Well done websites.

[Malaphax]

I'm assuming by founding fathers you are talking about dec of ind writers/signers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fath...e_United_States

 

Yes it's in reference to the people who wrote the constitution, if anyone uses that towards the Pilgrims, they're retarded. I've never heard that phrase used incorrectly.

 

Also, yes the pilgrims obviously had a very stringent sense of "christian" morals that they brought with them to the new land. However they did not create this nation's laws and edicts. The closest I can recall would be early Pennsylvania but that may be more related to the emergence of Quakers rather than the pilgrim origins.

[Jedi2155]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/0...t?newsfeed=true

In my interactions with you, the ones who frequent this forum on an ongoing basis, I'm pretty confident that you are all either indifferent to Proposition 8 or proponents of it.

I don't know where you got this idea but I've been against Prop 8 since the very beginning although I spent much time debating it within Christian circles over the morality of the stance. I actually know quite a few Christians who registered to vote ONLY for that single proposition. Quite sad to be honest, but then again I have the viewpoint that the Church thinks too much inward of its own issues failing to see the world as a whole.

[Turvy]

MrBlah, well made points albeit unduly harsh.

 

I said Christian ethics not Christian religion. Ethics is not religion. But while on the topic of religion, I talked to ren regarding the topic yesterday and I agree 100% that forcing religious beliefs on others are not only immoral but also against the Christian teachings. Everything is about personal choice. (I deviate slightly).

 

I am actually interested in why Proposition 8 was proposed in the first place. As I stated before I may not agree with homosexuality but I do agree that limitation of one?s right to enjoy the same protection and benefits under the law is unconstitutional.

 

Jedi: Yeah, I heard of that too. I still have yet to do my civic duty and start voting. Never really want to put down my information though.

 

Come to think of it, I don?t know why I originally thought you guys were conservatives.

[Malaphax]

Prop 8 was originally proposed when gay marriage began to take off in the state of California. Certain religiously persuaded individuals believed that the word "marriage" is somehow a christian or biblical word. This is also false. The etymology does not go back that far, nor is it directly tied to the bible. The word found originally in the bible is either Greek and similar to "monogamy" or Hebrew (which from what little I can gather closely resembles the phrase yoke or to tie two beings together). But this did not stop misinformed idiots from getting signatures and making sure that THEIR WORD was not unduly trampled upon by gays. They believed that a civil union was far more amicable because their simple minded idea of marriage is a mom and a dad, and "civil union" sounds clinically detached enough for them to live with as well as appear compromising. They ignored the idea of legal contracts and civil rights and decided instead to make sure California wouldn't allow gay marriage.

 

This is also why almost all of their advertising was very specifically talking about teaching gay marriage in school and the idea of the state forcing institutions to conform to gay practices regardless of personal choice. All of which are complete bullshit.

 

Also Chris, as a word of advice and suggestion. Very few people are either conservative, or liberal. Most people are somewhere in the middle and have certain opinions that they lean left and others they lean right on. If you asked most of us our views economically, you may see a far more conservative viewpoint.

 

I will condense a view on ethics so I don't go on tangents and rants. Ethics are rather stupid. Also the idea of christian ethics bothers me to no end. If you really need to look to an old book to figure out what you believe is right and wrong, you have some issues. Also keep in mind that there are some wonderful contradictions in the bible which can make these christian ethics very slippery. If you must use scripture as a baseline for your ethical believes, then my suggestion is to use it in a very broad sense.

[ren]

I said Christian ethics not Christian religion. Ethics is not religion.

I think they are very closely related as I don't know of any (mainstream) religion that doesn't teach moral values. even some belief systems that wouldn't be considered religions have their own code of ethics. that said, from a philosophic point of view it can be said that the pro argument for this debate is substituting ethics in place of an argument. that is- proponents of proposition 8 don't carry much of an argument for its passage other than their belief in a religion-based code of ethics.

 

Come to think of it, I don?t know why I originally thought you guys were conservatives.

I would probably consider most of us left-of-center or moderate. I think I am shifting to being more moderate than I used to be. I used to be very liberal.

 

Prop 8 was originally proposed when gay marriage began to take off in the state of California. Certain religiously persuaded individuals believed that the word "marriage" is somehow a christian or biblical word. This is also false. The etymology does not go back that far, nor is it directly tied to the bible. The word found originally in the bible is either Greek and similar to "monogamy" or Hebrew (which from what little I can gather closely resembles the phrase yoke or to tie two beings together). But this did not stop misinformed idiots from getting signatures and making sure that THEIR WORD was not unduly trampled upon by gays. They believed that a civil union was far more amicable because their simple minded idea of marriage is a mom and a dad, and "civil union" sounds clinically detached enough for them to live with as well as appear compromising. They ignored the idea of legal contracts and civil rights and decided instead to make sure California wouldn't allow gay marriage.

