pedro-kun

Last time I checked, cancer was caused by mutations and not parasites. Sure, there are numerous microorganisms which do cause cancer, but that's because they induce mutations in the cells' dna. Still, we're back to square one: cancer is caused by mutations, and while these can be induced by bacteria, etc, they can also result from random DNA-replication errors, they can be induced by radiation from the Sun, and so on. Also, regarding the fact that the research you cited was not "mainstream", I'd like to point you to this fine website: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/ I guess there are some pretty valid reasons for it not be mainstream

Were you expecting they did? Science itself did not answer this question yet, so it's only natural that replies here don't answer it as well. Also, if you skim through the thread a little bit, you'll find I already mentioned some mechanisms underlying deja vu. No, excuse me, that is what deja vu is, and not what causes it. Deja vu is the recreation of a few seconds of an event. What we still don't know is precisely what causes that to happen.

Slowly, they do evolve enough to have new organs and bones. And mutations are powerful... how do you think insulin for diabetic people is produced? It's a new species of bacteria, albeit artificially mutated, it exists only through mutation, and can produce insulin... you can compare that to having a new organ. Of course, we're talking about simple forms of life... When it comes to humans, for example, a mere mutation isn't enough, of course (because a single organ is controlled by an endless number of genes... mutating only a few typically results in malfunction rather than improvement)... but if you mutate a lot of them [genes], they can change the species to an entirely different one Did you know you can mutate flies to have them be born with eyes on their legs? The same is theoretically possible with humans, even though no one tried it (not very ethic, as you may imagine). That was just a common example of mutating and having new "organs" and "bones" Many people make the mistake of considering evolution an unfinished explanation just because it is called "the Theory" of Evolution... That's not correct... Despite the name, only a few pieces of it remain unsolved (if any). Most scientific "theories" have a high level of veracity (reflect of the scrutiny they've been put through..)

To put it bluntly: Yes, all I have seen from you is in fact a lot of red herrings. I need valid rebuttals. Go figure it out Also, the Evolution's theory may be modified at any time, provided sufficient evidence is found to justify the change. And just because this Theory is open to change it doesn't make it wrong. What's wrong is not allowing for further evidence to change things, like Creationists do (and still believe the Earth is 6000 years old). And btw, you can only prove that the universe as we know it had a beginning. You're missing the singularity from which it all spawned. Oh, and that does imply an older planet Earth. You must be joking. I just love how science IS scrutiny. Creationism is *not* Science (even though you may not want to admit it). That's why people are choosing between Creationism OR Evolution (Faith OR Science).

@truefusion: Actually, the Big Bang theory does not mean the Universe had a beginning. Read up on it, okay? We too, provide "verses" from Darwin's work that prove evolution. And many other studies. Actually almost any Science book that talks about the origin of Life proves evolution right. Also!, Science is not dependent on the theory of evolution... Science is mutable, as opposed to the Creationists thoughts. So, Science actually evolves with its own mistakes, while creationism will forever stay the same, always stating the same non-senses. As for macro-evolution, read up on the study I already supplied. If you still don't believe it, I guess I cannot force someone to comprehend what they don't want to. If your mind is already closed, how can you accept other opinions? Waste of time. That said, it would be pointless to provide links to any other study. Oh!, and I don't care if you refer only to macro-evolution... the"theory" of evolution is much more than that. The definition of theory is another problem, as well. Who cares if you think that by being called "Theory" of evolution you think it was not proven... Creationism isn't even a theory! It is a Tale. And actually, scientific "theories" have that status only after intense testing. Was creationism tested in any way? How inventive can you get? What a load of crap. Pseudo-Scientific-babble just sucks, you know?Btw, read up on some science books with an open mind. You'll see that selection can be natural OR made by humans. It does not matter which one it is; evolution is proved right, and creationism wrong. I know you don't believe and will probably make something up to discredit people. It doesn't matter what kind of selection there is, as long as there is a type of selection. That's what the theory states. Learn it, don't make things up. Great idea! Don't teach religion as well (no sunday schools). Teach only language and maths, and some basic "science" (like, what are plants, animals, etc..). Then when people reach 18, let them decide what they want to believe. Let them choose their religion. You'd be amazed to what the results would be. Define "respectful" and "nice". Also, define "prove" and "disprove". While you're at it, define "discredit" for me. Because I don't think it is nice for you to claim your respectful while you're simply not accepting other peoples thoughts. You don't worry about proving Creationism, but only about disproving any other theory, and discrediting anyone who has a different opinion than you in this thread. Your constant evasion of others' questions was irritating, and someone gave an opinion about that. It may not have been the most polite yet, but your posts haven't been better.I just wonder how you can keep asking proof if your not going to accept them (or even consider them) in the first place. You simply grab what other people said and change the subject/answer indirectly to slightly turn the matter upside down. That's not nice nor respectful. Thank you for your time as well. Creationism should not be taught in public schools. I'm glad my country doesn't even consider such a thing.

