1. 1. The "Read the xx comments" (and its predecessor, the "Read More..| XX comments") link was removed to a "speech bubble" on the far right, giving the number. Aesthetically, that is fine, but the problem is that I have 15 years of muscle memory that want to click a link at the bottom of the article abstract to view the comments; now I have to click the article title or the bubble. Worse yet, a bunch of red-herring social media buttons are exactly where that used to be. My proposed fix is easy: leave the social media buttons (if you really like them), leave the comment count speech bubble on the far right, but add back in a regular hyperlink saying "Read the XX comments" just to the right of the social media buttons. There certainly isn't a lack of whitespace to place it there. This solution will keep anyone who wants to use the social media buttons happy, and yet restore the link that I am still, a year and a half later, instinctively trying to find every day. As a reference, this is what it looked like before the social media buttons.
2. 2. Tighten up the unused vertical whitespace. I used to be able to easily read 4 full articles "above the fold". While the ~2010 redesign definitely cleaned up clutter (removed the left sidebar, etc.) it somehow wasted more space than it saved. Here it is back in the late 2000's form vs. where we are today. I'm fine with the improved article width and the removed left column; good riddance to the unnecessary background splash colours, but can we just pull the articles a bit closer together, so that 4 full articles can nominally fit at a time?

Also, I just wanted to throw in that I was really happy to see your responsiveness in the original announcement article, and this Ask Slashdot so soon is a great sign.

Hmm, clearly my html abilities are lacking, and that link didn't work. And I further, I didn't preview properly. Let's try this again: SpaceVision 2010

Or, for the non-geocentrists out there, may I propose a better conference to attend that very same weekend?

The Students for the Exploration and Development of Space are holding 'SpaceVision 2010' only one state over. Instead of arguing whether or not the Earth is at the center of the Universe, you can come listen/discuss about how we are going to be exploring space in the future; a far more practical and relevant discussion.

This isn't to say that the geocentric argument isn't an interesting one, but its day-to-day applicability is questionable. Whether or not I believe in geocentrism is irrelevant; what is relevant is how we are next going to explore and use space for our own betterment. To this end, even the geocentrists should agree! According to TFA, they appear to be Christians [Catholics?] for the most part. Are they not, then, under the express believe that God put everything here for us exclusively? Would that not include space? Wouldn't even their own time be better spent discussing, then, how we can exploit space instead of whether or not we're at the center of it?

Full Disclosure Department: Clearly, I am related to the SEDS group, and therefore have a stake in promoting this conference. I ask only that this article is neither promoted up, nor down, but left as food-for-thought for all to read.

Actually that's incorrect. My predecessors had a cubesat on the DNEPR-1 launch; yes it blew up. That said, it was neither the first rocket to carry cubesats, nor by any means the last. TFA is correct in saying there are at least a dozen of these satellites in orbit right now, although many are now past their operation a life, and are waiting to naturally burn up. Saying that "none of these exist" is a bit of a misnomer as well, since there are cubesats waiting for launch in labs all around the world; I myself have two that will likely be going up in about three years from now.

TFA is correct, however, in saying that no cubesat currently has a propulsion system. It is wrong, however, in saying that no one else is working on this problem; in fact that is the very topic of my own research. I'd be much more impressed, however, if we could see simulations of the corrected orbits, estimated increases in lifetime, and, best yet, a working prototype. Claiming you can do this is bold; it is not an easy problem. Chemical rockets, and even 'standard' electric propulsion are become well-characterized solutions. Cubesat propulsion is on a completely different level, based on both the weakness of the thrusters, and the relatively low masses of the satellites. I feel this is a bit premature to be posted on the front of slashdot; this should have gone up in the 4-5 months TFA claims it will take to get a working prototype. That said, I applaud the novel approach. I hope it works, 'cause I know I'd buy one.

To this day, the sound of a monkey followed by the sound of -- what we would most likely consider -- an energy discharge still has me clawing to switch from my wrench over to my gun. Those monkeys were evil.