I think theres a bit more to it than just this. from what I see most opposition from christians against anything related to gay rights stems from the fact that they believe homosexuality is wrong. not wanting same sex couples from using the word marriage may just be one way of furthering their goal. realistically I can't imagine that this argument really is just about how california labels same sex unions. after all: whether its a civil union or a marriage in the end the same thing. it doesn't make sense to me that proponents of prop 8 would push so hard when they, quite literally, have nothing to gain.

 

 

I will condense a view on ethics so I don't go on tangents and rants. Ethics are rather stupid. Also the idea of christian ethics bothers me to no end. If you really need to look to an old book to figure out what you believe is right and wrong, you have some issues. Also keep in mind that there are some wonderful contradictions in the bible which can make these christian ethics very slippery. If you must use scripture as a baseline for your ethical believes, then my suggestion is to use it in a very broad sense.

why do you think 'ethics' are stupid? care to elaborate on this? do you not believe that morality is subjective or is it that you think society should dictate what code of ethics should be accepted rather than religion? it always interests me in what people have to say about morality as you can almost always poke giant holes in whatever they say, which I have to admit is by far my favorite part of the conversation.

[Malaphax]

Yes ren the original argument of christian groups is that homosexuality is viewed as wrong. The issue is if you come out and say that in a political discourse you get serious flak from various civil liberties groups as well as you sound like a bigot. That's why they often phrase it more along the line of "in keeping with traditional family values" or other politically correct speech. I was giving the argument they used when presenting prop 8, rather than their actual thought process behind it. Because their thought process is based completely on their religion, which is supposed to be separate from the state and it's laws.

 

 

Ethics and morality are generally viewed as subjective. I don't want to get into my views of morality because they most likely would have plenty of flaws/holes in them like many other forms of ethics and morality. I will say, I dislike many people using some religion or philosophical basis for morality/ethics because not only are most of the religions they use very open to interpretation (or in actuality are strict and certain people ignore what they don't like). But the other issue is that you're essentially basing your actions on a fear of repercussions and a promise of salvation.

 

I'll use a christian ethic example. It's known that Christian's should help their neighbor. Does that mean that if this tenet wasn't written down in the bible you would completely ignore your neighbor? What if your neighbor was a fellow christian? What if he was of another religion? What if his religion was openly hostile to your own?

 

It's a stick and carrot approach that I detest. It's like when people comment that they donate to charity because they feel good about it. When in actuality they donate to charity because other people will look upon them as better individuals. Or if you want to get really deep, maybe they feel good about donating to charity because they're supposed to feel good about it (think placebo effect). Should you need the impetus of that good feeling to donate to charity? What if you just don't want to? etc...

[kuhla]

I have the viewpoint that the Church thinks too much inward of its own issues failing to see the world as a whole.

So you feel religions should organize to influence government as opposed to just leaving it to individuals?

 

I said Christian ethics not Christian religion. Ethics is not religion.

For every religion I can think of being a member means also adopting the associated ethical system. I've actually read the statement above like 13 times now and I'm still trying to figure out if you are making a very technical statement or even go want to do look more like?

 

....I do agree that limitation of one’s right to enjoy the same protection and benefits under the law is unconstitutional.

.....or the government could pull back it's umbrella from the whole issue and everyone would be on equal footing that way too.....

 

Come to think of it, I don’t know why I originally thought you guys were conservatives.

I don't like political labeling.

 

Also Chris, as a word of advice and suggestion. Very few people are either conservative, or liberal. Most people are somewhere in the middle and have certain opinions that they lean left and others they lean right on.

(adding as advice to Chris, in the off chance she doesn't know, not changing what you said) That's only half the story though. Regardless of the majority of the population in the "middle", the people that are on the left and right of the political spectrum are the biggest % of the voting base because so few people vote as well as being the most vocal and contributing the most to politicians. Those "extremes" have the power and the money, politicians know this and cater to them.

 

If you asked most of us our views economically, you may see a far more conservative viewpoint.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure everyone on here is fairly conservative economically.

 

I would probably consider most of us left-of-center or moderate.

Socially? Fiscally? Can't have differing views? I don't like political labeling.

 

EDIT: This reply was written before malaphax posted so I have not read his post yet.

