Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
A Postmodernist Experiments with Kuro5hin

By lower triangular in Meta
Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 05:46:07 PM EST
Tags: Humour (all tags)
Humour

At the moment, a story in the Kuro5hin queue entitled "Rasterisation without Scans" stands at 134 points, 3 points off the post threshold of 137. The article itself is pretty strange, but it seems to be advocating the use of a low-discrepancy sequence plot, drawing directly into screen memory, as a method of rendering complex polygons. It claims that this is, not necessarily a better way of rendering graphics, but rather a more artistic method.

Although the story appears to be popular with the kuro5hin crowd, the vast majority of the topical comments on the article point out that its premise is ludicrous -- akin to "a new method for bubble sort" according to one commentator. This is the story of that story .....


Well, I was going through one of my periodic burnouts with being "streetlawyer" (yup, it's me, and to think I had about one person fooled for almost a minute), and it occurred to me (in response to a thread in a previous story on matters close to my heart) that iit might be fun to reproduce Alan Sokal's experiment/practical joke carried out on the editors of "Social Text".

Sokal, according to himself, set out to answer the following question:

"Would a leading North American journal of cultural studies -- whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross -- publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions? "
Since the pomos have already been done to death, and since the "hard science" types had done a fair bit of gloating on this one, I thought I'd investigate a similar question:
Would a self-styled community of "technological experts" publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the members' ideological preconceptions?
Specifically, having noted a few particularly dull and pretentious discussions earlier on, I decided to take a flier that the number of people who knew anything whatsoever about computer programming on k5 was not so great that they wouldn't be outnumbered by a coalition of
  1. Those who knew nothing about computers, but voted up any vaguely technical-looking article because "we ought to have more of that sort of thing on k5" and
  2. Those who realised it was crap, but were prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt because it seemed to be implying that "code is art" (maaan).
I don't think we need to go through the formality of the last 3 votes to the post threshold to determine that I was right on this one. I must confess to a slight feeling of guilt (but amused guilt, I'm afraid) at the plaintive cries of the literate as they pointed out "I can't believe this crap is going to be posted", but have to point out that I'm a fairly shrewd judge of character, and that perhaps this is a good object lesson in how situations like the Sokal/Social Text one can arise.

Oh, btw, to clear up two points:

  • As far as I am aware, there are no outright false statements in the original article, still available in my diary. The algorithm posted would work, in the sense that code which implemented it would compile and execute. It might even be practical as a means for rendering polyhedrons on a 3-dimensional display with voxels. But that was hardly the point
  • I have never, in my life, written a computer program more complicated than "Hello World" or a medium-sized Excel macro. The use of technical terminology in the article represent what a reasonably intelligent chap can do given a day's spare time and Google.
And finally, I think we can now clear up the "is Code Art?" debate. My article was a Situationist prank. It was a piece of art. And central to that art were the two (pseudo)code extracts. Therefore, at least two pieces of code were part of a piece of art, and were so irrespective of their merits as code.

Thank you.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Me and Sokal
o As bad as each other 32%
o As good as each other 35%
o You're bad, he's good (please state why in comments) 32%

Votes: 40
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Kuro5hin
o Google
o thread
o Alan Sokal
o Social Text
o particular ly dull
o pretentiou s
o Also by lower triangular


Display: Sort:
A Postmodernist Experiments with Kuro5hin | 108 comments (97 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden)
Ha (3.60 / 5) (#2)
by codemonkey_uk on Tue May 29, 2001 at 11:54:30 AM EST

I'm not sure why, but now I feel vindicated.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
But (4.00 / 1) (#32)
by leviathan on Tue May 29, 2001 at 02:12:47 PM EST

This confirms that those voting it up were either
  1. Those who knew nothing about computers, but voted up any vaguely technical-looking article because "we ought to have more of that sort of thing on k5" and
  2. Those who realised it was crap, but were prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt because it seemed to be implying that "code is art" (maaan).
...or possibly trhurler/greyrat's number three. That just confirms my worst fears about k5ers (to be overdramatic). On the bright side, we can hope case 1 will be educated by this. I could hope that case 2 will just run away now, but I think that unlikely. Case 3 I can appreciate, but if it weren't for the first two it wouldn't be necessary.

Damn.

P.S. Damn scoop too for not letting me omit opening tags. As much as I like the new validation, it peeves me to have to omit paragraph opening tags left and right and not be able to make use of SGML's flexibility.

--
I wish everyone was peaceful. Then I could take over the planet with a butter knife.
- Dogbert
[ Parent ]

Since you're dragging my name into this... (none / 0) (#35)
by greyrat on Tue May 29, 2001 at 02:28:36 PM EST

...be specific. What are your worst fears about k5ers. You're not making sense to me with your "On the bright side" sentence either.

BTW trhurler and I are not related in any way, although it appears that we live in the same metropolitan area.

"A true friend stabs you in the front" -- Oscar Wilde


~ ~ ~
Did I actually read the article? No. No I didn't.
"Watch out for me nobbystyles, Gromit!"

[ Parent ]
You were an aside (sorry) (4.50 / 2) (#38)
by leviathan on Tue May 29, 2001 at 02:41:15 PM EST

My 'worst fears' about k5ers (please note I was being a little melodramatic there) are that they are one of the two cases presented in the article. As you and trhurler (quite independently, I'm sure) pointed out, there's a third case. I simply had to mention it since you had brought it up.

Case 1 is bad because there's no point in having a mod queue if people are going to vote things up without understanding (or at least reading) them. 'On the bright side', hopefully they'll learn from this experience and vote 0 next time to let those who have read/understood it vote on it.

Case 2 is just a personal beef of mine. The whole code vs. art debate was just too much wanking for my tastes. Mind you, it seems codemonkey and I are on different side of the fence on this one, yet we both voted it down.

As I said, the case you put forward I can understand. It the reason I vote up decent trolls (or funny ones). However, the code-art flamage just gets on my wick. If it weren't for those arguing over it, there'd be no need for you to vote it up.

Incidentally, I'm glad the article went up in a certain way. It's quite entertaining to read the commentary again. I'd love to claim I'd spotted the link, but unfortunately that was just coincidence.

--
I wish everyone was peaceful. Then I could take over the planet with a butter knife.
- Dogbert
[ Parent ]

Indeed... (3.75 / 4) (#6)
by RareHeintz on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:06:33 PM EST

The Sokal/Social Text story is one of my all-time favorites, and shows (as does this experiment) how people - even intelligent, educated people with a talent for intellectual rigor - use logic more to justify their prejudices than to determine their actions.

Way to go.

OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/ - updated kind of daily

Who're we talking about again? (4.00 / 2) (#7)
by marlowe on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:13:17 PM EST

Pomos have a talent for intellectual rigor?

-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
[ Parent ]
I guess I'll have to go vote (3.00 / 1) (#8)
by farmgeek on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:14:02 PM EST

on that particular story now...

I would have voted earlier, but frankly, I couldn't follow it well enough to decide if it was crud or not and I'm too lazy to press the button and accept the default zero. Guess I'll have to go +1 FP it now though.

