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]
New Section: Science

By rusty in Site News
Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:01:52 PM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

imrdkl suggested it, and you voted on it, so in accordance with the majority vote, I've added a section for Science. You can see it in all of its sciency splendor up there in the section bar in the page header. To make sure there was room for it, I shortened the display title of technology to Tech, and changed "Everything" to "All." I don't think either of those will be any more confusing than they already were. The science section is now available for articles, so if you were waiting to post something, wait no longer! Enjoy.


ADVERTISEMENT
Sponsor: rusty
This space intentionally left blank
...because it's waiting for your ad. So why are you still reading this? Come on, get going. Read the story, and then get an ad. Alright stop it. I'm not going to say anything else. Now you're just being silly. STOP LOOKING AT ME! I'm done!
comments (24)
active | buy ad
ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors

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

Login

Related Links
o suggested it
o voted on it
o Also by rusty


Display: Sort:
New Section: Science | 127 comments (127 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Sweet (2.20 / 5) (#1)
by thekubrix on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 01:57:54 PM EST

Great addition!

OK, will do! (2.50 / 6) (#2)
by DesiredUsername on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 01:59:29 PM EST

heh

Play 囲碁
First article (4.76 / 13) (#3)
by nevertheless on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:02:49 PM EST

"The science of Israeli-Palestinial relations"

--
This whole "being at work" thing just isn't doing it for me. -- Phil the Canuck


No no no. (5.00 / 12) (#6)
by wji on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:08:32 PM EST

"An Introduction to the science of Israeli-Palestinian relations."

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
[ Parent ]
subtitle (4.50 / 8) (#9)
by wiredog on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:19:46 PM EST

and the quantum effect of a US/Iraqi War.

Earth first! We can strip mine the rest later.
[ Parent ]
Q: Are there WMD or not? (4.40 / 5) (#32)
by ethereal on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:30:18 PM EST

A: We can't tell until we open the country and look at the cat, er, palace. Not to totally mangle metaphors or anything.

--

Stand up for your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and State
[ Parent ]

Is that (4.00 / 1) (#55)
by nevertheless on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:29:13 PM EST

Part 1 of a series?

--
This whole "being at work" thing just isn't doing it for me. -- Phil the Canuck


[ Parent ]
I've got a seven-day-creation story... (4.57 / 7) (#19)
by graal on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:35:18 PM EST

...I've been itching to write. Sounds perfect for the science section.

That was a joke, people...a joke...hello?...is this on? (tap, tap)...(crickets chirping)...(tumbleweed)...

--
For Thou hast commanded, and so it is, that every
inordinate affection should be its own punishment.
-- St. Augustine (Confessions, i)
[ Parent ]

Great (3.50 / 12) (#4)
by imrdkl on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:07:20 PM EST

You made the right choice, K5.

Yes, feel free (2.62 / 8) (#35)
by imrdkl on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:38:31 PM EST

to mod down the parent to show your spite. I understand, and concur with your right to be wrong.

[ Parent ]
Also, feel free... (2.44 / 9) (#58)
by haflinger on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:34:42 PM EST

... to mod down the grandparent to show irritation at such a pointless "me-too" comment.

I cap all me-toos at a max of 3 (unless they are insincere sarcasm comments), and they have to be pretty brilliant to make 3…

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

Hmm (2.33 / 6) (#61)
by imrdkl on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 07:08:59 PM EST

ok. Everyone has the right to be an idiot, too.

[ Parent ]
Also, feel free... (3.00 / 5) (#81)
by zocky on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 06:30:00 AM EST

...to actually read stories and comments and use your mind to try to make sense of the world.

As is well known (by anyone who read the above
rusty's text), it was imrdkl who suggested the thing, so the grand-grand-grand-parent is not a "me too" comment, but rather a "me first" comment.

---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

Who cares? (2.40 / 5) (#86)
by haflinger on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 09:02:30 AM EST

The comment's still totally pointless. I mean, whoopee, it adds nothing at all to the discussion.

It's slightly better written than all the other me-toos that I 1'd further down the page.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

Not many people (2.00 / 3) (#88)
by zocky on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 09:18:34 AM EST

But still, rating system exists so that you can filter out the irrelevant/uninteresting comments if you choose to do so.

The root comment of this thread was highly relevant to the article, so modding it down is a Bad ThingTM, just the same way as modding down comments you don't agree with, but are relevant, is a Bad ThingTM.

And no, comment saying "I think it's great that my idea was accepted" is NOT pointles and it WOULD HAVE added to discussion (generally by people saying "imrdkl, what a great idea" or "imrdkl, you must have bought a case of monocle polish for rusty" or whatever), IF you and other people who don't think before rating provoked a totally off-topic discussion of rating.

_\\// live long and prosper. zocky out.

---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

Your chronology is incorrect. (2.40 / 5) (#89)
by haflinger on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 09:32:29 AM EST

This comment is the one that provoked a totally off-topic discussion of rating, to borrow a phrase.

For the record, I gave that one a 3, just as I'm giving you a 3: because it was intelligent, reasonably well-written, but it was making a fundamental false assumption. Just because I rate according to a different set of principles from you, doesn't mean that I don't think before rating. And what you describe as discussion sounds to me rather like masturbatory egoboo for imrdkl; if by rating something down, I've prevented that, I'm very happy.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

Have you considered (3.00 / 4) (#94)
by imrdkl on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 10:25:47 AM EST

an article about your rating system?

[ Parent ]
Well, sort of. (2.25 / 4) (#96)
by haflinger on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 10:35:49 AM EST

Somebody asked me about it a few months back. I then thought "That might make a good diary entry." I've been trying to figure out how to explain it. There are just too many exceptions and complications in it. It's probably going to turn into a little book. Maybe k5's Biggest. Diary. Ever. :)

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
More than a diary (3.40 / 5) (#97)
by imrdkl on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 11:36:32 AM EST

write it up in detail and post to Meta. People are always looking for new and innovative ways to moderate.

