tomhudson's Journal: What I like about the new slashdot

This post intentionally left blank.

Reminds me ...

[foobsr]

... of the time when I was student and we invented (admittedly quite drunken)

8.

as a supplement of Wittgenstein's Tractatus.

CC.

Re:

[tomhudson]

slashdot is proof that proposition 7 is nonsense :-)

and anyone who's ever read the original story about the million monkeys (one with a stuck key) knows that order can arise out of random "noise." In fact, our brains are constructed in such a way that (example) w wll recognze ideas evn whn the linguistic rep z corruptd.

Or even when there IS no pattern.

Was that, perchance, your 8?

Re:

[foobsr]

Or even when there IS no pattern.

That would be '8.' along the lines of sensory deprivation (though it is probably hard to assess that there is no pattern); interesting, though then we were also deep in the discussion about a definition of 'nonentity/nothingness' and this '8.' was one of the results along the way.

CC.

Re:

[Suki I]

You guys are getting creepy.

What I dislilke about the new /.

[kimvette]

What I like about the new /.:

It's pretty.

What I dislike about it:

* Too much whitespace
* No more italics
* The threshold slider is conveniently located at the top of the page rather than
* Journal page layouts - see this page for example
* Functionality is now unavailable or hidden
* The site is completely unusable in MSIE (I just tried it in MSIE and it is completely broken - but then again, I would also argue this is a feature)

Re:

[Suki I]

no italics?
Seems you are right.

Re:

[countertrolling]

*sigh*

Re:

[tomhudson]

There's a difference between italics and emphasized. Especially since italics aren't always used for emphasis (hint, hint) :-)

Re:

[kimvette]

Exactly. It is sometimes used for titles, for example, were I to reference 1984 or quote something, I might wish to use italics. But then again, to be honest, I always use the <i> tag due to laziness. :)

Re:

[arb]

No italics? Oh teh horrors!!! o_0

Re:

[countertrolling]

For a prettier layout [slashdot.org]...

Italics require the <em> tag now

Re:

[http]

Uh, no. My browser is under no obligation to render as italics, though it is customary. EM is intended for semantic markup, B and I for style.

Re:

[http]

Ah, crap. Preview....
My browser is under no obligation to render EM as italics, though it is customary. EM is intended for semantic markup, B and I for style.

Re:

[countertrolling]

Some people use tabs, some use spaces. I'm just going with the flow...

Re:

[tomhudson]

The "semantic web: will never happen, so it's best that we go with what works :-)

Re:

[johndiii]

The <i> tag stopped working for italics on Monday, June 5th, 2006 - or at least that is when I stopped using it in journal entries.

They may have finally done it...

[damn_registrars]

... finally, an "upgrade" so hideous as to truly kill off the traffic to the site. Hardly any front page stories have pulled more than 100 comments since the new version roll-out. Journal submissions are down as well. Meanwhile half the front page is devoted to irrelevant facebook crap; I should see if there is a way to just ditch all the articles tagged 'facebook' since they aren't worth their own weight in rat shit anyways.

I think this is Taco's last-ditch effort to sell the site to facebook itself.

Re:

[countertrolling]

It makes me feel better to believe that people might be leaving because the front page "stories" are almost all copy/paste binspam now with links to ad partners. Advertising is getting downright aggressive. I guess they figure if you block the popups, they'll just turn the article into a promotional fluff piece, or political/religious trolling with product placement.

Now for something really important: Is there no longer a way to adjust the filtering on the firehose? I can't see all the submissions