NO! (3.00 / 1) (#9)
by streetlawyer on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:16:41 PM EST

that's not the point at all. Unlike Sokal, I'm not quite a mean enough prick to make people knowingly publish disinformation. I owned up to the hoax in order that it could be voted down. If the thing gets posted, I really must insist that at the very least, a link be provided to some admission of guilt by me.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
Too late. (3.00 / 1) (#12)
by farmgeek on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:20:56 PM EST

But I would have done it anyway.

Besides, you can't really force k5 publish misinformation.

Now all we need to do, is find out that your suggestion really is wonderful way to do whatever image processing bit that you had purported it would do.

But I do agree that there should be a meta story to cover the hoax, which is why I voted this one up as well.

One more vote is all it needs!

[ Parent ]
It's out of the que (3.00 / 1) (#14)
by farmgeek on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:26:34 PM EST

and into the fire, or the front page at least.

[ Parent ]
I voted 0 on the other story... (3.00 / 1) (#24)
by Office Girl the Magnificent on Tue May 29, 2001 at 01:11:57 PM EST

Because I'm willing to admit I don't know jack-$#!+ about writing code. But if it got posted, it was probably because people wanted to discuss it -- whether to consider its value or to poke holes in the darn thing. I think it's pretty cool that we as a community can vote something up even if we think the viewpoints are just plain wrong. From what I read out of the article, it appeared well-written and well-researched. Isn't that what counts?

And for the record, Streetlawyer/lower triangular/whatever he calls himself is the Troll King. Streetlaywer is dead, long live streetlawyer!

"If you stay, Infinite might try to kill you. If you leave, the FBI definitely will. And if you keep yelling, I might do it myself."
[ Parent ]

division of comments (none / 0) (#70)
by alprazolam on Wed May 30, 2001 at 05:30:11 PM EST

i think its fair to assume that any discussion of art as code will develop into its own thread, seperate from any discussion of the actual code being discussed. you could expect a somewhat interesting discussion as to the alternate image rendering method the article put forth. whether its innovative or not is immaterial, as i haven't read many in depth articles about it. as for being crap technical-wise, thats a good reason to stick it in section, but thats not a reason to miss a good debate on something more interesting than government influence or software licenses.

[ Parent ]
flattery (4.42 / 7) (#10)
by Kellnerin on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:18:40 PM EST

Would a self-styled community of "technological experts" publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the members' ideological preconceptions?

Well, if you had taken it a step further, announced you were planning to release an implementation under the GPL, given it a clever, self-referential name and linked to your SourceForge page, and denounced the current methodology as having been co-opted by M$ to boot, maybe ... I'm not quite sure what ideology an admittedly inefficient algorithm flatters.

You may have gotten some people to take you seriously and give you points for well-produced technobabble, but none of the comments to the original story give any evidence of people dancing around the new idol that is you. With an apathy vote as high as the votes in favor, can you really claim victory?

--Stop it, evil hand, stop it!--

The will to see what you expect proclaims a win! (none / 0) (#46)
by afeldspar on Tue May 29, 2001 at 08:27:24 PM EST

You may have gotten some people to take you seriously and give you points for well-produced technobabble, but none of the comments to the original story give any evidence of people dancing around the new idol that is you. With an apathy vote as high as the votes in favor, can you really claim victory?

No, but I'm sure he will anyways and come up with some terribly logical-sounding reasons why it's so. =)

I would have been more vaguely interested in his 'postmodern exercise' (I doubt it could properly be called an experiment) if he were to define what kind of reaction would have falsified his hypothesis.


-- For those concerned about the "virality" of the GPL, a suggestion: Write Your Own Damn Code.
[ Parent ]

Damn... (3.25 / 4) (#11)
by ucblockhead on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:19:18 PM EST

I wish you'd let the damn thing post before revealing yourself. Oh well...

I feel like I dodged a bullet. When that submission hit the queue, my brain was fried with wierdass javascript, so I didn't feel like reading enough to tell if it was interesting or just the ravings of a loony, so I just did what I do in those cases, and voted "don't care". I like to think I'd have caught on, but I honestly admit that there was some temptation to vote +1 just because it "looked like something interesting". So I suppose this serves as a good warning. Hopefully people will heed it.


-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup

uneeded expiriment (4.33 / 9) (#13)
by Seumas on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:21:59 PM EST

I can't believe the 'expiriment' was actually necessary. Who really would expect a moderately researched article to be voted down on K5 (or many other places for that matter)?

The content isn't what matters. Spelling errors. Grammar. Length. Previous Slashdot appearances. Whether the poster is disliked by everyone. Those are the elements of a submission that matter. In general, the subject and qualification of the actual article is secondary or even tertiary.

You can't expect a 'cultural exchange/discussion site' (which is largely what K5 is) to vote something up or down solely on technical merits anyway. Most of those who monitor the submission queue probably have zero programming experience. Even fewer have a mediocre experience with programming (like myself) and perhaps know a couple languages enough to do something with them. Only a handful, I would suggest, are actually professional programmers paid to program or posess an advanced knowledge of programming.

In most cases I would likely vote an "I don't care" and let those who know better judge the submission, but a lot very obviously think "whoa, curly brackets and pseudo-code -- this dude must know what he's talking about -- front-page! front-page!".

Oh well. Like with most things in life, presentation is everything.
--
I just read K5 for the articles.

Hmmm. A Flaw in Your Thinking (4.20 / 5) (#15)
by greyrat on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:26:50 PM EST

...the number of people who knew anything whatsoever about computer programming on k5 was not so great that they wouldn't be outnumbered by a coalition of
  1. Those who knew nothing about computers, but voted up any vaguely technical-looking article because "we ought to have more of that sort of thing on k5" and
  2. Those who realised it was crap, but were prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt because it seemed to be implying that "code is art" (maaan).
You forgot number three: Those who voted it up to be able to watch the fur fly. No, I wouldn't have realized it was crap, it's outside my area of expertise. But I did realize that it was wacko enough to provide interesting reading as the discussion grew.
~ ~ ~
Did I actually read the article? No. No I didn't.
"Watch out for me nobbystyles, Gromit!"

It's all very well... (4.35 / 14) (#16)
by DesiredUsername on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:27:34 PM EST

...pretending to be disgusted with and tired of K5--but it fools no one unless you eventually go away. Otherwise you're just like those guys who read Playboy "just for the articles".

Unless you *meant* the "lower triangular" nick to be found out (which I wouldn't rule out, given your apparent psyche), I'll never again wonder if you have multiple users with different personalities. Your "personality" shines through clear and strong (thus my comment about the "new nick" on the Minsky story)

ObOnTopicComment: I don't recall the title you quote above, but I *do* remember voting up a technical story that sounded suspicious. I voted it up anyway because I'm sick of the self-absorbed and mindgame-type stories that K5 has had a rash of lately and I wanted to "reward" someone who was at least *trying* to post something technical and interesting. I guess you've got us both coming and going. You win. Can you go play another game now?

Play 囲碁
The Last Ninja (4.20 / 5) (#17)
by Blarney on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:30:03 PM EST

Voting up the story doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with the rendering technique mentioned. It just means that I think it's interesting.

I have, in fact, seen rendering without a backbuffer - in the old Last Ninja games. The rendering was so slow, in fact, that you could just watch the poor 8-bit computer draw polygon by polygon, pixel by pixel. But it WAS artistic, to a degree, just watching it do it's thing! And if it used your bizarre out-of-order pixel drawing, that would kinda look neat too.

