Actually, the two roles that for me indicate his range were Rev Obadiah Slope ("the bestial Slope") in Barchester Chronicles, and the dead husband in Truly, Madly, Deeply.
then there must be maths in the world of the creator who made the simulation. The fact that there is maths in the creator's world implies that their world is a simulation...
de-minify, not de-obfuscate. Obfuscated code generally replaces named variables with random letters, thus making it hard to read. Obviously there's no way of restoring the original code. But minified code can be restored by a parser. That seems to be what they are referring to.
I don't think that's how ID works. It's really mostly a "God of the Gaps" approach. Rather than explicitly stating that God made the goldfish and it was good, they say that there's no way something as complicated as the eye could have evolved, and therefore the most likely explanation is that some kind of divine influence must have been at work.
So a test on ID would take the form of listing discrepancies in the fossil record, citing evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, etc.
No. The point of the "odd line" seems to be to preclude any discussion of the identity of the creator in the classroom. i.e. If you want to nominate a particular creator, you need to be able to prove it with observable evidence. As that is obviously impossible, the identity must remain a matter of personal belief, not open to interrogation. It seems to be specifically designed to rule out the sort of challenge you are making.
Of course, that makes it impossible to place any explicit religious material in the course, but it doesn't matter. Those who believe in a particular divine creator will just take it as confirmation of their privately-held belief.
There's a big problem with polymer notes that should have been forseen by the Mint.
You can't light a cigar with a hundred dollar bill without passing out from the fumes.
If you believe in god, why would the existence of aliens prove that god doesn't exist?
I gather this is a problem for Christianity. The Incarnation was supposed to only happen once.
But if beings exist on other planets, Jesus would have had to appear to them as well, and go throught the whole resurrection thing again.
Slashdot Mirror
Think that should be "door sensors".
Think they mean "coincidentally".
Actually, the two roles that for me indicate his range were Rev Obadiah Slope ("the bestial Slope") in Barchester Chronicles, and the dead husband in Truly, Madly, Deeply.
Otherwise known as "Emeritus Syndrome".
I thought they meant Milton the Monster.
Hope they weren't grammer Nazis.
... They also laughed at The Three Stooges.
I, for one, would like to see some evidence that anyone actually laughed at The Three Stooges.
We don't actually "hunt" kangaroo as such, but never mind.
the world's most powerful shark.
then there must be maths in the world of the creator who made the simulation. The fact that there is maths in the creator's world implies that their world is a simulation ...
de-minify, not de-obfuscate. Obfuscated code generally replaces named variables with random letters, thus making it hard to read. Obviously there's no way of restoring the original code. But minified code can be restored by a parser. That seems to be what they are referring to.
Any history of motorised transport will mention electric and steam-powered vehicles.
There's the opening lines of the old folk song "He's Been on the Job Too Long":
"Well its twinkle, twinkle little star
And along comes Brady in his 'lectric car..."
I don't think that's how ID works. It's really mostly a "God of the Gaps" approach. Rather than explicitly stating that God made the goldfish and it was good, they say that there's no way something as complicated as the eye could have evolved, and therefore the most likely explanation is that some kind of divine influence must have been at work. So a test on ID would take the form of listing discrepancies in the fossil record, citing evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, etc.
No. The point of the "odd line" seems to be to preclude any discussion of the identity of the creator in the classroom. i.e. If you want to nominate a particular creator, you need to be able to prove it with observable evidence. As that is obviously impossible, the identity must remain a matter of personal belief, not open to interrogation. It seems to be specifically designed to rule out the sort of challenge you are making. Of course, that makes it impossible to place any explicit religious material in the course, but it doesn't matter. Those who believe in a particular divine creator will just take it as confirmation of their privately-held belief.
If there is life, it consists of paper-based organisms?
Most of the people posting here can barely chew gum and tie their shoes at the same time.
Ooh, we can too.
There's a big problem with polymer notes that should have been forseen by the Mint. You can't light a cigar with a hundred dollar bill without passing out from the fumes.
FTW
Damn You Global Warming. DAMN YOU TO HELL!!!!!
I gather this is a problem for Christianity. The Incarnation was supposed to only happen once. But if beings exist on other planets, Jesus would have had to appear to them as well, and go throught the whole resurrection thing again.
I just Googled it, and didn't find any information.
Illudium Phosdex.
the fact that it can talk, and apparently give a scientific lecture, would have been seen as much more newsworthy.
It's surprising how common this misunderstanding has become.
In Australia, commentators insist on referring to the TV show as "Jackarse".
No, silly. Transformers are only fictional robots on TV.
They don't exist in the real world.