[ Parent ]
Lighten up (3.00 / 4) (#101)
by zocky on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 01:30:13 PM EST

And what you describe as discussion sounds to me rather like masturbatory egoboo for imrdkl; if by rating something down, I've prevented that, I'm very happy.

This is not work nor school nor doing chores. We're here also to have fun and to hang out. If site news and meta aren't the places to do that, I don't know what are.

---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

Our definitions of fun are different. [n/t] (2.60 / 5) (#102)
by haflinger on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 01:37:15 PM EST



Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
READ BEFORE RATING!!!! (2.60 / 5) (#82)
by zocky on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 06:32:56 AM EST

It was imrdkl who suggested the "science section", so modding him down for expressing his pleasure at his suggestion being accepted is totally out of place.

Be ashamed of yourselves and read the bloody article before turning on people en masse.

---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

Thanks (2.60 / 5) (#84)
by imrdkl on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 06:52:45 AM EST

I felt awkward pointing that out myself, and just assumed to let the idiots be idiots.

[ Parent ]
Off topic, as usual (2.33 / 3) (#115)
by Subtillus on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 08:16:02 PM EST

I like your sig and I wish more people could be laughed at for not knowing anything about thermodynamics.

[ Parent ]
Have you tried... (1.00 / 2) (#120)
by zocky on Sun Oct 20, 2002 at 01:07:24 AM EST

...reading the whole thread?

z.

---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

it made me want to shoot myself in the brain. (2.66 / 3) (#121)
by Subtillus on Sun Oct 20, 2002 at 07:55:47 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Hang on, this is no good (4.60 / 10) (#5)
by DesiredUsername on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:08:12 PM EST

My page header now has "Freedom & Politics", the longest section name, right dead center with PLENTY of room around it. It's like that's the focus of the site and all the other sections are satellites. This wouldn't be such a bad illusion if so many writers weren't falling for it. Could we maybe rename that section to just "Politics", or move it farther to the right or something?

In fact, why not get rid of F&P all together and put those stories under "Op-Ed" which is all 90% of them are anyway.

Play 囲碁

And given a lot more space too... (3.50 / 2) (#8)
by Silent Chris on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:17:45 PM EST

It's called "white space".  Your eye is drawn to it.  Unless I'm mistaken, this was intentional on Rusty's part.

Personally, I wish we could get rid of a lot of the political commentary.  From the time I put more than a hundred dollars to K5's cause to now, the site has gradually deevolved from "Tech/occasional politics/cool stuff" to "All politics and freedom", with a few outside stories occasionally voted up to stem the tide (or, to put it another way, transformed into a weird Adequacy.com/Slashdot Your Rights Online site).  

I'm not complaining, but I'm really tired of hearing the same political views (from essentially the same side) all the time.  There is more to culture ("technology and culture from the trenches") than politics.

[ Parent ]

Intentional? (4.33 / 3) (#23)
by rusty on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:55:25 PM EST

View source. Show where I expanded the white space around F&P. I'm afraid I'm not responsible for how your browser allocates white space. My browser (Galeon) seems to be splitting up the white space proportionally to the length of the section titles -- longer titles get centered in more space, shorter in less. So as the longest section title, F&P gets the most space. I have no idea if this is what happens in all browsers, but it does seem to be a reasonable strategy.

I don't want to change the name of F&P because I don't think either word on its own expresses what the section is for, and the meaning of "F&P" isn't at all obvious to newcomers. The reason it's in the middle is because it's the longest, and it looks weird at either end. Beyond that, the sections are laid out with a very loose idea of popularity and topical relatedness. Hence, "All" is first, as the most popular (pseudo) section. Then diaries, which is second most popular. Then tech and science, which are popular and somewhat related. Culture provides a kind of bridge from the techy stuff to politics, then media leading into news and internet, then opinions and columns, navel-gazing, and everyone's favorite whipping boy MLP.

The layout was intended to be left-to-right, and in fact puts tech and science both at a more favorable position than politics. Aside from all that, though, I don't think that section bar has such a huge effect on article submissions. My guess is I could remove F&P from the navbar altogether and it would still get the lion's share of article submissions.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

I was mostly kidding (4.00 / 2) (#27)
by DesiredUsername on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:04:12 PM EST

Though I can't help but be bemused at the symbolism in shorting "Technology" to "Tech" while leaving "Freedom & Politics" in all it's glory smack dab in the middle.

But neither can I think of a one-word replacement for "Freedom & Politics" and I have to agree that putting the long one in the middle is more pleasing. Meh.

Play 囲碁
[ Parent ]

I don't like it much either (4.00 / 2) (#30)
by rusty on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:18:06 PM EST

In case it was unclear, I don't like it either. The compromise was just that "Tech" will be understood to mean technology, while "F&P" would be mystifying, and I can't think of anything to clearly replace it. I do think it's not a very meaningful point, overall, and probably not worth very much worry by anyone.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
"Civics" ? (3.50 / 2) (#34)
by Ricochet Rita on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:37:30 PM EST

Cause "governernernment" is too long, too.


FABRICATUS DIEM, PVNC!
[ Parent ]

governernernment? did you mean government? n/t (1.50 / 2) (#59)
by cicero on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:56:25 PM EST




--
I am sorry Cisco, for Microsoft has found a new RPC flaw - tonight your e0 shall be stretched wide like goatse.
[ Parent ]
Only in a jocular sense. [n/t] (none / 0) (#93)
by Ricochet Rita on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 10:06:40 AM EST


FABRICATUS DIEM, PVNC!
[ Parent ]

"Issues" or "Human Affairs" -n (3.00 / 2) (#44)
by kholmes on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:34:48 PM EST



If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.
[ Parent ]
suggestion: (3.50 / 2) (#60)
by LilDebbie on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:58:42 PM EST

Change All back to Everything and cut down the cell padding around Freedom & Politics.