Uh, (none / 0) (#29)
by leviathan on Tue May 29, 2001 at 01:54:43 PM EST

The vast majority of 8-bit games worked without a second screen buffer. When the whole screen doesn't move at the same time, you only need to redraw a part of it (as in Last Ninja) - a buffer forcing full redraw is wasteful. Likewise, if it's simple left/right/up/down scrolling, mostly a hardware scroll will do fine. Games without a panning 3-d camera just don't need buffering.

Incidentally, I didn't think that Last Ninja used polygons to draw the characters, just lots of sprites. I'd love to be proved wrong though.

--
I wish everyone was peaceful. Then I could take over the planet with a butter knife.
- Dogbert
[ Parent ]

Not characters..... the landscape! (none / 0) (#42)
by Blarney on Tue May 29, 2001 at 04:09:37 PM EST

The landscape was drawn in bitmap mode as polygons and what we might, today, call "sprites" - 2D trees with transparent areas, stuff like that - but wouldn't have called sprites then, that term being reserved for movable graphics implemented in hardware. The characters were hardware sprites.

[ Parent ]
heh (4.00 / 3) (#18)
by spacejack on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:31:35 PM EST

Well, I sorta read it, posted and then moved on. But it is amusing to go back & read it again. With comments like:

if k5 gets a reputation for being a hive of ass-talkers who don't read articles thoroughly enough and have an overinflated sense of their own importance, it won't be my fault.

maybe we should've suspected something. Something about the ease with which good insults were constructed didn't mesh with the overall uselessness of the algorithm being pushed (although I've seen stuff like this happen on usenet with people who seem to be totally earnest, so it didn't actually seem that strange).

Still, I do graphics programming regularly, and I often tend to lack the technical vocabulary and precision with which to write material that sounds as convincing. So.. nice job.

And apparently shoeboy, qpt, etc. have a lot of catching up to do. The bar has been raised.

Other Sokal-like experiments (3.66 / 3) (#19)
by spacejack on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:37:17 PM EST

I think there was a similar prank in the art world during the 60's. Abstract and minimalist paintings had become so status-quo, so accepted, that someone actually got a monkey to create paintings and then passed the work off as that of a new, up & coming artist. Once some of the critics had been trolled, the truth came out and a number of people in the art world wound up being embarassed. I don't actually remember any of the people involved; this is just from memory. Maybe someone else does.

4-year-old with fingerpaints (none / 0) (#59)
by gauntlet on Wed May 30, 2001 at 09:54:53 AM EST

won an abstract art competition in England when his mother submitted the work as her own.

"It is difficult to catch a black cat in a dark room. Especially if there is no cat there." - Confucius
[ Parent ]

Can bluff out of that one (none / 0) (#106)
by squigly on Thu Jun 07, 2001 at 07:44:03 AM EST

"Ah! So the artist is a child. That explains the innocence and brightness of the piece"

[ Parent ]
So because a monkey made it, it isn't "art&qu (none / 0) (#105)
by Afty on Thu Jun 07, 2001 at 06:01:28 AM EST

Crikey. What an assertion.

'Art', like beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I'm currently carrying out contract work for an art gallery, and it's scary to see what is sold and what isn't.

Some people pay UKP90000 for something I would refuse to have in my home, others refuse to pay UKP100 for something I would love to have in my home.

Art is subjective, and the source of the art is irrelevant, the perception of the individual *viewing* the art is what *makes* it art.



[ Parent ]
Hehe (4.23 / 13) (#20)
by trhurler on Tue May 29, 2001 at 12:43:42 PM EST

I don't remember what I voted, and I'm too lazy to look, but it was probably +1 Section. Reason? Well, I certainly am a programmer, but I know very, very little about graphics, so when I realized that what was in front of me was an article about rendering polygon scenes, that it was long, and that I probably wasn't really going to have anything interesting to say on the subject, I skimmed it. My reasoning is as follows: there aren't enough articles on k5 that aren't shallow crap. This looked like one, but I didn't have the time to read it. Presumably, if it contained anything stupid, someone who did know graphics would scream bloody murder and a horde of zealots would vote it down. Unfortunately, the murder-screaming apparently was done by people not loud and obnoxious enough. Oh well.

Note to people who would scream bloody murder: you must be as loud and obnoxious as trhurler if you want any hope of being listened to in such a matter. If you never believe another thing he says, believe this.

--
'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by fluffy grue on Wed May 30, 2001 at 12:12:39 AM EST

I'll try to be more annoying in the future.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

The poll (4.20 / 5) (#23)
by spacejack on Tue May 29, 2001 at 01:05:22 PM EST

Had to vote "as bad as each other". As clever or devious as you or Sokal may have been, you're still just wasting your skills fucking with people instead of creating something. People who like to do things are often fooled because they think everyone is as earnest or obsessed with creating as much as they are. As far as I'm concerned if you want to implement something (like a bizarre polygon rendering algorithm) because you think it will work for you, then go right ahead. You're only going to get a rise out of me if you tell me that everyone else should do the same.

Who did you fool? (4.62 / 24) (#25)
by 0xdeadbeef on Tue May 29, 2001 at 01:18:38 PM EST

Of those I can identify, a games programmer and two computer graphics researchers voted against you. Two of them called you on your silly algorithm, though probably not strongly enough, as it was still voted up. I recognized you for a crank. The "don't care" vote almost matches the positive, and outnumbers it when combined with the negative.

All you did is prove that the ignorant don't pay attention, that non-specialists defer judgement to experts, and experts are few in number and generally have better things to do than unmask fools.

If you had actually introduced outright falsities in your article it would have been more like the Sokal hoax, and perhaps you'd deserve to gloat. But then again, lies would have been caught and shouted off the queue.

Bullshit (4.40 / 5) (#68)
by regeya on Wed May 30, 2001 at 05:01:56 PM EST

All you did is prove that the ignorant don't pay attention, that non-specialists defer judgement to experts, and experts are few in number and generally have better things to do than unmask fools.

Try "all you did is prove that wankers like yourself feel they can somehow pull qualitative data out of purely quantitative data." When you start saying things like "all you did is prove that the ignorant don't pay attention," you're applying your opinion to a set of data that conveniently fits your theory.

Wrong! All the voting record proves is that (and I'm too lazy to look, so I'll use variables) X1 people voted +1, FP, X2 people voted +1, section, X3 people voted 0, Don't Care and X4 people voted -1, Dump It! That's it! That's all! There's no data there about the motivations of a majority of the people who voted on this story. Oh, you're going by comments in the story? What percentage of people who voted on it commented on it? Hell, if you want to get more specific, what percentage of people who posted ignorant-sounding comments were really that ignorant? The big problem with Streetlawyer's trollish experiments is that he assumes that everyone else is playing honest, even though he's not.

So, can we get over the mental masturbation and deal with facts, rather than forwarding opinions as facts?

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

Heh, you lighten up! (4.00 / 2) (#74)
by 0xdeadbeef on Wed May 30, 2001 at 08:15:28 PM EST

I didn't consider motivation when I scanned the voting list for nicks I recognized. Generally, those with a technical background voted 0, and all those with computer graphics background voted -1.