Considering that opening a wormhole would be something like having the mass of a black-hole rip the time-space, the energy required to keep the wormhole open would be massive (it would be like trying to create a black hole on our own!). However, there's still the problem of "will it be time travel"? We don't know what awaits on the other side loool

Who would've thought that one of the most realistic solutions to this problem could be found in.... a game.If any of you have player Serious Sam before, and at least remembers the story, it really makes some kind of sense.To all the others who haven't played, here's the thing:Sam "Serious" Stone is a really cool guy who comes back to the past to save the Earth But how he does that is what's cool. Supposedly, the Sirians (which would inhabit the Egypt back then), left a device called Time-Lock. This device created one end of the time traveling wormhole... In the far future, humankind created another time-lock and activated it, linking it to the one that had been activated in the past (creating the other end of the wormhole and linking them both - a complete wormhole).I know this is just a game and you can't base anything off of it. But the game did take these ideas from what scientists think about time travel! They consider the possibility of us being able to travel back and forward in time, but only *after* time-traveling has been "discovered". This solves the "go back and stop the time machine from being built" paradox, but it is not the whole solution, of course... Also, the grandfather paradox remains. But this too can be "solved", if we think that time will branch for such decisions. So, you'd be able to kill your grandfather, and you wouldn't be born at all... in some other parallel universe.Conclusion: We may be able to travel through time, but only as back as to when the time-machine itself was invented. Also, we may be able to "change" time in a way, but that wouldn't affect our universe because that would violate several laws lool. So, it would just be something like "looking back".(oh! and if we wanted to travel even farther than when the time-machine was invented, we could always rely on the possibility that other kinds of beings (aliens) could have invented similar technologies and thus enabled a "Time-Lock" even before we did... We could use theirs, and then head towards Earth, and then violate the "stop the machine from being built" paradox ).I know, I know, a lot of fantasy here... But they do make some kind of sense

Well, yeah, IE does dominate the market... But that doesn't mean it is not a lost cause. The browser itself is pure trash, when compared to modern browsers which are actually free. Also, IE cripples the web. You said you design webpages focusing on the xhtml rather than the looks... Well, if IE didn't exist at all, you wouldn't have to worry about such problems because most browsers support most standards in a decent way. Then you could use some more of what is the real power of the web, without worrying over hacks and stuff.. Concluding, IE is a crappy browser. Of course, many people still use it (and will, for a long time), but that's just because they're ignorant on the tech side of the program. It's not their fault, though... however, IE is indeed destroying the web.

Web compliant? Like not having SVG support? or even Animated PNG (i guess)? Even if the engine itself is re-written, there are lots of websites hacked for previous versions of IE, which will malfunction in newer versions because of said hacks. IE is a lost cause, Microsoft should face that, and stop trying to force their "browser" into every windows installation. The "new features" of IE will most likely already be available in other free browsers. (which, by the way, tend to be multiplatform and even independent from your system which is by itself a huge reason to make the switch). Also, Chrome and Firefox can exchange code... they're both open-source, so I'm sure that competition will only benefit us all (and leave IE behind in the dust). Since I'm already here, I might as well comment on the subject of the post as well. The best browser to design websites to is a text-based browser. Most of the stupidity hanging around in the Web results from bad planning of the logical structure of the site. Once you get that right, styling is easy and pretty straightforward, provided you don't use some advanced CSS selectors or properties. When you get to stage 2 (the styling stage), grab a copy of Firefox (and possibly Opera); these will be your best friends. Also, sites like browsershots will help you to ensure your site works in other browsers as well as in other platforms. Don't forget Firebug and Web-developer toolbar for firefox! (and the developer tools in Opera). As for IE... well, a lost cause. However, try to design simple but beautiful sites, which (by being simple) would work in IE. If you really need separate versions, please don't detect browsers using javascript... do it at server-side, with php. It saves you the trouble of someone having javascript disabled, such as users of NoScript, or savvy Opera users.

I don't really know if the reply was intended for me, but it doesn't matter. I just want to make a little correction. Yes, genes may have their own (unknown) purpose even if they aren't normally active. However, when one talks about "no more faulty genes" one surely means "no more "bad" mutations of said gene."