My name is LilDebbie and I have a garden.
- hugin -

[ Parent ]
How about replacing it with (none / 0) (#122)
by mami on Sun Oct 20, 2002 at 09:25:45 PM EST

NRA ... that's what it comes down to in F&P at K5, doesn't it ... ?

sorry ...

[ Parent ]

replacement (5.00 / 3) (#49)
by eudas on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 05:03:46 PM EST

Freedom & Politics -> Liberty

eudas
"We're placing this wood in your ass for the good of the world" -- mrgoat
[ Parent ]

Why yes! (3.00 / 1) (#57)
by haflinger on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:32:38 PM EST

Or if you don't want that, just call it "Tom Paine." Hey, maybe it might help raise the quality of the amateur pamphleteers who've been bombarding the submissions queue lately.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
Padding. (4.50 / 2) (#47)
by molybdenum on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:48:40 PM EST

I have no idea if this is what happens in all browsers,

IE5.x on Mac OS X does the same.

but it does seem to be a reasonable strategy.

In some ways, sure. However, it makes resizing slower since it has to recalculate all of the relative table widths. I'll admit that I also noticed the excessive amount of whitespace; my personal aesthetic prefers even amounts of padding on the various items.

I'd like to echo other people's comments about simplifying the layout/structure. That nav bar is a dense piece of code. CSS is a wonderful thing. </whine>

Ben

PS - Speaking of design elements, why is the other stuff on the page relative to window width, while this textbox is static? It's really annoying typing in a box that is about 15 words wide.

[ Parent ]
Use with="x%" (3.00 / 2) (#71)
by brunes69 on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:55:50 PM EST

You can solve all these problems by giving each TD cell a % width proportial to it's length instead of asking the browser to figure it out, thus ensuring that they all have the exact same white space around them.



---There is no Spoon---
[ Parent ]
well (4.33 / 3) (#76)
by starsky on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 03:45:25 AM EST

I don't want to change the name of F&P because I don't think either word on its own expresses what the section is for

"Boring rants"? ;-)

[ Parent ]

Quite honestly.... (4.33 / 3) (#24)
by squigly on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:57:20 PM EST

I think we need a new scoop site for science and tech stuff.  K5 has become rather generic, and I think it will stay that way.  

I believe that it could be kept on topic by not having any section related to politics.  Instead have something like Software, Hardware, Developers...  or maybe even more specific and go for Graphics, Encryption, Games, etc..

[ Parent ]

Yes! (4.00 / 1) (#69)
by Kalani on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:21:04 PM EST

Do you know anybody who could start one? For most of those other topics I generally find different web sites, but it would be really nice if K5 could host multiple "scoop sections" and just let the best of the best between sections make it to the front page.

-----
"Images containing sufficiently large skin-colored groups of possible limbs are reported as potentially containing naked people."
-- [ Parent ]
i was just thinking exactly the same thing! (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by apidya on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 04:43:54 AM EST

don't know anyone that could host it though, which doesn't help.

heh, maybe we could get a grant off rusty's forthcoming new non-profit to build/host a colaborative media site with the stated aim of being like K5 used to be...

[ Parent ]

Yeah, get rid of F&P! (3.50 / 4) (#14)
by dram on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:28:40 PM EST

Send everybody that wants to talk about Politics over to Ingenuitas.org.

In other news, I agree that F&P has way to much space around it. It stands out more than anything else since it is not only the longest but takes up that additional space that it doesn't need. Maybe you should take the space that is around the F&P section and add it to the "ALL" section, it seems really squished over there, just three short letters boxed in by two tall lines.

-dram
[grant.henninger.name]

[ Parent ]

Could just rename F&P to Troll! [n/t] (3.71 / 7) (#18)
by Ricochet Rita on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:34:51 PM EST


FABRICATUS DIEM, PVNC!
[ Parent ]

Hey, you're stealing my ideas. (4.66 / 3) (#54)
by haflinger on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:28:32 PM EST

See this diary.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]
HTML Table spacing (4.00 / 3) (#22)
by mcc on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:52:26 PM EST

I was about to post this exact same comment-- that the spacing on the top toolbar thingy, which previously looked very good, is now all wierd and stuff, and i was going to request if Rusty could possibly do anything about it, or maybe see if he could find a way to move back to using fixed-width horizontal margins on the section titles (like he seemed to be doing before) without it looking too unattractive.

For the record, this is not Rusty's fault, really. It's a natural byproduct of using html tables for layout. If you look at the current kuro5hin html for the section-bar, the 13 sections, and the 12 | dividers between them, are each in a separate TD (column) of a single table. Rusty has done nothing to specify item width in any of these TDs.

The problem is that web browsers, or at least all the ones i've seen, do not apportion table space equally. If given 25 items in separate cells and asked to distribute them equally throughout a table, web browsers will apportion each item an amount of horizontal space proportional to that item's size, and then plop the item down in the middle of that space.

Previously, as far as i can tell, the toolbar had fixed horizontal margins for all the items inside of it, which meant it looked nice. Now the margins are being put in automatically by your web browser, which means that Freedom & Politics, whose title is twice as long as all the other sections, gets twice the margin of the other sections. The Freedom & Politics section could have its name shortened, of course, in which case everything will look roughly equal, but it will still look a bit off-kilter.

Does anyone know a way to fix this, and get the items in the toolbar to space themselves equally? I remember I've written html to work around this exact problem before, but i did something absolutely nasty-- like, the workaround i used before would entail something like putting all the section titles in NOBR tags and setting the width of the cells containing titles to 1. This would cause the cells containing titles to contract as much as possible, forcing the web browser (when it distributes horizontal margin space) to put ALL of the horizontal spacing into the cells containing |s, which are all the same width. Unfortunately, that solution is NASTY, and if i remember right it doesn't work in all web browsers. Can anyone think of a better way to do the same thing? I dunno, bullshit like this is why i stopped writing html :)

Of course, the best way to do this would just be to not use tables for layout, but i'm not sure if there's really any other way to do something like the k5 toolbar. Could it all be done with CSS? Could it all be done with CSS, yet still work in the horribly broken Netscape 4 renderer?