I know why the -1'ers voted as they did, and at least two of the 0's have explained why they didn't care. My only error is assuming the sample set is large enough to represent all voters.

Besides, I've got 19 mods at 4 and 5, and the coveted 1 by trusted_user. Wanker... like a fox!


[ Parent ]
Heh...maybe I will. (2.00 / 1) (#76)
by regeya on Wed May 30, 2001 at 10:15:06 PM EST

I know why the -1'ers voted as they did,

No.

and at least two of the 0's have explained why they didn't care.

Woohoo, you know why two people didn't care. But, then again, if they didn't care, why say anything? :-)

My only error is assuming the sample set is large enough to represent all voters.

Yes. :-)

Besides, I've got 19 mods at 4 and 5, and the coveted 1 by trusted_user. Wanker... like a fox!

Irrelevant.

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

The nature of free queues... (2.25 / 4) (#26)
by cei on Tue May 29, 2001 at 01:21:01 PM EST

Personally, I'm waiting on another story to make it out of the queue, so I can do the obligatory "The Nature of Free Willy" parody post.

Give it up StreetWanker (1.86 / 15) (#27)
by 2400n81 on Tue May 29, 2001 at 01:43:11 PM EST

The only thing StreetWanker has taught K5 is how thoroughly he wanks to the thoughts of being an Arrogant Gas Baron like ESR.

StreetWanker has a case of Nerd Identity Masturbation Syndrome much like Signal 11. At least Bojay isn't a pussy and gives his real name.

real names (4.00 / 1) (#53)
by streetlawyer on Wed May 30, 2001 at 02:02:13 AM EST

so you're implying that 2400n81 is your real name? I'm guessing that you were conceived at midnight in a Greyhound bus rolling down highway N81?

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
well, I know (none / 0) (#75)
by anonymous cowerd on Wed May 30, 2001 at 08:32:15 PM EST

...that you're really John Stuart Mill. But I'll never ever tell.

Your fan WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

stint grits
darts file
gratis ways to fit tins
dapper angle
ill apple
-Barbara Baracks

[ Parent ]

I use only my real name (none / 0) (#65)
by Paul Crowley on Wed May 30, 2001 at 03:49:58 PM EST

... but name another regular K5 contributor who does likewise?
--
Paul Crowley aka ciphergoth. Crypto and sex politics. Diary.
[ Parent ]
Me. (none / 0) (#67)
by Luke Francl on Wed May 30, 2001 at 04:43:23 PM EST

Well, me for one. "johnny", the author. rusty. Others have their nicks tied to their real names in some way.

I do wish more people would use their real names. It gives you more accountability and leads to a more civil discussion.

[ Parent ]
nicks (none / 0) (#71)
by alprazolam on Wed May 30, 2001 at 05:33:01 PM EST

somebody's handle generally means more and is more interesting than their given name. also it is a nice paper bag for things like gender, nationality, etc, that kind of removes those things from your thoughts. sometimes.

[ Parent ]
"My name is...NEO!" (none / 0) (#89)
by Luke Francl on Sat Jun 02, 2001 at 04:54:24 PM EST

Yeah, I agree. But I don't think you can have a serious conversation with someone only knowing his or her nick. It might break the ice, but eventually, you must learn more about the person, or you can't trust 'em.

[ Parent ]
stupid and dangerous assumption (none / 0) (#93)
by alprazolam on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 11:23:48 PM EST

because you know somebody's name, you can trust them? no, i don't think so. or better yet, you can trust anybody, all the time, but you can never know who's going to fucking rape you the second you're not paying attention. regardless of what you think you know about them.

[ Parent ]
So (3.57 / 7) (#31)
by shoeboy on Tue May 29, 2001 at 02:06:04 PM EST

Since it seems to be "confess you alternate nick day" here on k5, I'll finally admit to being Trhurler.

--Shoeboy
No more trolls!
Gee, now THERE's a shocker... (4.00 / 1) (#33)
by BOredAtWork on Tue May 29, 2001 at 02:12:55 PM EST

...but I guess the real question is, who here has had a conversation with themself just to make their comments stand out... hrm...?

[ Parent ]
Well (4.00 / 1) (#34)
by shoeboy on Tue May 29, 2001 at 02:16:51 PM EST

...but I guess the real question is, who here has had a conversation with themself just to make their comments stand out... hrm...?

Am I implying something with that comment?
--Shoeboy
No more trolls!
[ Parent ]

No, (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by CaptainZornchugger on Tue May 29, 2001 at 02:39:15 PM EST

I've thought about it, and I'm pretty sure you didn't mean anything at all when I posted that.


Look at that chord structure. There's sadness in that chord structure.
[ Parent ]
Handle envy (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by slakhead on Tue May 29, 2001 at 04:19:27 PM EST

I guess some people just need to have more handles to make up for their lack of creativity on the first one...

:)

[ Parent ]
i think (3.00 / 1) (#44)
by Defect on Tue May 29, 2001 at 05:05:35 PM EST

They're just compensating for something else. As for me, i'm not nearly as insecure about the size of my penis.
defect - jso - joseth || a link
[ Parent ]
I do not need a penis! (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by enani on Wed May 30, 2001 at 12:09:03 AM EST

I am a shouyen! Shouyen do not need a penis! But it is nice to be with someone who has one for the purpose of bukkiko! It would be very difficult to get bukkiko from someone without a penis! But being a kamawohoru at times is also very much fun too!
--=* Moshi-moshi! *=--
[ Parent ]
what about (none / 0) (#69)
by alprazolam on Wed May 30, 2001 at 05:14:58 PM EST

those of us who have conversations with ourselves because it's art?

[ Parent ]
/me raises hand [n/t] (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by fluffy grue on Thu May 31, 2001 at 11:45:50 PM EST

foo
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Shimata! (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by enani on Thu May 31, 2001 at 11:47:40 PM EST

Stop following me around fluffy grue-chan! It is not very much funny anymore! Baka!
--=* Moshi-moshi! *=--
[ Parent ]
I have! (4.00 / 5) (#83)
by enani on Thu May 31, 2001 at 11:45:53 PM EST

No text! Except for this! Unless you are a poopyhead!
--=* Moshi-moshi! *=--
[ Parent ]
God damnit (5.00 / 2) (#85)
by fluffy grue on Thu May 31, 2001 at 11:47:42 PM EST

Not this crap again...
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

WTF!?! (3.50 / 2) (#40)
by delmoi on Tue May 29, 2001 at 03:16:01 PM EST

I'm Thurler!!

I'm also Estalano Martinez. Just thought I'd let you all know :)
--
"'argumentation' is not a word, idiot." -- thelizman
[ Parent ]
So? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by Phil Gregory on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 09:40:17 AM EST

I'm Bruce Perens.



--Phil (And rusty and Inoshiro are the same person! I have proof!)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
[ Parent ]
funny (3.00 / 2) (#37)
by your_desired_username on Tue May 29, 2001 at 02:40:20 PM EST

Ok, I voted this down when I first saw it - but I went back and re-read the fake poly drawing article and decided it was funny. Too bad I can't change my vote. Someday, I've got to learn to have second thoughts before moderating a story ...

