Clearly, everyone on the team is required to answer this one.
| 6.25 % |
My weblog owns 6.25 % of me.
Does your weblog own you?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
62.5 %
My weblog owns 62.5 % of me.
Does your weblog own you?
I am especially curious to know what my blog siblings scored on this quiz. I think my results are skewed since I am unhappily unemployed, which means that I have no meaningful life whatsoever, outside of my blog, that is. And…
Just for the record (and since everybody's doing it), my blog owns 18.25 percent of me. I expected it would be much worse. I can't imagine how PZ could have gotten 6.25 percent, given that he posts much more frequently than I do. He must be super efficient....
(If you're confused what I'm talking…
Because GrrlScientist asks, I took the quiz about whether my blog is working for me or I am working for my blog:
31.25 %
My weblog owns 31.25 % of me.Does your weblog own you?
Thank my students, my colleagues, and my family for providing me with conditions where the real world keeps my…
My wife would say yes.
But, because all the other ScienceBloggers appear to be doing it, I had to take this test to find out:
18.75 %
My weblog owns 18.75 % of me.Does your weblog own you?
It's actually not as bad as I had feared. It would actually only be 12.5% if I hadn't been forced to…
6.25%.
People with lives end up in the first percentile.
I'm at 6.25% too. Whew!
0%
Off topic, but FYI, over at Ed Brayton's Dispatches from the Culture Wars, on the Neufeld on Slavery and the Bible thread, David Heddle has endorsed divine genocide.
"Perhaps a relevant though absurdly hypothetical question is: What if God (truly) commanded American Forces to annihilate Canada, and to kill every man, woman, and child, would it then be moral for us to obey that command? Yes, in fact it would be immoral not to."
What a guy.
I got 37.5%.
I got a rock.
Oh comon PZ, I think that decicmel is in the wrong place or something...
thanks for playing the game, PZ, but seriously ... 6.25%??
A little note about your blog in another direction. Things work fine as is, but you have, for some odd reason, two conflicting declarations in your headers.
You have directives for both iso-8859-1 encoding and UTF-8 encoding. They do have a common subset of 7-bit ASCII, but that is still a bit odd thing to have in your HTML source. I think things would work just fine if you removed the iso-8859-1 line, since the older home of Pharyngula (pharyngula.org) uses only that, and it seems to have worked perfectly there.
The lines that I'm talking about look like this:
They are near the beginning if you use the View Source feature, but not consecutive. It is possible that the Scienceblogs guys have something set up that inserts one of them, so you might check with them how to fix this.
Like I said, it's a minor issue. Things work fine as is. But you know, comments like this could help improve that 6.25% to something a little higher...
Ahem, the lines look like this:
meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /
Without the brackets it might even show up on the blog, and not just the preview. Sorry.