Ben Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
> > >the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
> > >is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
> > >is not bound to model
On Tue, 16 May 2006, JD Rogers wrote:
That said, I think we should not overly subdivide. If the menu depth
gets too large, we will be spending more time clicking menu levels
than scanning a menu list for the app name. For example in my
experience, I may have a couple of astronomy apps, but rar
The cool thing about this is that nothing would ever get moved to adifferent branch of the menus, so as the menu changed, it would still
be easy to find the app one is searching for. The length/depth of thebranch would just change to keep the aspect ratio reasonable.Maybe this is just crazy, but w
> I added another section named "Analysis", that contains general data
> analysis/plotting/calculation applications. I find them very similar to
> what is found in "Math", so I consider moving "Mathematics" to "Science"
> a good idea.
Again: we see that scientists make heavy use of mathematics,
Hello,
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 12:14 -0700, JD Rogers a écrit :
> > That said, I think we should not overly subdivide. If the menu depth
> > gets too large, we will be spending more time clicking menu levels
> > than scanning a menu list for the app name. For example in my
> > experience, I may ha
I went on and made a list of applications that are currently found in
"Science" [science] and another one with these applications roughly
sorted into sections [science_sorted].
The short version:
Analysis [10]
Astronomy [12]
Biology [16]
Chemistry [11]
Geoscience [5]
Medicine [1]
Physics [
My preference would be for an upper limit of more like 15-20 items perlist, but I like the idea.
15-20 would be ok if the names of the programs are more informative (not that it matters once you know what they do).
Logically, I tend to think of Medicine as a category under LifeSciences, but perha
added. So would it add unreasonable complexity to the menu system to
have the menu semi-dynamic? The idea is that it would split categories
Bah, I should have read Thibaut Paumard's post first.. sounds like my
idea of dynamic menus is already in place to some extent with
menu-hints.
> The second point is very important, but only to a limit. Browse the
> Apps>>Tools on the debian menu, and you will find WAY too many programs,
> thus making the entire menu system useless.
[snip]
You make a great point though, so maybe the issue comes down to
finding an aspect ratio that is
[snip]
The first point is true, but should be stressed as to WHO uses this menu
for easy and logical navigation. The people who regularly use a particular
application rarely use the menu system to access it, and instead simply
type in the appropriate command. This means that logical navigatio
Le mardi 16 mai 2006 à 12:14 -0700, JD Rogers a écrit :
> That said, I think we should not overly subdivide. If the menu depth
> gets too large, we will be spending more time clicking menu levels
> than scanning a menu list for the app name. For example in my
> experience, I may have a couple of as
I agree with the following two points and would like to expand on them,
answer the third and make another suggestion as to how we should be
thinking about the problem.I think the real point of this discussion is how should a menu be organized to
facilitate easy and logical navigation to an app.I th
One thing about scientists is sure, we all love to argu^H^H^H^H
discuss. That is definitely a positive thing and allows careful
consideration of the various points of view of a topic that may not be
obvious to everyone, so rock on!
As far as this menu issue goes, there have been some good points
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 02:25:37AM +0300, Linas ??virblis wrote:
> I actually find splitting "Science" a good idea.
>
> I did a little research and came up with this list of possible
> subsections, along with example fields they cover:
>
> Astronomy
> * Astrodynamics
> * Astronomy
> * Astrophy
I actually find splitting "Science" a good idea.
I did a little research and came up with this list of possible
subsections, along with example fields they cover:
Astronomy
* Astrodynamics
* Astronomy
* Astrophysics
* Cosmology
* Radio astronomy
Biology
* Anatomy
* Bioinformatics
* Botan
Hello,
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 03:56, Russell Shaw wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On 5/14/06, Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I suggest that the heirarchy be patterned after the organizational
> >> structure of the faculty of a major university. There is, I believe, a
> >>
Hello,
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 19:20, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 06:20:25PM +0200, Thomas Walter wrote:
[snip]
>
> > In general, my understanding of "Science" is in the sense of research
> > and not education.
> > Thus an example breakdown within Sience could be like
> >
Hello,
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 01:25, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[snip]
>
> Ok. Let's say, the main function/job/role makes the difference, so only
> applications which are real teaching programs (like e.g. tools to teach
> langauges or the PSE like kalzium or gperiodic) have to go into
> Education. A
> Unconvinced. Theoretical chemistry, as an example, is largely
> mathematics. But not only in the sense below engineering/physics. To
> develop novel theoretical chemistry, new mathematics has to be
> invented. The same for physics/mathematics: remember that Newton had
> to invent (I know that in
[not replying to the bug to avoid surcharging it.]
Le Mon, May 15, 2006 at 06:42:06AM +0200, Francesco Pietra a écrit :
> Mathematics
> Physics
> Biology
> Medicine
>
> Maybe I am overlooking one or two important "cuts". Suggest. These sections
> allow interdisciplinary contacts. Today, more per
Unconvinced. Theoretical chemistry, as an example, is largely mathematics. But
not only in the sense below engineering/physics. To develop novel theoretical
chemistry, new mathematics has to be invented. The same for
physics/mathematics: remember that Newton had to invent (I know that in some
q
To answer here, taking into account other suggestions, i believe that the less
we cut science into pieces the better the result. Specialisation has resulted
to be a negative trend in university education (all over the world). When
industry seeks for a fresh graduate biologist, industry seeks for
> >FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
> >the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
> >is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
> >is not bound to modelling the physical world.