I think this whole thing is amusing, but... (4.28 / 7) (#39)
by elenchos on Tue May 29, 2001 at 02:56:05 PM EST

I don't see how it proves anything. Obviously K5 isn't technically oriented enough or specialized enough to prove that techs are so gullible. Although they probably are to a degree. I would ask if there is a field that you could not successfully troll with a similar article. Physics? Remember cold fusion? Medicine? You gotta be kidding? Poli Sci or economics? Please. The same technique of fast talk and flattery could get a bogus article published in any kind of journal. Certainly in a publication with standards as loose as K5, it is a cake walk.

No offense. I think it is fine work, and I'm amused. But the inclusion of pointless psuedo-code in an English-language article does not prove or disprove that actual computer code can be a medium for artistic expression. Just on the face of it, is there anything that can be called a medium that cannot also be potentially employed to make art? If not, then what is a medium?

But good job anyway. It's a refresing innovation on the well-covered ESR/pathetic-libertarian-geeks topic.

Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today inquisitive, ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All these things have

Differences (4.75 / 12) (#41)
by Simon Kinahan on Tue May 29, 2001 at 03:59:59 PM EST

Hmm. Well thats pretty funny. Personally, I filed it under "crank" and ignored it on the basis that someone else might get some satisfaction out of reading it. Like that thing about "word oriented programming" that appeared a wee while back. Its unlikely that anyone making a worthwhile innovation would post it to K5, or that it would be so short, and IMHO, poorly structured. I admit thats pretty similar to what the authors of "Social Text" say they did with Sokal's article.

There are some differences though. The editors of "Social Text" are meant to be professionals, and we make no such claim. Stuff they publish is presumably meant to meet certain intellectual standards that we not only don't, but cannot, due to out number and diversity, support. They claim to be gatekeepers for a respectable academic discipline, as we do not. There is a lack of symmetry here. If you could get your article published in an academic journal on graphics programming, I'd be more impressed.


Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
io noi boccioni (2.00 / 3) (#45)
by eLuddite on Tue May 29, 2001 at 07:33:07 PM EST

Hmm. Well thats pretty funny. Personally, I filed it under "crank" ... The editors of "Social Text" are meant to be professionals, and we make no such claim.

Sure, but it did support his GAMES MANIFESTO, a rather clever rip on Futurist Programming. The whole lower triangular schtick was to misdirect the self important delusions of the geek culture in kuro5hin against itself. How can programmers be artists if the sum of their criticism is "Err, that's slow, dude, and we have hardware to do that for us." If anyone remembers his first story defending the computer games industry against charges of sexual immaturity, they will surely also remember its notable absence of any defense. ESR, E3, what's the difference, it all boobs and rubes; classic streetlawyer in sheep's clothing. The difference between lower triangular (a scandulous nick, if you think about it, anatomically) and streetlawyer was the use ellipses. I think he gave up the ghost a little too prematurely.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

not scurrilous (4.33 / 3) (#56)
by streetlawyer on Wed May 30, 2001 at 06:09:18 AM EST

The difference between lower triangular (a scandulous nick, if you think about it, anatomically)

I don't know *what* you're thinking of, but "lower triangular" describes a matrix with only zeros above its diagonal. It's an occasionally useful concept in linear algebra. I thought it would give me added maths credibility.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

Worked on me... (3.00 / 1) (#73)
by dgwatson on Wed May 30, 2001 at 07:31:42 PM EST

I figured that someone who called himself lower triangular must know what he's doing... but maybe that's just because I finished taking Linear Algebra.

Nice job, tho :)

[ Parent ]
Whee. (4.00 / 1) (#47)
by regeya on Tue May 29, 2001 at 10:04:06 PM EST

I was skeptical that you were really streetlawyer. Still am, really, because of this:

Specifically, having noted a few particularly dull and pretentious discussions earlier on, I decided to take a flier that the number of people who knew anything whatsoever about computer programming on k5 was not so great that they wouldn't be outnumbered by a coalition of
  1. Those who knew nothing about computers, but voted up any vaguely technical-looking article because "we ought to have more of that sort of thing on k5" and
  2. Those who realised it was crap, but were prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt because it seemed to be implying that "code is art" (maaan).
I don't think we need to go through the formality of the last 3 votes to the post threshold to determine that I was right on this one.
I would hope that the "real" streetlawyer would be smart enough to know that expecting a certain behavior to be indicative of a certain mindset, and overlaying the expected results with his opinion of why the expected outcome was achieved, is crap.

Here's a different theory for you: I have a theory that, when the sun rises tomorrow, it will be because it is a fiery chariot being pulled by a team of horses. Sure, it sounds silly, but boy, you'll have egg on your face when the sun rises tomorrow. ;-)

For the record, IIRC (and I'm too lazy to look) I voted the story up. Yeah, I shouldn't have, but I thought, "Hell, it might be entertaining to see it being picked apart." I guess I should vote it down to "prove" that I'm not completely technically illiterate, eh? ;-)

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]

IHBT... (2.25 / 4) (#51)
by fluffy grue on Wed May 30, 2001 at 12:21:19 AM EST

But IHNL. HAND.
--
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]

not quite a Sokal... (4.66 / 3) (#52)
by poltroon on Wed May 30, 2001 at 12:32:30 AM EST

When I read your rasterization article, my reaction was that you sounded like somebody who might have taken a first graphics course, or be a few weeks into it, but have a puffy enough ego to want to show off some of the technical tidbits you'd ingested, maybe not realizing they didn't fit together very well. I negged it and was pleased to find that a few people had already very aptly called bullshit. I figured no person with an ounce of modesty would have posted something like that because: a) people new to a field usually realize how much they don't know, and b) people moderately experienced in a field still realize how much they don't know, and c) people experienced in a field realize that a general audience won't have enough background to carry on a serious debate about a specialized topic, so attempting to do so would be some sort of pointless posturing. The article seemed like it would have been appropriate as a diary, but not offered for critique/discussion in a forum like K5. I guess a lot of pseudo-science is pushed over on the general population all the time. It's more shocking if it's accepted by a scholarly journal, so I vote that Sokal's prank was more impressive. But you certainly raise the point of just how much bullshit we might regularly be taking in about topics outside of our specialization...

If you'd pushed your story over as a SIGGRAPH paper, I'd be impressed. They take art submissions/essays too. Some of last year's techno-art essays were pretty darn weird...

Why Alan Sokal's experiment was unfair (4.37 / 8) (#54)
by Pseudonym on Wed May 30, 2001 at 02:53:13 AM EST

Alan Sokal's experiment with Social Text was unfair and proved nothing. I've always believed this, even though I have more than a little contempt for postmodern social theorists.

The fact is that the editors did not understand Sokal's paper, nor could they possibly have been expected to understand it. Had they not published an apparently legitimate paper by an eminent scientist on these grounds, they would have been accused of intellectual snobbery. Since they had no reason to suspect that a scientist would publish a paper which was full of scientific nonsense, so they published it.

What did people expect? I would have done the same if I were in that situation, with the possible exception of running the article past another scientist first.

Most of us who voted the rasterisation story up did so for exactly the same reason, but with one difference. The editors/reviewers of Social Text do it for a living. The moderators of K5 do it in the few minutes available while waiting for a compile to happen. Correctness rarely enters into it. Your article looked on topic and it wasn't an obvious troll (more fool us, eh?). If it was incorrect, that'll get sorted out in the ensuing discussion. Besides, I'm not in the habit of voting down stories just because I disagree with them.