Anyway, um: new section! Yay Rusty! :)

---
Aside from that, the absurd meta-wankery of k5er-quoting sigs probably takes the cake. Especially when the quote itself is about k5. -- tsubame
[ Parent ]

Argh! (4.50 / 4) (#51)
by Canar on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 05:16:43 PM EST

And blast, and tarnations... Is K5 being withheld from switching to CSS because of Netscape 4, or lack of drive to make the layout modifications. I can understand the latter, being a lazy hacker myself, but if the reason is Netscape 4, ai. We're a freaking tech site, people. Supporting N4 is almost unacceptable, especially when the hacks required to support it are so arcane. Switch to HTML/CSS. Let layout be governed by CSS, and information be governed by HTML. That's the way it Ought To Be.

[ Parent ]
If there's a will, I have a way. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by haflinger on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:30:45 PM EST

I could design a new top in DreamWeaver using <DIV> codes and CSS, and make it compliant with NS4's CSS bugs. I have experience doing this.

Anyway, nobody uses NS4 anymore except for drunk lunatics, so I'm not sure this is a big issue. Rusty, is there a lot of Mozilla/4.0 in your weblogs?

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

My guess is (4.00 / 3) (#26)
by imrdkl on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:59:25 PM EST

that this idea would likely win in a formal poll, as well.

May I suggest you post this formally to begin the process? I doubt you'd be able to get rid of it, or merge it, but reducing it's prominence is a clear winner.

[ Parent ]

Needs add "width=5" (4.66 / 3) (#28)
by p3d0 on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:06:08 PM EST

The TD element containing "Freedom & Politics" is missing the "width=5" attribute that the rest of the TDs have. Adding that would at least make it look like the others, though it does seem to make them all look pretty funky.

I think maybe that table is overspecified. Just give the TR a height rather than giving one to each TD. Anyway, I think this HTML code needs to be looked at with a goal of simplification.
--
Patrick Doyle
My comments do not reflect the opinions of my employer.
[ Parent ]

It is! (3.00 / 1) (#75)
by starsky on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 03:44:10 AM EST

My page header now has "Freedom & Politics", the longest section name, right dead center with PLENTY of room around it. It's like that's the focus of the site and all the other sections are satellites

That is the focus of the site dude ;-).

Just in case no-one can see my sarcasm, I hate it too !!

[ Parent ]

Teaser (4.66 / 3) (#7)
by manobes on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:14:39 PM EST

Matt's introduction to the big bang...

Coming soon to a K5 near you


No one can defend creationism against the overwhelming scientific evidence of creationism. -- Big Sexxy Joe


Please make sure... (3.00 / 1) (#53)
by mberteig on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:21:08 PM EST

To address the problems raised here: http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/ as well as the stuff in this thread: http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2002/10/14/121344/12/642#642

Looking forward to it!!!




Agile Advice - How and Why to Work Agile
[ Parent ]
Good luck (none / 0) (#67)
by Kalani on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:29:44 PM EST

Your other articles have been great, but they seem to be subject to lots of tangential threads on metaphysics and so on. Do you have any ideas on how to avoid that? I'm thinking: iron fist and a strong masterly hand (but everybody calls me "Hitler" when I say that).

-----
"Images containing sufficiently large skin-colored groups of possible limbs are reported as potentially containing naked people."
-- [ Parent ]
one trick (none / 0) (#110)
by adiffer on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 04:14:52 AM EST

The usual trick is to not respond to the tangential stuff.  It works fairly quick as the poster usually gets bored speaking into a vaccuum.

-Dream Big.
--Grow Up.
[ Parent ]
If that article is even half-decently written, (none / 0) (#119)
by xriso on Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 11:40:00 PM EST

You'll have my +1FP. If I see it in time before everyone else votes it up, that is. :-)
--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
[ Parent ]
Great. What next.. (1.82 / 17) (#10)
by Bob Abooey on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:21:12 PM EST

This is just plain retarded.

Nobody cares about science. What next.. Oh, I know, how about a section on housecleaning, or a section on recycling? Or better yet, hows about a section on powerwalking or quilting???? Or NASCAR???? Yee doggies.

Sweet Jesus at the Dry Cleaners, why not made some damn sections that people care about like sports or Unix or computers or hot nekkid babes?

Bah.. why bother, the damn Internet is going to hell in a handbag.


-------
I've been working frantically. But you know, imminent doom lowers the bar a bit. --Warren Zevon

Section suggestion (4.00 / 1) (#11)
by DesiredUsername on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:23:56 PM EST

Runch

Play 囲碁
[ Parent ]
Indeed (4.50 / 4) (#17)
by luserSPAZ on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:33:01 PM EST

I vote for the "Hot Nekkid Babes" section.  Ought to make for some nice MLPs.

[ Parent ]
What next: Ascii Cows (4.50 / 4) (#21)
by wiredog on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:40:24 PM EST



Earth first! We can strip mine the rest later.
[ Parent ]
I want one on grandfather clocks (nt) (4.00 / 1) (#40)
by Meatbomb on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:15:01 PM EST



_______________

Good News for Liberal Democracy!

[ Parent ]
Suggest, make a poll, win the vote (none / 0) (#83)
by zocky on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 06:50:57 AM EST

And you can have any section you want.

---
I mean, if coal can be converted to energy, then couldn't diamonds?
[ Parent ]

New sections? (none / 0) (#90)
by upsilon on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 09:45:39 AM EST

There's plenty of room for all you mention... Sports articles, for example, go in science, culture, media, news or op-ed (depending on what, exactly, you are talking about). Unix and computers both go in Tech (duh). Hot nekkid babes are definitely a culture thing.