>
> I think of new ways
Ben Burton wrote:
Hi,
I think Mathematics is also part of Science.
FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
is not bou
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/14/06, Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suggest that the heirarchy be patterned after the organizational
structure of the faculty of a major university. There is, I believe, a
lot of agreement on this structure.
No there is not agreement. Harvard ende
* Daniel Leidert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-15 01:25:57]:
> > The latter is like:
> > how to do integration or differentiation, waht are Newton's rules in
> > gravity
> > the first is like:
> > when I apply several of the basic rules to these measurements under
> > given constraints
> > then one
Oh, and a minor typo:
> The relevant sections are:
>
> Mathematics [was:Math]
> Mathematics-related software.
> gcalctool, snapea, xeukleides
The "snappea" package has two "p"s.
Ben (the snappea maintainer).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe"
Hi,
> I think Mathematics is also part of Science.
FWIW, I would argue that mathematics is not a science -- it does not use
the scientific method, there is no hypothesis and experimentation -- it
is a more self-contained discipline that, while it seeks to be useful,
is not bound to modelling the
Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 23:42 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 22:26, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[..]
> > Where do you make the difference between a scientific and an educational
> > software product? Let's say: What is a chemical structures editor? What
> > is a (software reali
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 11:42:24PM +0200, Thomas Walter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 22:26, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 21:55 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> > > On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:52, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> > > > > In general, my understa
Hello,
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 22:26, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 21:55 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> > On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:52, Daniel Leidert wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > > In general, my understanding of "Science" is in the sense of research
> > > > and not education.
> > >
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 07:20:55PM +0200, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 06:20:25PM +0200, Thomas Walter wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > >From my point of view this 2 section names are arbitrary and too global.
> > It also opens a long discussion about the hirarchy. I think Mathematics
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 10:21:12PM +0200, Thomas Walter wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On 5/14/06, Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > The goal for Debian should be to make it easier for users to locate
> > tools for their proble
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 05:57:31PM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote:
> I received this message after I answered Bill Allombert.
>
> The list below is a reasonable one, when "Bio" is written in full "Biology"
> and "medicine" is added; medicine is largely biology but with special needs.
>
> I disag
Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 21:55 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:52, Daniel Leidert wrote:
[..]
> > > In general, my understanding of "Science" is in the sense of research
> > > and not education.
> >
> > I do not agree. Education also means science. It doesn't just mean
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 5/14/06, Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> The goal for Debian should be to make it easier for users to locate
> tools for their problems. There are many tools that are specific to
> a narrow subject area (e.g., DNA
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 20:52, Daniel Leidert wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 18:20 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> > On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > > Hello Debian Science people,
> > >
> > > There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
> > > menu st
Hello,
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:57, Francesco Pietra wrote:
> I received this message after I answered Bill Allombert.
>
> The list below is a reasonable one, when "Bio" is written in full "Biology"
> and "medicine" is added; medicine is largely biology but with special needs.
>
> I disagree w
On 5/14/06, Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I suggest that the heirarchy be patterned after the organizational
structure of the faculty of a major university. There is, I believe, a
lot of agreement on this structure.
No there is not agreement. Harvard ended up with the Divison of
En
Am Sonntag, den 14.05.2006, 18:20 +0200 schrieb Thomas Walter:
> On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Hello Debian Science people,
> >
> > There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
> > menu structure. In case you missed it, we would like to have your
> >
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 05:45:44PM +0200, Francesco Pietra wrote:
> etc., what about chemistry? Chemistry is at the basis of "natural sciences"
> mentioned below, and a basic science in its own. Think about chemistry (there
> are great debian packages for chemistry, first on the line - in my view
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 06:20:25PM +0200, Thomas Walter wrote:
> Hello,
>
> >From my point of view this 2 section names are arbitrary and too global.
> It also opens a long discussion about the hirarchy. I think Mathematics
> is also part of Science. At least for application like axiom, octave,
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 06:35:33PM +0200, Peter Staudt-Fischbach wrote:
> Hello,
> Thomas Walter wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
> >
> >>[discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
> >>menu structure]
> ...
>
> >It also opens a long discuss
I received this message after I answered Bill Allombert.
The list below is a reasonable one, when "Bio" is written in full "Biology"
and "medicine" is added; medicine is largely biology but with special needs.
I disagree with the distinction science/education. Scientific education is
science,
etc., what about chemistry? Chemistry is at the basis of "natural sciences"
mentioned below, and a basic science in its own. Think about chemistry (there
are great debian packages for chemistry, first on the line - in my view -
mpqc. At any event, there are chemists under the "Science section" u
Hello,
Thomas Walter wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
[discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
menu structure]
...
It also opens a long discussion about the hirarchy
I think that's the main point. The more or less "networked" characte
Hello,
On Sun, 2006-05-14 at 17:01, Bill Allombert wrote:
> Hello Debian Science people,
>
> There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
> menu structure. In case you missed it, we would like to have your
> opinions on the entries for scientific applications.
>
> The relev
Hello Debian Science people,
There is a discussion (in bug #361418) on the future of the Debian
menu structure. In case you missed it, we would like to have your
opinions on the entries for scientific applications.
The relevant sections are:
Mathematics [was:Math]
Mathematics-related softwar
48 matches
Mail list logo