In case anyone cares, I am a graphics programmer, though I don't do realtime stuff. When I voted it up, I didn't have time to read the article fully, and figured that I'd read it properly and join in the discussion once it was posted.

So, whatever your name is, I voted it up, and I'd do the same again. I hope you feel really good about yourself because you've discovered that you can pull one over on people who have their guard down. Ever considered a career in advertising or sale of pre-loved vehicles?



sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I absolutely agree (4.25 / 4) (#55)
by streetlawyer on Wed May 30, 2001 at 06:07:24 AM EST

I happen to think that Sokal's hoax was a rather good practical joke, and that so was mine. But most of the rest of your points are well made. I take issue with the following, however:

The editors/reviewers of Social Text do it for a living. The moderators of K5 do it in the few minutes available while waiting for a compile to happen

This isn't true on either count. The editors of Social Text edit the journal in spare stolen minutes from full-time jobs as academics. And the readers of k5, as I think the article helped to show, are not typically "waiting for a compile", or they'd have known a bit more about programming. In fact, they're more similar to the readership of "Plastic" and "Salon" than they'd care to admit.

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

K5 readership (4.25 / 4) (#61)
by ucblockhead on Wed May 30, 2001 at 11:56:13 AM EST

My gut impression of the K5 readership is that about 90% of it is divided equally between general techs, whose programming experience is mostly short scripts, and college students, who have never done much beyond the typical artifical programming assignment. From what I've seen, only a small (but significant) percentage of people here are actually programmers with the experience to really understand an evaluate complex algorithms.

This is not entirely surprising because the number of actual programmers in technical fields isn't all that large. For every programmer in this industry, there are four techs.

Unfortunately, many, many people, including a lot of technical people who do a lot of script programming on small programs, don't realize that there is a substantial qualitative difference between writing a two-hundred line script, and designing and programming a hundred-thousand line application. But really, it's like expecting a guy building a cabinet out in his garage to understand how to design a skyscraper because they are both "building things".
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

Yes and no (4.50 / 2) (#77)
by Pseudonym on Thu May 31, 2001 at 12:17:41 AM EST

I happen to think that Sokal's hoax was a rather good practical joke, and that so was mine.
I guess. It was certainly amusing, I'll agree with that, so I guess it was a success as a joke. I maintain that it was pretty poor as a postmodern experiment.

I think the only thing that you "proved" is that pretty much any on-topic non-flamebait non-troll can get posted here. What gets posted is what K5 wants to see. I therefore conlude that K5 wanted to see your joke post.

As for the characterisation of K5 audiences, a poll might have proven the same thing, as well as noting the number of non-technical articles that are posted lately (politics, world events etc).

I guess I can only speak for myself. I _do_ only check K5 in the minutes I can grab here and there while waiting for stuff to compile or something like it. I may not be in the majority, but I can't be the only one.



sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
[ Parent ]
Graphics programming is rather specialised (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by ajf on Thu May 31, 2001 at 05:38:32 AM EST

And the readers of k5, as I think the article helped to show, are not typically "waiting for a compile", or they'd have known a bit more about programming.

I must admit here that I voted this up, and regret it. The description of scan line rasterisation sounded close enough to what I half-remember, so I assumed the rest of it wasn't ridiculous. In hindsight, I realise that was stupid, and I'll probably be voting "don't care" even more often in the future.

I'm a reasonably competent programmer (and, for what it's worth, I rarely read Salon articles and I don't think I've ever read Plastic), but I know bugger all about graphics programming. I don't think you can assume the readers of K5 are ignorant of programming entire just because we don't recognise a nonsense algorithm in a specialised area when we see it.



"I have no idea if it is true or not, but given what you read on the Web, it seems to be a valid concern." -jjayson
[ Parent ]
No excuses (5.00 / 5) (#78)
by nevauene on Thu May 31, 2001 at 01:26:33 AM EST

The fact is that the editors did not understand Sokal's paper, nor could they possibly have been expected to understand it.
What I don't understand is how you could say that. As Sokal points out, he makes assertion after assertion in his paper without any attempt to provide a coherent or logical argument for any of them. You don't need to understand quantum theory to recognize, if you actually give it a single reading through, that it is a total crock. What Sokal cleverly demonstrated, rather irrefutably imho, is that leading postmodernist lights like Fredric Jameson have become - or indeed, always have been - intellectually lazy. Jameson's own writing is not so far away from Sokal's parody - an impressive amount of footnotes, 'obscure and pretentious language', one hell of alot of psuedointellectual tightrope walking. Sokal unmasked the editors of Social Text for what they are - charlatan darlings of the leftist cocktail party circuit, not so much interested in anything so mundane as academic or scientific standards as they are in being intellectually masturbated and having their preconceived notions pandered to. What makes the paper so funny is imagining Jameson et al reading it, every once in awhile amidst their haze of confusion reading something like 'imperialist cultural hegemony of the West' or 'towards an emancipatory mathematics' and feeling elated.

'Not fair'? They're the editors of a well-known cultural studies journal, and they run a fuzzy piece attempting to show how quantum theory inherently suggests the 'correctness' of progressive politics. Rather than run it by someone who might know better first, they went to press with it, because it had all the right key words and drew all the right conclusions. You say they had no recourse because of Sokal's 'eminence' in his field - and yet it seems to me that is precisely one of things Sokal was condemning, is this deference to authority (or dogma, or whatever else) before rationality. There is no excuse.

I am not much of an academic, (more of a rhetoritician to be perfectly honest) but like Sokal, I am a leftist who feels a great deal of antipathy towards this incoherent and subjectivist circle-jerk termed 'postmodernism'. How truly sad it is that the Western left now finds itself so bored and irrelevant that it spends all its time shoegazing - deconstructing dusty old books looking to draw out Marxist narratives the authors didn't intend, or questioning whether there even is any 'reality' or 'truth'... like a teenager who's just smoked alot of hash waxing philosophical.


There is no K5 Cabal.
[ Parent ]
Premodernism, Modernism and Postmodernism (5.00 / 3) (#102)
by Ruidh on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 03:44:29 PM EST

These are three different approaches to deciding the correctness of a proposition. Most propositions don't rise to the level of logical proof where one can examine all of the axioms, the step-by-step derivation and the conclusion drawn.

premodernism: appeal to authority (i.e. Aristotle on natural sciences)

modernism: appeal to reason and reproducable results (i.e. Galilleo and Newton)

postmodernism: appeal to experience and recognition of subjectivity (i.e. Jung)

The fact is that each of us acts in premodern, modern and postmodern ways in different circumstances.

I can't hope to make an original contribution to, say, cosmology, so I act I a premodern way -- I read what the recognized experts in the field say and I accept their conclusions until they are replaced by new research.

I know a little bit about economics and statistics. (B.S. 1982 in Applied Math and Economics) I can make an independant and (somewhat) knowledgable evaluation of statements in these fields because I have experience and knowledge of the fields. I approach these fields in a modernist way.

