The Bathroom Wall

This is a test of the new Bathroom Wall

bumping

Dang; if only somebody had told me there wuz gonna be a test I could’a studied fer it… :p

I may not be able to prevent comments on pages from showing up in the recent comments box, but I’ll look into it. Thanks for pointing that out.

Oops, ignore my last comment. The answer is implicit in your original post

I’ve changed the panel size to ten to make it easier for y’all to play with it. We’ll eventually settle on a larger number.

‘Nuther thing: refreshed the 2^nd page and got back to page 1. Saturday is cookie day, nom nom nom - but anyways.

If you access the page normally via the url http://pandasthumb.org/bw/, then last page viewed will be properly retrieved. If you use the a link with a fragment ID, then it won’t try to cookie. I’ll try to patch the tabs library that we’re using to change that.

It seems Sal Cordova has matriculated back to UcD. He is now holding forth on how Fisher’s Theorem is the death of Darwinism, on the back of Michael Lynch’s new book on genetic architecture.

If by Darwinism, Sal means the strawman pseudo-religion invented by creationists, great! Kick it down, Sal, just don’t erect Kimuraism in its place when you find that we haven’t all become YECs.

If, OTOH, Sal means a theory composed of strands assuming Deep Time, common descent, variability, and selection, then he should increase his dosage. Nothing in Lynch affects those things. As I understand Lynch’s work, the relatively small populations of eukaryotes and multicellular organisms coupled with neutral drift is the key source of variation upon which selection operates.

Sal also does a quick switch in his post between ‘biodiversity’ as used in a quote from Lynch, and ‘diversity’ as used in a discussion of Fisher’s Theorem. The two terms mean vastly different things.

Comment preview is going to become 2.0ified as well. The preview will be displayed on the entry page, probably under the update button.

Bump test:

http://pandasthumb.org/bw/#comment-149706

[Crossposted from Good Math, Bad Math]

@ SC:

Oh, you are here now, kvetching over the same points. As the Panda’s Thumb thread that activated you is now closed due to your ranting, I will post my belated answer here instead. (Isn’t the ability to google crosslinks to get to the full picture wonderful?)

On PT:

I provided a URL that just humiliated him!

The URL DiEb looked at and when skewered you, sparing me the analysis?

Here:

I know the difference between the a Fourier Tranform (which is defined by an Integral symbol, upper case “S”), and an Fourier Series (represented by uppercase Sigma for Summation)

The thread here answered that already, but more detail is provided in the link above.

The continuing misunderstanding of how to make proper limits is clearly exhibited, demonstrating the shallowness that Mike Elzinga, DiEB and others have noted several times over now.

H fckng sshls. plgz t Dvsn NW bfr gt pssd ff nd strt fckng wth . dn’t wnt t mk m md. Trst m n ths. r scrt scks bg tm.

Not only is his foolish behavior undermining his own credibility (what little there is left of it) but Wallace seems perfectly content in dragging down Christianity with him.

why oh why do you let people who are obviously not completely (or even partially) sane get to you so, Pim?

he certainly doesn’t speak for xianity, or ID, or creationism, or anything other than the random delusions flitting through his skull.

I hope you at least can confine your non-arguments with him in this new locale.

Frankly, i still say he’s not worth your effort.

Booger!

I agree with all of your points. The e-mail made me laugh based solely on its utter stupidity. But one does have to consider the credulous idiots that the e-mail was really meant to reach (i.e. ignorant fundamentalist science and reality deniers). For them I’m sure the whole thing makes absolute sense.

SWT said:

J. Biggs said:

I just received this e-mail about expelled and didn’t know where else to put it, but somebody may find it interesting.

…

“We had many individuals and groups who had planned to see the film, but decided not to because the cloud of doubt this lawsuit brought to the film,” noted one of the film’s producers John Sullivan. “We came out of the gate with strong momentum only to have our integrity questioned by this frivolous lawsuit. While we’re thrilled with the film’s having earned nearly $8 million dollars during its first run, we’ve heard from enough people and groups who want to see it in their theaters that we’ve agreed to re-release it-this time without an undeserved cloud over its head.”

1) I have never – ever! – encountered someone who didn’t see a film due to concerns about fair use of copyrighted music, and I sincerely doubt anyone who is likely to be in the target audience for “Explelled” would worry about whether Yoko Ono was properly compensated for the use of “Imagine.”

2) Wouldn’t a greater concern about the filmmakers’ integrity revolve around their misrepresentation of Sternberg, Gonzalez, Crocker, Marks, Winnick, and Egnor? And their mistrepresentations of the motivation behind ID? And the fact that they ignored the cases of mainstream biologists and teachers who have been threatened? (I’m thinking here of the list that a regular PT poster – raven? – compiled.) Or the fact that they misrepresent ID as some sort of credible alternative explanation? Or the fact that ID is misrepresented as a scientific enterprise?

3) I guess the accusation of copyright infringement regarding the XVIVO video didn’t have the same impact as the Ono claim.

I guess it’s just not possible that the audience for the film just wasn’t that big,or that the film just wasn’t that good.

Reed, those “bumping bump bumping” sounds coming from the bathroom are starting rumors.

Earle, Is (y = x squared) the equation you meant to put there? (If you’d said (y = square root x) I’d see a point to it.)

Henry

Did he intend the ^ to mean an exponential? Granted that’s what the symbol ^ usually means when writing equations, but I didn’t see what an exponential would mean in that context.

But he also said “left-half-plane”, which I took to mean that he expected y to be imaginary when x was negative. (i.e., y = square root(x))

So I’ll have to wait until Earle clarifies his comment.

Henry