[ren]

Ethics and morality are generally viewed as subjective. I don't want to get into my views of morality because they most likely would have plenty of flaws/holes in them like many other forms of ethics and morality. I will say, I dislike many people using some religion or philosophical basis for morality/ethics because not only are most of the religions they use very open to interpretation (or in actuality are strict and certain people ignore what they don't like). But the other issue is that you're essentially basing your actions on a fear of repercussions and a promise of salvation.

which ethics and morals would you consider subjective? my view is that morality can be subjective but most often it is not. if you look at society, morals within a culture are generally the same, regardless of religious background. for example; in our society, homosexuality is not seen as immoral. even among christians, only the very strict would openly come out to say homosexuality is immoral. as for that last part, I don't think this is true, generally. if you asked someone who was christian, for example, why they believe in their certain code of ethics; they're probably much more likely to say something such as the golden rule rather than fear of damnation.

 

I'll use a christian ethic example. It's known that Christian's should help their neighbor. Does that mean that if this tenet wasn't written down in the bible you would completely ignore your neighbor? What if your neighbor was a fellow christian? What if he was of another religion? What if his religion was openly hostile to your own?

a code of ethics doesn't have to encompass all of the rules. good moral guidelines generally give something to which all actions can be put to a test. an example would be kant's categorical imperiative, which states: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." as for the rest of your statement, that really depends on whether you take the 'love thy neighbor' rule literally or figuratively. I would not consider someone who was openly hostile to me, 'my neighbor' for example.

 

It's a stick and carrot approach that I detest. It's like when people comment that they donate to charity because they feel good about it. When in actuality they donate to charity because other people will look upon them as better individuals. Or if you want to get really deep, maybe they feel good about donating to charity because they're supposed to feel good about it (think placebo effect). Should you need the impetus of that good feeling to donate to charity? What if you just don't want to? etc...

theres 2 schools of thought on this. i'm heavily paraphrasing but, one being the result is all that matters, and the other being the intent behind the action is all that matters. from what you say you seem to subscribe to the school that states intent is more important than result. both can be equally wrong and equally right. just because you disagree does not mean its an invalid moral or ethical guideline.

 

Socially? Fiscally? Can't have differing views? I don't like political labeling.

in general, an overall approximation of everything I've heard.

[kuhla]

for example; in our society, homosexuality is not seen as immoral. even among christians, only the very strict would openly come out to say homosexuality is immoral. as for that last part, I don't think this is true, generally. if you asked someone who was christian, for example, why they believe in their certain code of ethics; they're probably much more likely to say something such as the golden rule rather than fear of damnation.

Ummm. In my opinion you seem pretty out of touch with modern Christianity and by that I mean in more than name only.

[ren]

Ummm. In my opinion you seem pretty out of touch with modern Christianity and by that I mean in more than name only.

really? to be honest most of the christians I know seem pretty tolerant on their views. then again I don't know quite that many christians very well. more like acquaintances. [removed] is the only christian that I know very well.

 

hm.. now that I think about it you may be right?

[Malaphax]

Go talk to someone from the midwest or the south about homosexuality. Then come back to me with how tolerant they are...

 

Also yes I've learned about kant's imperative, and in general I agree with that. The reason however I dislike basing ethics on religion is what I stated earlier. If you actually read the bible (quaran torah etc..) they generally have very strict guidelines. I think the average religious person does not know, let alone follow their religious text's teachings to any serious standard. This is why I think you're so easily accepting of their stance. However, I'd like to point out that the reason why prop 8 was proposed was Christians not wanting gays getting married, and this was a large enough number to get the legislation passed. I think that speaks pretty large volumes about intolerance, and it can get much uglier at times. To base your ethical code on a book which often encompass slavery, religious wars, and genocide committed against non-believers and gays... Not the greatest place to go find moral values.

 

I'm far more willing to go along with people who get their sense of ethics from society (even as fucked up as society can be) than religious texts, because I can at least reason with people who have a more worldly sense of morality. While to any semi-serious religious follower, many items are very clearly black and white.

[Jedi2155]

really? to be honest most of the christians I know seem pretty tolerant on their views. then again I don't know quite that many christians very well. more like acquaintances. christina is the only christian that I know very well.

 

hm.. now that I think about it you may be right?

At first I thought Chris was a very conservative Christian, it turns out she's just a very conservative asian. I have not heard her talk about her views on Christianity very much....to be point where I wonder how much faith she really has.