I know that other people have different religious experiences, understandings and expressions than I do and that I can't reexperience their religious experiences. I approach religion in a postmodern way accepting a measure of subectivity and respecting others deeply held beliefs as appropriate for them but perhaps not for me.

So, postmodernism is not intellectually incoherent but an acknoledgment that, within the universe of human experience, some of that experience is subjective and irreproducable. Some of it is tied up in deeply held and unplumbed value systems. If you ask whether I should spank my child, the correct answer depends on what culture the child is being raised in.

"Laissez-faire is a French term commonly interpreted by Conservatives to mean 'lazy fairy,' which is the belief that if governments are lazy enough, the Good Fairy will come down from heaven and do all their work for them."
[ Parent ]
Trust and journalism (4.00 / 1) (#96)
by tommasz on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 08:19:58 AM EST

They accepted and printed Sokal's hoax because they trusted him, and had no reason to believe it was a joke. And most of the time, trusting your contributors works fine. The readers, who may very well have more domain knowledge than the editors, will eventually catch on.
Of course, every now and then, this trust is broken and it makes news because it so out of the ordinary and so very, very annoying (consider the reaction to the Kaycee hoax). All this prank did was prove that there is trust and it can be broken. How about doing something new?

[ Parent ]
Trust and lower_trangular (none / 0) (#97)
by codemonkey_uk on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 08:45:58 AM EST

But lower_trangular was a new user. He had not earned trust in earlier articles and comments.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
So? (none / 0) (#108)
by Pseudonym on Tue Jun 12, 2001 at 03:16:17 AM EST

So? K5 is not a refereed journal, and we're not bound by the same rules.

Personally, I often vote up op-eds which I think are kinda stupid because I reason that corrections in the follow-ups will be extremely informative.



sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
[ Parent ]
All you have proved .. (4.00 / 4) (#57)
by GiTm on Wed May 30, 2001 at 07:00:38 AM EST

... is that K5 is no more trustworthy than any other site out there.

I, like many others it seems, migrated to K5 because trolling and this sort of one-upmanship (sp?) was a lot rarer than on other sites.

All you have done for me is diminish my respect for K5 as a group. I tend to go lightly on K5 articles because I trust that the author at least beleives what they are saying and that the chances of a direct troll (for the submission queue at least) are minimal to the point of non-existant.

Now, I would happily vote for a SCOOP modification that allowed accounts to be disabled after enough complaints (which would not make much difference because you could always come back with a different username - lame to start off with) or that users could create their own kill lists - ie: I don't want to see any articles by this particular username.

In technical terms what you managed was quite good - if you have no previous graphics coding ability you managed to fool quite a few people. In sociological terms this goes beyond a practical joke in my opinion. I am SO pissed off with myself for voting your joke article up it's not funny. And I did it on the benefit of the doubt - that regardless of the algorithm being slow or out of date or whatever that it was worthwhile of discussion even so. I even defended you.

Despite some other, interesting stories and comments by you this is just egotistical crap. Oh - and slipping in a derivative of the word postmodern is pathetic as well. And while I'm in a really shitty and picky mood - you've mixed singular and plural tense in the subject line. God I am pissed off at you - but judging by this joke your massive ego will probably protect you from any potential impact (ie: You won't give a shit about anyone else but yourself).

Congratulations - you've proved that lowest common denominators are just as valid in sociological terms as they are in mathematics. Hope you're proud of yourself.

--- I have nothing funny to say here.
your opinion is noted (3.50 / 2) (#62)
by streetlawyer on Wed May 30, 2001 at 12:58:39 PM EST

However, there is nothing wrong with my grammar: "Postmodernist" is a noun, "Experiments" is a verb and the whole is a mild parody on the title of Sokal's article in Lingua Franca admitting to the Social Text hoax; "A Physicist Experiments with Cultural Studies".

--
Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
Yes, But Calling Yourself A Postmodernist (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by greyrat on Wed May 30, 2001 at 04:23:21 PM EST

Is pompous. What is your definition of "postmodern" and "posmodernist"? And what are your qualifications to label yourself as such?
~ ~ ~
Did I actually read the article? No. No I didn't.
"Watch out for me nobbystyles, Gromit!"

[ Parent ]
Postmodernist... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by minusp on Thu May 31, 2001 at 08:00:30 AM EST

... means exactly what I want it to mean.
;P


Remember, regime change begins at home.
[ Parent ]
Well, yes, I know *that* (4.00 / 1) (#81)
by greyrat on Thu May 31, 2001 at 08:23:12 AM EST

And does this mean you're streetlawyer too?
~ ~ ~
Did I actually read the article? No. No I didn't.
"Watch out for me nobbystyles, Gromit!"

[ Parent ]
Heh... no... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by minusp on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 09:55:34 AM EST

Forgot the <wink_wink> tags... my bad.
Say that again, though, and I'll be forced to wash your mouth out with single malt.


Remember, regime change begins at home.
[ Parent ]
Well, yes, I know *that* (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by greyrat on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 10:53:58 AM EST

And does this mean you're streetlawyer too?
-------------------------------------------

Mmmmmm. Glendronach. Laphroiag. Dalwhinne. Bunnabain. Please pardon any misspellings. I can't remember the 70 some-odd others I have tasted -- And there were some really nice chewy ones from Skye too.

It'll be easier to vote you up now


~ ~ ~
Did I actually read the article? No. No I didn't.
"Watch out for me nobbystyles, Gromit!"

[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0) (#104)
by kraant on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 10:23:14 PM EST

In a very post-modernist way... Yes.
--
"kraant, open source guru" -- tumeric
Never In Our Names...
[ Parent ]
Pompous? (5.00 / 3) (#87)
by ucblockhead on Fri Jun 01, 2001 at 05:05:13 PM EST

You mean, "postmodernist" is supposed to be a good thing!?

Credentials? That's like asking for pictures after he calls himself a "wanker".
-----------------------
This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
[ Parent ]

Blinders (none / 0) (#86)
by pos on Fri Jun 01, 2001 at 02:24:33 PM EST

Now, I would happily vote for a SCOOP modification that allowed accounts to be disabled after enough complaints (which would not make much difference because you could always come back with a different username - lame to start off with) or that users could create their own kill lists - ie: I don't want to see any articles by this particular username.

Is anyone else here reminded of the Peril Sensitive Sunglasses from the Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy when they read this kind of stuff?

Slashdot has exclude by author options and all I think it does is make people who complain about Jon Katz get 3 or 4 comments telling them that if they don't like it then they don't have to see it. I'll tell you what they don't like... they don't like Jon Katz spouting off his rhetoric to other people. They don't like that he has an audience at all.

I just think self censorship is an interesting "solution" to an old problem.

-pos

The truth is more important than the facts.
-Frank Lloyd Wright
[ Parent ]
I hate Katz, but that's not why (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by dutky on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 12:53:42 AM EST

I hate Jon Katz twice as much as the next guy, but it's not becuase he gets to spout off his nonesense to other folks or becuase he has an audience at all: it's because I feel dirty and debased after reading his drivel. I feel as if I have been fooled into accepting as valuable coin a cheap and obvious counterfit.

I don't think that Katz is promulgating any particularly odious ideas, I just think that his journalistic integrity is questionable, his intellect sub-average, and his writing sucks! Otherwise, I have no beef with him: I'd just rather not be required to read him. To that end, the Katz filter on /. is an admirable and elegant solution to the problem.