To start this off, let me say that this thread is about Creationism, not Christianity. Having said that, I may as well tell you that the existence of God has nothing to do with creationism, even if the Bible says it has. Even though I have to post to maintain hosting, I didn't come to Xisto for hosting... I was just looking for a general-purpose forum to post in I took advantage of the hosting because I could... and it may come in handy sometimes. Anyway, the burden of proof lies with you to prove Creationism is right! Because creationism was never proved right (it was in fact, proved wrong). Also, remember that evolution is a set of separate theories which have all been proven already. (like allele changing and mutations, etc) Regarding the Bible itself, the burden lies with you again... You need proof that the Bible is right... and if the Bible implies Creationism is true, and said theory has been proven wrong, then we must assume the rest of the Bible is or may be wrong as well (I'm using here the same technique creationists like to use, which is to deduce the veracity of the whole science from single scientific failures). I want to introduce a new concept as well. Before adequate proof, every theory is FALSE. Which means you have to prove your reasoning to make it valid, because it is already false, when you start. Concerning doctors, you know nothing more than doctors themselves (however, they know a whole lot more than you! even about yourself). By the way, without God, creationism is nothing. However, even with a God, it still remains nothing. I'd like to change the statement where I said the only argument you use is the Bible. As all creationists, you also make heavy use of the "define <word>" (like "respect") or even the classic "proof of burden is on you". The problem is creationists don't accept refutation (they think they don't need it, obviously) and that's why such theory will always remain false. Despite all the evidence of it, creationists keep trying to convince people. Conclusion: In order to prove creationism, you have to prove evolution is wrong. And to do it, you will have to have in-depth knowledge of every field it encompasses and every evidence there is in favor of it. The burden of proof is on you. Oh!, and you can go to https://www.plos.org/or even http://www.nejm.org/action/cookieAbsent/ or many other sites filled with proven scientific knowledge. About the gender neutrality of "him" vs "them", I was referring to a single doctor, hence the "him". If there is a non-plural gender-neutral form, please tell! Again, my english is not quite the best! (PS.: Creationism has been proved wrong already. See this also: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/71024083652.htm ) Thank you for your attention, and by the way, I accept no refutation (therefore I quit discussion due to endless repetition of creationism's false "arguments")

The sun will actually shrink to a white dwarf, probably As its mass doesn't reach Chandrasekhar's limit, it will not become a black hole. Also, It is not massive enough to blow away in a supernova :)And another thing... when the Sun runs out of Hydrogen and decides to start fusing Helium, it will swell... This swelling alone will suffice to swallow both Mercury and Venus, if not the Earth as well. Anyway, even if the Earth isn't swallowed, temperatures would rise so much that everything in the surface would simply roast to oblivion.

Please don't underestimate genetic engineering. Those bad genes and bad mutations that you talked about will someday be possible to correct and/or disable. Perhaps we will even be able to strip them off the genome altogether.Performing the "natural selection" you talked about is denying the very thing that makes us humans: we think and feel, and care about others too. As for evolving the mind and body themselves, you don't really know if it is not possible. It is highly improbable, but not impossible.

No it's not. You could perhaps say that people believe in Science, and they do, of course, because not everyone has to know every little detail of a theory to believe it. However, Science has been able to provide us with predictions, no only a glimpse of how the past might have been. So, you might say it is a little more than faith, because we have some proofs. :)Also, about Intelligent Design... many say, for example, that "from the myriad of possible molecules, how could the Earth be filled with H2O?". They say this is "Intelligent Design"... However, this actually has to do with the optimal configuration of the atoms within the molecule, so it is not a "one in a billion" shot, after all. It's quite natural, in fact. Also, Oxygen exists in many many places around the universe (and H+ is really abundant, as everyone knows). Well, there are limits for human knowledge, obviously, but consider the fact that not so many years ago, we couldn't even imagine the Earth was round, and now we can see far away through the stars... There's always room for improvement. About the time frames... these seem pretty consistent nowadays

