Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday December 08 2016, @04:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the good-for-multiple-types-of-cracks dept.

The Denver Post reports

At first glance, Littleton, [Colorado,] looks like ground zero for Halloween pranksters this year--toilet paper is strewn across street after street and block after block.

The messy look prompted a few irritated inquiries from residents on the city's Facebook page this week, like this one from Madison Lucas: "This is UGLY!! All over Littleton!!" Or from Stephanie Gregory : "My kids and I thought it was vandalism."

But the TP'ing scheme is actually the work of the city itself. Littleton is using bathroom tissue as part of an effort to seal the myriad cracks that plague road surfaces in this city. It is tackling 120 streets with this bottoms-up tactic.

[...] The TP, applied with a paint roller, absorbs the oil from freshly laid tar as it dries, keeping it from sticking to people's shoes or car and bike tires. With the paper's protective abilities, asphalt isn't tracked all over the city or splattered on wheel wells. And the biodegradable paper breaks down and disappears in a matter of days.

[...] Kelli Narde, a spokeswoman for Littleton, said the real benefit of using toilet paper is that it allows traffic to retake the road right after a crack is filled.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @11:04AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @11:04AM (#438689)

    "Standing Rock Protester May Lose Her Arm Because of Police Grenades"

    Well no, it was under investigation. None of the sources were remotely non-biased, and 5 seconds of googling came up with a different story altogether.

    (admittedly that wasn't under your watch).

    "Trump, Cabinet Could Avoid Millions in Taxes Thanks to a Little-Known Law"

    Well no, that was all cabinets, and it was mentioned in-thread that maybe the story should have been reflective of that instead of wading through the thread.

    "Corporations Make Nice With the Donald"

    Well no, that was a single letter from Rometty. There was also the letter from Sorenson

    https://skift.com/2016/11/11/marriott-ceos-open-letter-to-president-elect-trump/ [skift.com]

    and an open letter from various other CEOs that was far from making nice

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/an-open-letter-technology-leaders-donald-trumps-candidacy_us_5787996ae4b03fc3ee4f6be2 [huffingtonpost.com]

    to which I have to wonder about "but at the pessimistic end it could be taken as a warning to IBM's employees and business partners to keep their mouths shut" didn't apply in the HuffPo piece. Do we really need a thread that is little more than speculation about IBM's blog?

    You see a pattern here? Inflammatory, inaccurate headlines, poorly sourced stories, and if "the editorial team does read, and discuss, every submission"; you'd think a few minutes of referencing to put things in context would be a part of that.

    The obvious retort is that counter stories could be submitted. No, I'd rather not turn this place into more of a pissing match than it already is.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by charon on Thursday December 08 2016, @12:47PM

    by charon (5660) on Thursday December 08 2016, @12:47PM (#438702) Journal

    I don't have time to fully engage here, since I am at work, but I have a few responses I would make on your points.

    "Standing Rock Protester May Lose Her Arm Because of Police Grenades" Well no, it was under investigation. None of the sources were remotely non-biased, and 5 seconds of googling came up with a different story altogether. (admittedly that wasn't under your watch).

    It is true, another story was offered by police about how the protester was injured. My personal editorial philosophy is to do as little to the submission as possible to make it coherent and discussion worthy. We could have duelling links but that inserts my own opinion into someone else's story. Also, do you think the websites that report only the police's explanation are more or less biased than the sources for this article? Why?

    "Trump, Cabinet Could Avoid Millions in Taxes Thanks to a Little-Known Law" Well no, that was all cabinets, and it was mentioned in-thread that maybe the story should have been reflective of that instead of wading through the thread.

    The summary mentions that the law has been in place for many years, strongly implying that other cabinets have been subject to it. I don't necessarily feel a story about a current event is improved by, "He did it too."

    "Corporations Make Nice With the Donald" Well no, that was a single letter from Rometty. There was also the letter from Sorenson https://skift.com/2016/11/11/marriott-ceos-open-letter-to-president-elect-trump/ [skift.com] and an open letter from various other CEOs that was far from making nice http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/an-open-letter-technology-leaders-donald-trumps-candidacy_us_5787996ae4b03fc3ee4f6be2 [huffingtonpost.com] to which I have to wonder about "but at the pessimistic end it could be taken as a warning to IBM's employees and business partners to keep their mouths shut" didn't apply in the HuffPo piece. Do we really need a thread that is little more than speculation about IBM's blog?

    The title of this story could have been better. It was speculation from one article which the submitter wished to discuss. Note the several questions in the second paragraph which indicate desire to enter a dialogue. The HuffPo article you provided, which was not part of the sub, is dated July 14. Yes, many many people were unhappy that Mr. Trump was the candidate. The sub we are talking about is from November 30, when people have decided they must work with the man who will be president.

    You see a pattern here? Inflammatory, inaccurate headlines, poorly sourced stories, and if "the editorial team does read, and discuss, every submission"; you'd think a few minutes of referencing to put things in context would be a part of that. The obvious retort is that counter stories could be submitted. No, I'd rather not turn this place into more of a pissing match than it already is.

    As has been noted before, and will be noted again, we are dependent on you for our stories. If you want to discuss something, please send us a submission. I will play as fairly with your sub as I do with everyone else's, i.e. keeping your intent and only changing in order to clarify. Of course we make mistakes, but I appreciate the criticism, as well as the opportunity to respond to it.

    If you wish to continue this exchange, I'd be glad to do it. Either in this increasingly off-topic thread or via email. My email is [my username] @ [this site] should you wish to contact me directly.

    Cheers, Charon.

    So much for not fully engaging...

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by FatPhil on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:20PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:20PM (#438711) Homepage
    Editors are not supposed to introduce their own political bias into the stories, and in all these examples, they haven't, they have merely slapped the submission into a readable shape. You're permitted, even encouraged, to disagree with the articles themselves.

    Complain about the submitters if you must, but don't do that unless you're prepared to make submissions yourself, ones that have your preferred bias in them if need be.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:50PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @01:50PM (#438720)

      What a strange world where attempting to maintain objectivity is considered bias, and keeping any editorializing for the discussion instead of the presentation of the story itself.

      Might as well scratch the "News" and change it to Soylent Opinion, where if I bother to find even the most half-assed "story" that reflects my bias, put forth a misleading title, it's a-okay in your book.

      And if those stories originate from Stormfront, the Drudge Report, or Democratic Underground, it matters not, just as long as they are accepted like everyone else.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @03:28PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 08 2016, @03:28PM (#438746)

        You get what you pay for.
        That's not a joke.
        You can't expect the editors here to behave like editors at a real newspaper.
        I mean, it would be great. But they've got lives and have to make a living.
        I think the best we can expect is they do a simple google to verify the story isn't obviously fake.

        Maybe if they were called submission herders instead of editors that might be more palatable.