[ren]

sorry. I should not have started naming names. this conversation is not about individuals and there is no point in calling people out on their personal faith. while you may not have meant to do so, your comment is very pointed, richard, and even if it served a valid point (which I'm not sure it does) does not justify resorting to personal attacks. please keep the conversation to a general discussion as I would not appreciate the conversation turning to discuss the particulars of my faith either; at the very least it seems extremely rude. I was the one who brought it up and I apologize, but please lets drop that topic.

 

However, I'd like to point out that the reason why prop 8 was proposed was Christians not wanting gays getting married, and this was a large enough number to get the legislation passed. I think that speaks pretty large volumes about intolerance, and it can get much uglier at times.

honestly I was surprised with the result and chalked it up to being more about spending power and negative ads than anything else. I still don't truly believe that the majority of californians are so against gay marriage that they would ban it outright. maybe I'm being delusional.

 

To base your ethical code on a book which often encompass slavery, religious wars, and genocide committed against non-believers and gays... Not the greatest place to go find moral values.

 

I'm far more willing to go along with people who get their sense of ethics from society (even as fucked up as society can be) than religious texts, because I can at least reason with people who have a more worldly sense of morality. While to any semi-serious religious follower, many items are very clearly black and white.

I think this is all about how you interpret it. I personally would not take any form of teaching of religious ethics in the literal sense unless it was very specific in its scope, and even then I would consider the historical implications of the time in which it was written as a large factor. so even though the bible has self-contradictory statements it does not invalidate its teachings (just because of that) in my eyes.

[T1no]

bump

 

had a few discussion about internet adventures at work. bumping a few topics.

 

will update later

[T1no]

http://journey.lifeofpimovie.com/#!/

[kuhla]

I've spent a lot of time thinking about website design in terms of mobile devices and by extension screen resolution.

 

I think it's safe to design around 1280x720 since you can find that on just about every tablet, laptop, many phones, and for many office computers it's close at 1280x1024. Since you don't want "wall to wall" content, and you have to assume there is a scroll bar, you are really only left with 1200 pixels horizontal. Vertically is kind of a mess. Do they have toolbars? Tab bar? Task menu? Different on different devices.

 

Gawker recently changed some of their sites http://kotaku.com now has a heavy vertical usage for pictures now which I find a bit annoying because I scan headlines quickly and the pictures are far far larger than they need for me to get the gist of what they are about. If I want more/bigger pictures I should THEN be going to the article. The front page should be minimal so users can fly over it to look for articles they are interested in or not.

 

I feel like a lot of websites are adding too many columns and making content too vertical, requiring too much scrolling. I don't want super wide web pages.

 

Look at the "Latest Artciles" column on http://www.bit-tech.net/ that's close to what I would consider ideal. Small picture to the left, small blurb to the right of it. Easy to spot how many comments and date posted. The whole web site still has way too many columns though.

[T1no]

responsive website is the word for 2013.

 

in fact thats what are we doing at work right now.

 

kotaku is responsive

[kuhla]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsive_web_design

 

Sorry for mobile link, on my phone.

 

How is kotaku responsive if it requires me to scroll excessively to read article headlines?

[T1no]

umm are you sure displaying the current kotaku view?

 

or im just not understanding your problem.

[kuhla]

umm are you sure displaying the current kotaku view?

 

or im just not understanding your problem.

 

See attachment. That is such a wasteful layout. The picture is obnoxiously huge. To read the headlines I practically need to page down.

 

Here I actually made a second attachment which I quickly shopped together of a scheme which would be 10x better in my opinion.

[Jedi2155]

I actually much prefer the huge picture for the following reasons:

 

#1 You should only be focused on one story at time.

 

#2 A big picture looks better on a nice display than a nice display with small text and small pictures.

 

#3 Aren't there news readers out there for people who just want to use headlines? I use RSS feeds on my homepage extensively for this purpose. A combination of HardOCP's news reader and kotaku's web design would be okay.

[T1no]

well that is more on the web design, layout.

 

i was talking about responsive web design.

check this out

 

http://mediaqueri.es/

[kuhla]

hahahah io9 heard me and this is their new layout even though they are also gawker media

[kuhla]

3 year bump.

 

https://foxglovesecurity.com/

 

I like this site. Simplistic. Large text. Short paragraphs/headlines. Color scheme (dark dark blue and dull orange) is easy to read and easy on the eyes.

[T1no]

3 year bump.

 

https://foxglovesecurity.com/

 

I like this site. Simplistic. Large text. Short paragraphs/headlines. Color scheme (dark dark blue and dull orange) is easy to read and easy on the eyes.

LOL logo

http://www.echofox.gg/