Well, that is just what you believe in. Just because rules exist it doesn't mean they must be established by someone. Also, we're not discussing whether God exists or not. We're just talking about creationism vs evolution. Well, I can also prove you that many books say the Bible is wrong, and that it is impossible for that to have happened. Again, belief, not real proof. 1. No, what science says it is true, science usually is able to prove it is true! Like the already mentioned PET scans, or even quantum physics, which you make use of everyday.2. I didn't imply it, that's why it is not the case 3. Then prove me all the other books on specific scientific subjects aren't correct. Also, the Bible is ambiguous. 4. It does contradict. I'm not the right person to explain this to you, of course, some theoretical physicist would do fine... but a single Bang implies a whole space-time construct, and thus, a separate universe for each bang. 5. Accepting is good. You have a whole lot of imagination, my friend. Did you read that up in the Bible? 1. But if we can save someone and don't we're not humane.2. Prove it. God made some people to be atheists too, then. And somehow you want to convert them even though God created them for the sole purpose of being atheists. You make a very void point. 3. You'll have to tell me where I said I didn't believe that death was inevitable. Oh! the part where doctors save lives? Well, don't hide behind linguistic trenches. 4. Yes, people died because they opposed religious beliefs when heliocentrism was introduced too. Poor people! Dying for the ignorance and closed-minds of others. 5. Man, I'm sick of you hiding behind language. And by the way, I didn't call a sinner to anyone, *obviously*. 1. Is there anything objective about it?2. Crossing things out generally means we take something back. Language trench again! 1. Well, I can provide you with links to many studies which present the thought process and results of many investigations. Many of them are free, you know? They show all kinds of stuff including how to reproduce the tests! And please, I do want to discontinue the discussion. My english skills aren't advanced enough for me to skip all the language gaps you somehow managed to hide in.2. There are different kinds of "wrong things" to do. Plain "sinner" for all is an awful classification. 3. Well, prove me otherwise. Also, not quite a tautology, but close to it. More like having the Bible as the only argument. 4. What do you know? Medicine can often be tasty and administrated by oral means! But whatever, keep on skipping the doctor. Also, alternative medicines are good, too, especially due to their "low" prices and truly magnificent results (which include people's stomachs being washed out, after realizing something didn't really work, for example). 5. Are you serious? "Your statement excludes female doctors" <-- there we have it, another language-trap! Well, truefusion, it has been a nice discussion on how to write correctly and all that. But I am afraid I haven't got the time to reply to any more of these colossal answers filled with language-traps. Sorry. Anyway, creationism shouldn't be taught. Whether God exists or doesn't, it is a whole different question. Don't confuse things.

If you download the "Universal Boot CD" (UBCD), or even "Hiren's Boot CD", you should have a free cd with lots of tools for diagnostics and repairs of most systems... miniPE xt also comes in handy, if you like GUI's better (also, certain graphical tools have no console equivalent).As far as bad sectors are concerned, I believe that hdat2 does the trick (you can find it in the UBCD, under Disk Diagnostic tools, or something like that )However, I don't know how it works if the disk is SATA... I believe the IDE Legacy option in the bios makes it work if it didn't :)Anyway, even if you don't use it regularly, UBCD is a nice thing to have around You never know when you might need it

No, I didn't answer my own question, and you completely missed the point. If God created the rules, what makes you think He'd interfere with the world and us after said creation? Also, you can't prove that the basic physics rules which govern the universe had to be created by God. You can only believe it. You can however, prove that these rules existed ever since the dawn of Time, which has nothing to do with God. Well, you can't prove anything of what you just said You can only believe what you said, and I have no problem with that. However, certain things are impossible, like the earth being made in 6 days (even if it did exist before those 6 days). Also, the Bible implies that the Sun appeared after the Earth. Nah... it just doesn't fit. 1. It simply isn't. Just like you can't write a book on someone and have everyone believe that everything written on it is true.2. Very imaginative people. 3. No one. But the point is, that the Bible isn't a Book. It is JUST a book filled with metaphors. That's the difference. 4. The Big Bang does contradict the scripture because if it happened, many other things happened (such as the Sun having nearly 5 billion years, and the Earth having much much more than 6000 years). And of course the Vatican doesn't represent every Christian... but neither does each individual Christian represent the other ones. As I said, it is a personal thing. You should respect if someone doesn't share the same view you have about the Beginning of Time No, the belief of the Earth having 6000 years is what is irrelevant when we consider the solid proof we have that the Earth is much older than that. 1. Yes, they have, and just so you know, tumors can regress and disappear naturally. This was "predicted" by our good friends, the scientists! On the other hand, many God fearing people die because of them, and believe me, they pray, believe, and love God. I guess somethings are just up to doctors. Perhaps this is how it should be? Who said that God had to interfere and save those people? Why shouldn't we be saving ourselves if we have the knowledge to do so?2. Yes, it is also much more incorrect. Do you go to the doctor? Do you by any chance benefit of anything modern science created? You shouldn't. You should ask God. Maybe He'd give you a computer and leave every atheist scientist playing with rocks. Wait a minute... those scientists invented the computer! 3. Again, do you go to the doctor? Please don't! Also, everyone dies, not just those who believe in doctors. 4. Poor many people. 5. LOL. So, you call everyone who doesn't believe in God as you do a sinner. It is strange that someone who makes use of modern technology isn't a great sinner himself. Well, whatever... such labeling doesn't really have much effect. I also believe that there is Commandment that says "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor", but that's ok. I'm used to discuss this with many people. It's pointless though. They always say they are right just because they are... And everyone knows what happens when we discuss with denialists... 1. Because as incredible as this may sound, many people don't realize that religion is subjective! Hence my posting.2. No it doesn't LOL. As for the assuring part, I can really assure you. The word "probably" was referring to the after-life part. Put in other words: "You'll never know, at least probably not in this life, I assure you." After replying, I just realized myself that I am confronting a personal belief with scientific proof, which is just plainly wrong. Please reply *only* if you aren't going to start offending people (by calling them sinners) or if you aren't gonna say things whose validity equal that of a: "It is because it just is and it was written in a metaphor.". Oh, and by the way, be sure to skip the doctor next time. If you do go to the doctor, at least don't tell him "You are not gonna save anyone, they will all die!!!" because doing such a thing is pure Evil. It shows no respect for him.

