you should be able to do with this HTML that you can't do with frames in the same amount of code?
But besides the first point's incomprehensibility, the second point:
...is ridiculous. If you need the target attribute so badly, use HTML 4.0 Transitional or xhtml 1.0 Transitional. No problems. Better yet, if you're using frames, why not use the right doctype in the first place? iframes and target attributes are alive and well in xhtml 1.0 Frameset...
...found on the side of one of those mini front-end loaders, and accompanied by a crazy little graphic showing a person getting crushed by the machine:
Avoid Death
Actually, this is true enough, and it's part of the reason why the always-increasing surveillance is a problem—your n x 10^6 fellow citizens are "the most dangerous force that could possibly exist."
No doubt most of our countrymen are nice enough on their own, but we should be exceedingly reluctant to increase their aggregate power in even the most minimal ways...
"Now here is the problem: where is the responsibility? Is it also Target's responsibilty to pay for the blind's computer access equipment? Do they have to provide them transport to and from the store, since they can't drive on their own? Does there need to be a guy with a megaphone standing on every Target billboard declaring the contents of the sign in an audible format?"
Nice straw man. You, along with many others, are ignoring (wilfully?) the fact that Target has had to explicitly decide to make their site inaccessible. Take a look at their site as it is right now; they've chosen to use images for functional links and they have rarely, if ever, included an alt attribute in the image element where all they would have needed to do was bloody-well duplicate the text already in the image in the alt attribute. They have taken a medium that's fundamentally accessible (i.e. one which, by virtue of being text-based, can be intelligently parsed by a screenreader), and intentionally or ignorantly rendered it inaccessible.
Not only are they morons for apparently not understanding accessibility concerns, they must also be pretty dim-witted about e-commerce if they're too dense to provide textual equivalents for the UI elements required to make purchases.
"It's not immediately evident what the way of reconciling disability with this new medium should be"
What is evident is that you're not well-informed enough to be commenting on this event; check items 25 through 34 of the complaint and get back to us. Basic compliance with the WAI Guidelines or Section 508's guidelines (though not required by law for private industry) would likely have prevented this ever becoming an issue for Target--as would simply running the cart application's code through the w3c validator and correcting the resulting errors...