Great web resource!

Time Cube: best site ever! Can someone fill me in on the time cube ratings I see here (Pharyngula) from time to time?

Caledonian, who came up with it, still hasn't explained if the scale is linear or logarithmic or whatever... 1.0 Tc is the amount of insanity displayed by the TimeCube guy's websites, 0.0 Tc is complete sanity.

Excellent resource for journalists!

Treason! Tetrapod Zoology is nowhere to be found on the blog lists!

I was a little disappointed that this was not included:

http://www.mnscience.org/

It wasn't, was it? I couldn't find our Minnesota Science org listed on there, anyway.

Wow, I had completely missed the original timecube. Truly potent concentrations of crazy.

Thanks, David, but surely you have that backwards - wouldn't 1.0 TC be awarded to those exhibiting the same level of brilliance and incisiveness displayed by Gene Ray, Wisest Human, and 0.0 TC be reserved for those who categorically deny his Truth?

"God worship only needs a snot brain, but it takes Opposite Brain Analysis to know Harmonic Life. The masculinity Sun and femininity Earth - form a Binary of Harmonic Opposites at Center of Universe - Greater than either Sun or the Earth, debunking all fictitious Oneism Gods taught by religious/academic Word Animals." - Time Cube

I mean, who can argue with that?

Gene Ray, Wisest Human

You forgot "Greatest Thinker". And his self-awarded Doctor title. "Forgot"? You must be an educator/liar, and it is not immoral to kill you.

The masculinity Sun and femininity Earth

Well, in French anyway.

David - Tetrapod Zoology is linked to under ScienceBlogs (we Borg have our own section in the links).

Greg - No, it somehow got overlooked, but rest assured I will be adding it...

Great Scott..., list.

I guess I'm still missing out a link to Shroeder's ev program, since it is so often discussed by creationists, and right now by Dembski and Marks.

still hasn't explained if the scale is linear or logarithmic or whatever...

I assume an insane scale is highly nonlinear?

A measure on a fractorial set like a Menger sponge perhaps, on the unit cube of course. The Lebesgue measure would make it 0 everywhere except on the solid (Time)Cube where it is 1.

Btw, there is a new proposal for the Dembski.

A Dembski would be an error of about 65 orders of magnitude as proposed by Wesley Elsberry, which is usable to describe the order of error that Marks and Dembski made in their analysis of ev.

It seems the Panda's Thumb regulars have agreed on defining it as:

Δ = | ln (E/R) | / B,

where E = Error value, R = Right value and B = Bill's Constant. B = 150 by normalizing to Dembski's 'Universal Probability Bound'. I hasten to add that no one expects a similar bound on this measure.

The proposal is to abbreviate the Dembski as Dmb, and designate it with Δ. Reed Cartwright:

It represents the 'd' in dembski. It is already often used to denote distance and perhaps error. And it looks like those hats that teachers put on students who screw up one too many times.

Caledonian, who came up with it, still hasn't explained if the scale is linear or logarithmic or whatever... 1.0 Tc is the amount of insanity displayed by the TimeCube guy's websites, 0.0 Tc is complete sanity.

Treason! Tetrapod Zoology is nowhere to be found on the blog lists!

Gene Ray, Wisest Human

You forgot "Greatest Thinker". And his self-awarded Doctor title. "Forgot"? You must be an educator/liar, and it is not immoral to kill you.

The masculinity Sun and femininity Earth

Well, in French anyway.

Great Scott..., list.

I guess I'm still missing out a link to Shroeder's ev program, since it is so often discussed by creationists, and right now by Dembski and Marks.

still hasn't explained if the scale is linear or logarithmic or whatever...

I assume an insane scale is highly nonlinear?

A measure on a fractorial set like a Menger sponge perhaps, on the unit cube of course. The Lebesgue measure would make it 0 everywhere except on the solid (Time)Cube where it is 1.

Btw, there is a new proposal for the Dembski.

A Dembski would be an error of about 65 orders of magnitude as proposed by Wesley Elsberry, which is usable to describe the order of error that Marks and Dembski made in their analysis of ev.

It seems the Panda's Thumb regulars have agreed on defining it as:

Δ = | ln (E/R) | / B,

where E = Error value, R = Right value and B = Bill's Constant. B = 150 by normalizing to Dembski's 'Universal Probability Bound'. I hasten to add that no one expects a similar bound on this measure.

The proposal is to abbreviate the Dembski as Dmb, and designate it with Δ. Reed Cartwright:

It represents the 'd' in dembski. It is already often used to denote distance and perhaps error. And it looks like those hats that teachers put on students who screw up one too many times.