So, what's your problem?
--
Once, I was the King of Spain.
[ Parent ]

Do NOT Feed the Troll! (n/t) (1.66 / 3) (#106)
by floydian on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 07:27:14 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Next suggestion: Food (nt) (3.16 / 6) (#12)
by graal on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:27:09 PM EST


--
For Thou hast commanded, and so it is, that every
inordinate affection should be its own punishment.
-- St. Augustine (Confessions, i)

No, no, Sapphires! Or maybe just Gems. (2.50 / 2) (#15)
by dram on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:31:49 PM EST



-dram
[grant.henninger.name]

[ Parent ]
Thanks! (2.20 / 5) (#13)
by terpy on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:27:36 PM EST

(nt)

---
"Plus, it turns your poop green! How cool is that?!?" --Blixco

Great! (4.50 / 2) (#16)
by wiredog on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:32:24 PM EST

Now how long will it be until the poll changes? A month? Two?

What's Driph up to these days anyway?

Earth first! We can strip mine the rest later.

That was fast... (3.00 / 1) (#20)
by wiredog on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:39:41 PM EST



Earth first! We can strip mine the rest later.
[ Parent ]
Miscount (3.50 / 6) (#25)
by ShadowNode on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:58:46 PM EST

There where 369 votes for adding a science section, while there where 447 votes to change Technology to Sci-Tech, split between the unrelated measure to remove the Internet section.

Nope (4.80 / 5) (#29)
by rusty on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:12:16 PM EST

Look again, there was an option for "add science, remove internet" as well. If you're going to count both of the "sci-tech" options together, you've got to count both of the "add science" choices too, in which case you end up with 486 for "add science" (regardless of opinion on internet) and 447 for "sci-tech" (regardless of opinion on internet).

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
There was no majority (2.62 / 8) (#31)
by dipierro on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:24:54 PM EST

"Add a Science section, leave the rest" only got a plurality.  Also, more people voted against adding a Science section (53%) than for it (47%).

I thought this was clear (3.33 / 3) (#36)
by rusty on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:48:11 PM EST

The poll had five choices. You could vote for only one choice. The choice that gets the most votes wins. Why is this so hard to understand?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
It is clear (2.20 / 5) (#38)
by dipierro on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:00:23 PM EST

It's also clear that the word majority means more than 50%.  And it's also clear that certain polls are unfair.  Just because the rules of the poll are clear doesn't make it fair.

[ Parent ]
Actually (4.66 / 6) (#39)
by thekim on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:09:48 PM EST

There are at least three types of majority.

Relative majority
The winning option got the most votes but not 50%.

Absolute majority
The winning option got the most votes and over 50%.

Qualified majority
The winning option got over 75% of the votes.

So it's clear that relative majority has been used.

--
Iie. Nandemonai.
[ Parent ]

Why is 50% of k5 that significant? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Kalani on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:26:38 PM EST

There are obviously a large number of people who are interested in seeing a Science section. 50% of the people here don't necessarily spend all of their time on one single section, so why would that be necessary with a "Science" section? (I suppose it might be true that most people spend their time on Politics, but still we don't get rid of the other sections.)

-----
"Images containing sufficiently large skin-colored groups of possible limbs are reported as potentially containing naked people."
-- [ Parent ]
I'm not arguing... (2.50 / 4) (#68)
by dipierro on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:38:25 PM EST

whether or not there should be a Science section. Personally I think the whole section thing is fundamentally screwed up, because it is overlapping. What about Science news?

But whatever. I don't really give a shit. I was just pointing out that more than half the people voted against adding the Science section. I fully agree that democracy is a stupid way to pick whether or not a section should be added, but fucked up democracy is no better of a way.



[ Parent ]
How is it fucked up? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Kalani on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:26:35 PM EST

I'm asking you why it's significant that more than 50% vote against having a Science section. If 30% want to read Science, don't you think there should be a section for that? Maybe 30% of the people here read items in the "Columns" section, but that doesn't mean that it should be abolished. Also, I agree with you that category selection should be more refined (especially for the purpose of searching and so on). It would be nice if we could get "check all that apply" rather than "select the one that applies".

-----
"Images containing sufficiently large skin-colored groups of possible limbs are reported as potentially containing naked people."
-- [ Parent ]
well (none / 0) (#100)
by dipierro on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 01:28:00 PM EST

I'm asking you why it's significant that more than 50% vote against having a Science section. If 30% want to read Science, don't you think there should be a section for that?

If 5% want to read Science, I think there should be a section for that, but that's not democracy, and it's not a "majority vote".

The real problem though is that the sections overlap and are incomplete. Where does Science news go? Well, it goes in News presumably, under the science topic. If you're going to set up partitions, they shouldn't overlap, and they should be all-inclusive. That's why I would have voted against the science topic, had I seen the poll.



[ Parent ]
Two things (none / 0) (#105)
by Kalani on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 07:07:36 PM EST

I completely agree with you on the subject of story classifications. For that matter, where should stories about "Political Science" go? hehe

However, I don't agree that using a 30% vote to create a new section makes the process undemocratic. You're right that it's not a "majority vote" of course, but it's still a democratic vote. In fact, what might be nice is allowing the K5 readers to vote on what the vote threshold should be for adding new sections. That way, if a large (but not majority) section of the readership wants a new category then at least everyone knows why it got added and won't feel so bitter about it.

On a different subject (and you may or may not care), I would have voted for the Science section if I saw the poll. I think that it's certainly a large enough subject to warrant its own section (or its own website really).