K5 is another matter, since the posts are gathered from a much larger set of submitters. Filtering out one or another source would hardly have any effect on the general level of drivel, but may be very effective at filtering out meaningfull posts (since there are many fewer source of meaningfull comment than there are of drivel).



[ Parent ]
johnny stands up for Jon (5.00 / 2) (#92)
by johnny on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 08:02:01 PM EST

Katz bashing wouldn't be quite the sport it is without the random Katz defender stepping into the ring. So, purely in the interest of sport, here I go. Think of me as a rodeo clown, distracting the bulls (that would be you, the Katz-bashers) while intrepid Jon is off somewhere adjusting his gloves and chaps, ready-ing himself for the next round.

(Here's what I look like: Sideshow Bob.)

I like Katz because he's earnest, not cynical. I like him because he thinks human issues are more important, and more INTERESTING than technical issues. I like him because he obviously couldn't care less about the legion of Katz-bashers (cf Casablanca:

  • the Peter Lore (Katz-bashing) character: "You really despise me, don't you, Rick?"
  • Rick (Jon Katz, played by Humphrey Bogart): "No. I don't dispise you. I don't think nothing about you.")
  • And mainly I like him because he's not some random cyber-pontificator like all of us here at k5. Rather, he does things like getting on airplanes and going to the Pinkerton Headquarters to explain to the Pinkertons what Nazism is, and why it is bad, and that they, the Pinkertons, are in fact, vitual Nazis (which they are), and he even offers them help in learning to not be Nazis and thus welcome into civil society. This is a courageous and, moreover, a DECENT thing to do. In other words, in the language of testosterone so often spoken by the Katz-bashers, Katz has balls. He acts on his beliefs. Maybe I'm gay or something, but I kind of like that concept.

    OK, time for me to go adjust my orange wig and rubber nose!



    yr frn,
    jrs
    Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Complex Devices.
    [ Parent ]

    Amusement (4.20 / 5) (#60)
    by ucblockhead on Wed May 30, 2001 at 11:46:27 AM EST

    It looks like this hoax admission is not going to make it out of the queue despite the fact that the original hoax posted.

    That amuses me to no end...
    -----------------------
    This is k5. We're all tools - duxup

    Why Post Flamebait? (none / 0) (#63)
    by craser on Wed May 30, 2001 at 02:32:02 PM EST

    My first instinct was that now that we've posted the original story, we ought to post the follow-up. So I voted +1.

    On further reflection, however, I wish I had voted to kill this story. Posting Streetlawyer's reasons for hoaxing K5 is just posting flamebait, especially now that the original has a correction indicating that it is indeed a hoax. I just don't see how anything is gained by further discussion.

    Of course, that's just my view. I'm very likely wrong.

    -chris

    [ Parent ]

    +1, FP (1.27 / 18) (#72)
    by Funk Soul Hacker on Wed May 30, 2001 at 06:58:51 PM EST

    Dude, dis shit be WAK


    --- Right about now, Da Funk Soul Hacker
    Quick question, streetlawyer: (4.14 / 7) (#88)
    by 11223 on Fri Jun 01, 2001 at 05:12:59 PM EST

    God, it's amusing to see all of these meta stories and general sky-is-falling craps on K5 after not having read this for a while.

    Anyway, on with the million cheescake question: what the hell did you prove with your little experiment? That you can bullshit people? Pardon the hick, but big shit. Of course you can bullshit people, esp. when speaking technicalese. What do you thing pseudoscience is all about? Were you trying to make some sort of point about the naievete of the K5 community? It's call innocence, not naievete. Perhaps you should all be hardened cynics. But last I checked you didn't move this site.

    I would expect more of you, streetlawyer. (Or lower triangluar or whatever the hell you're calling yourself today). You're a smart guy. You know people can be bullshitted. Or have you just given up caring? I did, a long time ago. I'm not having fun at this site's expense, though.

    God, that story on the front about the meta format is right on, though. I perfected that format back when I started whining. Good to see it's become an official K5 standard.

    Have A Nice Day. I hope you feel better knowing that you can bullshit people.

    --
    The dead hand of Asimov's mass psychology wins every time.

    He's a lawyer. (none / 0) (#103)
    by kwsNI on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 08:52:53 PM EST

    He should have already known that he could bullshit people.

    kwsNI
    I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. -Jack Handy
    [ Parent ]
    And 3: (2.50 / 2) (#90)
    by Eivind on Sun Jun 03, 2001 at 12:49:53 PM EST

    Thos who voted it up seeing clearly that it was full of misconceptions because this is a *discussion* site afterall, and poiting out those misconceptions along with any possible good points to the method leads to nice discussion.

    I vote up *plenty* of stuff I disagree with, stuff I think is mislead or confused, if it seems to be good starters for an interesting discussion.

    nope, sorry (2.50 / 4) (#94)
    by alprazolam on Tue Jun 05, 2001 at 11:28:37 PM EST

    you voted it up because you are a stupid mindless kurobot who loves nothing better than technical masturbation. didn't you read the article! it should have shamed you into cowering under your desk for a month, but obviously you're too illiterate to understand the one real truth that blessed streetlawyer saw fit to share with us.

    [ Parent ]
    You sir, are a liar and a fool (2.33 / 3) (#95)
    by codemonkey_uk on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 07:47:04 AM EST

    There is not one comment by you posted to that article. By voting for it you are giving it your approval. You are a fool because you associated you name, and your reputation, with a nonsense theory, and did nothing to refute it.

    So you've publicly approved of an article, and now it is revealed that it is a hoax you expect us to believe you saw that it was a hoax? You sir, are a liar. You are also a fool for expecting us to believe your lie.

    Its all well and good saying an article has discussion value, but if you do not provide that value you are propagating lies.

    Next time, think before you vote.
    ---
    Thad
    "The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
    [ Parent ]

    Lincoln was right (3.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Ruidh on Wed Jun 06, 2001 at 02:37:14 PM EST

    You can fool all of the people some of the time and you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. What does this prove? About as much as Sokel proved -- Lincoln was right.
    "Laissez-faire is a French term commonly interpreted by Conservatives to mean 'lazy fairy,' which is the belief that if governments are lazy enough, the Good Fairy will come down from heaven and do all their work for them."
    Postmodernist? (4.00 / 2) (#107)
    by rkenski on Fri Jun 08, 2001 at 02:05:18 PM EST

    I just would like to know what does it have to do with postmodernism. The only relation of Sokal's experiment with postmodernism is that the "experiment" was done with a postmodernist science magazine. And that's all!!
    So how can streetlawyer call this experiment "postmodern"? It does not deal with cultural relativism nor tries to show us multiple truths. It sounds much more like a basic communication science experiment like: "when writing, tell the readers what they want to read". K5 never claimed to be a "postmodern community".
    If he thinks that the main conclusion of the "experiment" is in some sort postmodern, all I can say is that the whole thing is nothing more than bullshit. He didnīt know 3d programming, and he doesn't know postmodern theory. All he does is writing about things he don't know. And he is doing this again and again...

    A Postmodernist Experiments with Kuro5hin | 108 comments (97 topical, 11 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest Đ 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!