-----
"Images containing sufficiently large skin-colored groups of possible limbs are reported as potentially containing naked people."
-- [ Parent ]
Better way? (5.00 / 3) (#72)
by rusty on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 11:09:08 PM EST

While democracy may not be great, I think it's better than dictatorship. What's your better idea?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Proportional voting (none / 0) (#92)
by upsilon on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 09:55:19 AM EST

Honestly, when I saw the poll for the science section etc, I thought that the ol' single-option poll was a poor way to run it. A poll like this (i.e. important to the site, and with many possible selections) should ideally be run with some sort of proportional voting system, though I fully concede that such a thing might be impractical, especially on short notice.

dipierro definitely has a point (in that a first-past-the-post vote has its drawbacks in a situation like this). Perhaps not much tact, but a point nonetheless.
--
Once, I was the King of Spain.
[ Parent ]

Specifically, Single Transferable Vote (none / 0) (#123)
by imperium on Mon Oct 21, 2002 at 01:05:16 PM EST

It's the best way to decide this sort of thing, and maximises the chances of making votes count and minimises unfairness.

With, say, five choices, voters mark their four preferred options in order. If any one of the five gets 50% of all the first preferences, it's chosen. If not, the one that got the least is eliminated and those votes are reallocated according to their second preferences. Again, if any choice now receives 50% or more first or redistributed second preferences, it's the winner. Repeat as necessary.

It's a great system for elections, but the maths for choosing multiple candidates from multiple parties in multi-member constituencies is slightly more complicated!

x.
imperium
[ Parent ]

Approval voting (4.66 / 3) (#95)
by sab39 on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 10:32:16 AM EST

Come on, haven't there been enough rants about voting methods on K5? Plurality voting is no way to make decisions...

Here's how you do a fair poll on what sections should be in K5. Use checkboxes rather than radio buttons, and make the poll look like this:

Which sections should K5 have?
[ ] Technology
[ ] Science
[ ] Culture
[ ] Freedom & Politics
[ ] Media
[ ] News
[ ] Internet
[ ] Op-Ed
[ ] Columns
[ ] Meta
[ ] MLP
[ ] ... any others that are proposed

If you like, default the checkboxes for the current status quo to on, so that voters have to take a conscious choice to remove a section.

Then make the section list equal to exactly whichever sections get more than 50% of the vote. Or perhaps set the threshold somewhere lower than 50% or higher, possibly depending on the results (for most polls 50% is important, but for this particular question you can make a convincing case that if 30% of your readership are interested in reading a section it's worth having). You should certainly either state your threshold in advance or state how you'll choose your threshold (eg "50%, unless that would lead to fewer than 5 sections, in which case the threshold will be the highest possible threshold that would lead to at least 5 sections").

Voting methods are a well-understood problem and Plurality is almost universally accepted as one of the worst. Don't make me suggest Concordet...

Stuart.

PS You could make some special case rules to deal with the question of splitting Freedom from Politics, for example. One reasonable set of questions might be:

[ ] Freedom and politics
[ ] Freedom
[ ] Politics

with these rules:

  1. A vote for "freedom and politics" will be counted towards both "freedom" and "politics", except that if the same person votes for both they won't get counted twice.
  2. Given these totals, if only one of the two qualifies, just include that section.
  3. If both sections qualify with those totals, then decide whether it's one section or two by comparing the number of votes for the combined section with the average of the votes for each section separately.

--
"Forty-two" -- Deep Thought
"Quinze" -- Amélie

[ Parent ]
This isn't a dictatorship (none / 0) (#98)
by dipierro on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 01:11:42 PM EST

because you're not forcing anyone to come to your site. And that's why I'm not complaining, I'm just pointing out what I think was kind of a silly polling method. Really I just pointed out that majority generally means more than 50%, and then I pointed out that more than 50% voted against the section.

Here's one better idea. I'd go even further and allow people to create their own sections to attach articles to. Well, actually I'd go so far as to allow people to create their own sections with their own infrastructure and host them on their own servers, but now we're more talking about some other site, not K5.

Anyway, I've been "accused" of not having very much tact by someone else in this thread, and I admit I haven't been clear about my feelings. I'm not complaining. I'm not asking that the section be cancelled. I just think the voting system was somewhat flawed, and I didn't even expect there would be a long discussion about it, because I thought it was kind of obvious, in retrospect. More than half the people voted against the section.



[ Parent ]
Worse is better (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by rusty on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 01:23:51 PM EST

No, it's not perfect. But at some point you also run into the fact that I don't think you could get 50% of the people here to agree on any single point. The poll method had the huge advantage of being:
  • Better than a decision by my fiat (IMO)
  • Quick and easy to implement
It's a kind of "worse is better" argument, I guess. In a perfect world, we'd have some perfect way of making decisions like this. In this world, with the tools we have, we can get (I think) 90% of the way there with no effort, or 99% of the way there with a lot of effort. I went for doing the best I could with what I've got now.

That said, anyone who wants to revolutionize section decisons is welcome to subscribe to scoop-dev and start sending patches. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

Fair enough... (none / 0) (#103)
by dipierro on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 01:45:54 PM EST

I wasn't really questioning your decision so much as pointing out what I saw as a possible problem. I mean, plurality voting is fundamentally flawed, even the U.S. Constitution requires a majority of electors to select the President. In this case, it was probably a statistical tie anyway, and the issue wasn't that important, but I thought the underlying problem should be pointed out.

That said, anyone who wants to buy me scoop hosting is welcome to email me and send me the password. I couldn't get it to work when I tried installing it on my iserver, so I went with the worse (PHPNuke) is better approach.



[ Parent ]
I have some advice for you (1.25 / 8) (#63)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 07:27:13 PM EST

DON'T READ SECTIONS YOU DON'T LIKE, DIPSHIT!!!

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
OK (2.25 / 4) (#64)
by dipierro on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 07:41:47 PM EST

But what does that have to do with what I said?

[ Parent ]
That actually depends on how you define a majority (none / 0) (#108)
by Mysidia on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 09:12:37 PM EST

Sometimes you define a majority to be 50%, sometimes 51%, but other majorities are common too: sometimes 2/3, sometimes 3/4, sometimes unanimous.

The negation of those are: less than 50% opposing, less than 49% opposing, less than 33% opposing, and less than 25% opposing.

It may simply be that in this case a 2/3 majority was required to block the addition of the section.

If you don't have the majorit threshold at 50%, then you get to favor one side based on how you're doing it.

In terms of fairness:

Is it fair that half of the site users should be deprived of a good section, because the other half are apathetic or oppose additional sections and aren't interested in science?

The fair situation is that where enough people want something available that isn't at the direct expense of the majority or larger minorities, the minority gets what they want.



-Mysidia the insane @k5
[ Parent ]
so? (none / 0) (#114)
by dipierro on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 04:50:56 PM EST

It may simply be that in this case a 2/3 majority was required to block the addition of the section.

Except that that wasn't the case. The choice with the most votes was defined to be the winner.

Is it fair that half of the site users should be deprived of a good section, because the other half are apathetic or oppose additional sections and aren't interested in science?

Democracies are quite commonly unfair.

The fair situation is that where enough people want something available that isn't at the direct expense of the majority or larger minorities, the minority gets what they want.

Certainly. But it's merely a coincidence that this method of voting happened to come out with a fair result.



[ Parent ]
Then what system is "fair"? (none / 0) (#116)
by Mysidia on Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 04:54:59 PM EST

Monarchies? Dictatorships? Aristocracies?



-Mysidia the insane @k5
[ Parent ]
Capitalism works pretty well... (none / 0) (#117)
by dipierro on Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 06:09:33 PM EST

Let Rusty do whatever he wants, and anyone who thinks they can do better is free to set up his own site.  This is kind of how the GPL works, basically.

[ Parent ]
Would that be "Math and Science"? (3.50 / 2) (#33)
by My Alternative Account on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:30:47 PM EST

Or just "Science"?

I'm sure you can put Math articles there. (2.33 / 3) (#62)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 07:23:50 PM EST

You can put anything there if it's voted up in submission queue.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
Tyranny! (3.66 / 3) (#37)
by RyoCokey on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:55:35 PM EST

What?! I never saw this is the queue. I certainly would have voted -1 if I had. Look at the terrible formatting and capitalization.



The issue here is not the facts; Right - so how does this apply to Mr. Scott Ritter?
Yay! (4.25 / 4) (#41)
by fluffy grue on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:16:17 PM EST

Now where's the food topic everyone has been clamoring for?
--
"Is a sentence fragment" is a sentence fragment.
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]

Culture... (4.00 / 1) (#73)
by anonimouse on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 02:34:39 AM EST

...at least mine is after I've left it on the kitchen side for a few days......
~
Sleepyhel:
Relationships and friendships are complex beasts. There's nothing wrong with doing things a little differently.
[ Parent ]
Yes, which is why I made a *topic* icon (none / 0) (#74)
by fluffy grue on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 03:34:31 AM EST

what with sections not having icons anyway
--
"Is a sentence fragment" is a sentence fragment.
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

Chainging "Everything" to "All" (4.00 / 3) (#42)
by jjayson on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:27:36 PM EST

For probably the most clicked section button, it is the smallest. I have no typing skils so I have already accidentally hit the diary button. I like it the other way better.
_______
Smile =)
* bt krav magas kitten THE FUCK UP
<bt> Eat Kung Jew, bitch.

You don't need typing skills to use a mouse [nt] (5.00 / 3) (#107)
by Mysidia on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 09:00:02 PM EST



-Mysidia the insane @k5+SN
[ Parent ]
"Freedom & Politics" Obnoxious in Mo (4.85 / 7) (#43)
by Idioteque on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:28:40 PM EST

It seems that the Freedom & Politics box just sticks out in most browsers. Here's some samples:

Mozilla
Opera
Internet Explorer
Even Lynx!


I see Rusty's point about Freedom or Politics alone not really representing the intention of the section. It just bothers me that my least favorite section has the biggest box. Although, I guess size isn't everything....right? :)


I have seen too much; I haven't seen enough - Radiohead
That's sort of ironic (5.00 / 3) (#46)
by theboz on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:39:01 PM EST

I was about to post a similar comment, stating that Freedom and Politics is a plague that is not only overtaking the content of the site, but the layout as well.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Change "Freedom&Politics" to "M (4.60 / 5) (#50)
by fhotg on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 05:15:23 PM EST



[ Parent ]
freedom and plague (none / 0) (#124)
by fr2ty on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 09:44:22 PM EST

Perhaps a "plague" section would be an appropriate place where you could rant about "crackhead commies" and "morons" that contributed more than just inobjective humiliation to the discussion of technology and how it relates to freedom and politics as well.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2002/10/27/16622/530/5?mode=alone;showrate=1#5

Considering your your expert view on drugs of any kind, you are perhaps not knowing what you were talking about at all.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2002/10/25/114521/16/5?mode=alone;showrate=1#5

But I think that you are anti-politics per se, although you seem to enjoy getting sulfurous about it, as the first link shows.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2002/10/22/15359/681/48#48

I suggest that you just be glad people discuss that "commie crap" in a special section and keep your own crap to yourself that might be interpreted as trolling just because you are in a bad mood. Crapflood your mother instead or write comments that can stand a reasonable discussion. Learn to articulate valuable arguments before you play the expert on sections you might propably never read except for peeing right onto the table.

Thank you.

[ Parent ]

sorry (none / 0) (#125)
by fr2ty on Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 09:52:39 PM EST

And I was too uneasy to reply to the right person.

I was trolling/ranting/complaining about a user called "theboz", not you, fhotg.

Sorry, my mistake.
--
Please note that are neither capitals nor numbers in my mail adress.
[ Parent ]

Change to "Politics" (4.66 / 6) (#52)
by evilpenguin on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 05:16:56 PM EST

Not because "freedom" is a synonym for politics (they're antonyms, if anything), but because all such articles on "freedom" are in the context of the politics of freedom.

In doing so, you save 10 characters. making room to expand "All" to "Everything" (7 chars) and "Tech" to "Technology" (5 chars). Yes, it's an increase of two characters... will that really make or break the site? If things are really that tight, couldn't you just cut the cell padding by a pixel on each (or some percent)? I'm sorry, but "Tech" looks puerile, and "All" looks like an abbreviation.
--
# nohup cat /dev/dsp > /dev/hda & killall -9 getty
[ Parent ]
Politics (none / 0) (#66)
by Korimyr the Rat on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:26:56 PM EST

"Politics" alone seems like it would cover it pretty well-- any "freedom" article that didn't relate to politics would probably fit pretty well under "Culture".

--
"Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Founding Member of 'Retarded Monkeys Against the Restriction of Weapons Privileges'
[ Parent ]
Agree (4.00 / 1) (#78)
by TheophileEscargot on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 04:47:46 AM EST

Never liked the awkward phrase "Freedom & Politics". If they're different enough to distinguish by name, then split them into different sections!
----
Support the nascent Mad Open Science movement... when we talk about "hundreds of eyeballs," we really mean it. Lagged2Death
[ Parent ]
"Liberty" (4.50 / 2) (#91)
by Karmakaze on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 09:47:38 AM EST

I'd be just as happy with just "politics" too, but I also like a suggestion from farther down the page of "liberty".

It's a little less obvious what it's for though, and I suppose that could be a confusing issue.
--
Karmakaze
[ Parent ]

Guess we should vote again (nt) (none / 0) (#104)
by p0ppe on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 03:18:46 PM EST

(nt) means no text.


"Democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
[ Parent ]
Cool, it's been changed! (none / 0) (#118)
by xriso on Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 11:35:25 PM EST

It was actually the worst in links. My text screen is almost-but-not-quite wide enough to carry the entire old section bar, and so freedom&politics got seperated into two lines on the screen. Do you hear me? TWO DAMN LINES! Now it's better. We can live in peace once again.
--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
[ Parent ]
Come on, admit it you guys (4.66 / 3) (#45)
by kholmes on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:37:30 PM EST

How many of you were baffled by the layout of the poll and accidently voted for Harry Browne?

Recount!

If you treat people as most people treat things and treat things as most people treat people, you might be a Randian.

Don't blame me (4.00 / 1) (#48)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:54:01 PM EST

I voted for McGovern!

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Be nice (none / 0) (#112)
by psicE on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 04:26:28 PM EST

At least Harry Browne has a K5 ID. What other candidate can say that?

[ Parent ]
Leading by example (2.00 / 1) (#79)
by codemonkey_uk on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 04:49:40 AM EST

How, oh, how, am I going to convince the young wiper-snappers posting quickly types, badly spelt, incorrectly punctuated tripe, that style, grammar, elegance and quality of writing are important, when their great and illustrious leader doesn't even try. Lead by example Rusty, the edit/moderation queue are in chaos already!
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
What is a wiper-snapper? (4.00 / 1) (#80)
by Herring on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 06:15:02 AM EST

Did you mean whipper-snapper?

Sorry I couldn't resist (checks carefully for typos).


Say lol what again motherfucker, say lol what again, I dare you, no I double dare you
[ Parent ]
What is a pedant? (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by codemonkey_uk on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 07:54:26 AM EST


---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
He, he. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
by Herring on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 09:17:53 AM EST

Who was it who remarked that any post complaining about someone else's spelling or grammar would contain at least one grammatical or spelling error?

Actually, I think a wiper-snapper might be one of those little bastards who snaps your windscreen wipers off when you leave your car parked on the street at night.


Say lol what again motherfucker, say lol what again, I dare you, no I double dare you
[ Parent ]
you refer to greenrd's law [nt] (none / 0) (#109)
by infinitera on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 01:24:20 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Two problems (4.50 / 2) (#113)
by psicE on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 04:46:35 PM EST

First, obviously Freedom/Politics is redundant. Every political rant is by nature an op-Ed, and the freedom articles that aren't rants can properly fit in culture. But to be honest, the whole sectioning seems gratuitous.

We've got Science, Culture, and News, which make make sense in the long run. And Meta/Diaries aren't going anywhere, But why Technology and Internet, both of which can be incorporated into the wider heading of Science; why Media, which can be incorporated into News and Culture; why Freedom and Politics, for reasons stated above; and why MLP, Columns, and Op-Ed, as those three are more classifications of story types than sections?

Just about everything can fit into either Science, which includes Technology and Internet, Culture, which includes Politics, or News. They can then be separately classified as Op-Ed, MLP, Columns, etc.; and because the topics are so general, new sections should never be needed. And there would be so few sections that a redesign of the site, which clustered the sections over on one side of the screen instead of putting them over the top and annoying people with odd-sized resolutions, and generally made the place look better.

Why have sections at all? (4.00 / 1) (#126)
by curunir on Fri Nov 01, 2002 at 06:43:03 PM EST

Why not have a single section called Kuro5hin stories? Everything that gets posted here could easily be categorized as such.

Guess what, sectioning helps us to filter out the stuff we're not interested in. To some, news about some DOS attack might be fascinating while news about a recently discovered planet could bore them to tears. For others the situation could be reversed. Separating out Chemistry/Biology/Astronomy/etc from Tech and Internet stories makes it easier to find stories that meet a particular field of interest.

If you don't like sections, you can easily ignore the sections and just view everything.

[ Parent ]
Categories are problematic (none / 0) (#127)
by hfx ben on Sun Nov 10, 2002 at 11:16:33 AM EST

*I've worked on this ... say no more.*
Are categories applied as being exclusive? I'm just thinking that, so long as articles can appear under numerous categories, i.e. on numerous section pages, there's no damage done. (Keeping in mind of course that the data is not replicated.) So if an item is both Scientific and Political (I have e-democracy software in mind), the so be it!
h_b
-- Think. Feel. Act.
[ Parent ]
A Fiction Section!! (none / 0) (#128)
by sudog on Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 01:12:36 PM EST

Come on guys--people are itching to pour out creative talent.

New Section: Science | 127 comments (127 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 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!