(I am also straight) Just for the record, these behaviors may be the result of genetic variation, you know? The brain also undergoes sexual differentiation during fetal life, and neural plasticity also allows for some more after birth... so, it may not be just "whatever he wants". He may want it because he can't do otherwise (just like I can't stop being a straight guy). Sexual differentiation is still under deep investigation As for the depression, people will always tend to isolate gay people because they think they're freaks (a great example of ignorance!). They're deviated from what we are accustomed to, alright, but that doesn't mean it is their fault. It doesn't even mean it is bad! Sexuality is a range from almost black to almost white... there are NO absolute gay nor absolute straight people... If people were more informed of this kind of things, they would find it more normal You can all read up on these things after a little google search... The subject is actually quite interesting P.S.: Many gay people isolate themselves by claiming that everyone is against them... show-offers All the other ones are fine... and perfectly aware of what they can and can't do, due to their "condition". And by condition I mean being "different" from the majority of people... It happens Another P.S.: Social factors also contribute to sexual definition of oneself, obviously... I only roughly sketched the "genetic" factors

I don't get it. Why do we have to have a God that built the world with so much precision? It could've built itself up following simple rules of physics.I believe in God, but not like typical Christians. I respect their belief, though. I think it is something personal and cannot be judged.To me, God is a great being of much power, who potentially spawned everything into existence, according to a set of rules. What's the problem if we discover those rules?Anyway, in light of recent scientific advances, one mustn't let creationism take over our science classes. It's just not right. Most creationists say the universe (and the Earth itself) is about 6000 years-old... Well, carbon dating and other tests show that such thing is not possible. If one can bend the rules to his liking, of course it can, and most creationists say that this is the case. You can't prove it, of course... as much as we can't prove that the Earth has more than 6000 years, except for those already mentioned tests. But science *TESTED* it, at least. Referring to some occasional Bible passages is not grounds for stating: "The Bible said it! It must be right!" or else many of the poets would already be considered visionaries or even gods themselves! The Bible is a book. It really is. Also, remember that the Vatican recognized the veracity of the Big-Bang :)So, back to the "veracity" of tests we mortals base our knowledge on...I've heard some people say that carbon-dating and other such technologies are not precise and the results are thus wrong. Well, these techniques all come from a few fundamental theories which have been able to, for example, give us PET scans, x-rays, and other such essential tools for the human well-being. All these tools work because those fundamental theories in which they rely upon are in fact correct. Going from that, carbon dating must be correct as well, and the Earth has more than 6000 years.Also, I wouldn't trust my brain to a simple prayer if I had a tumor in it, for example. It is not that I don't believe in God, it is just that I believe that if somehow we're here, we have to figure things out by ourselves, and be worthy of the life we have. Doctors save lives, you know? What other gift could be greater than that? And they do it *because* science has improved so much! because DNA links between us and primates was proved (less genetic diseases)! We can also predict natural disasters and many other things! I think that if there is a God out there, He'd be really proud of what we have become over time.So, before flaming me with Bible passages, please consider that religion is a personal choice, and it matters only to oneself.Science, however, affects us all. Perhaps God intended it this way? You'll never know, at least probably not in this life, I assure you.

You could always ask that to NoScript's creator eheh As for the security in Chrome, it is virtually the same as any default install of firefox or safari (using chrome and webkit from those browsers, respectively). Still, I'd like to see some adblocking in Chrome (even though I support ads, I don't really like those that become really intrusive and stuff like that. Flash ads aren't good, too... they slow sites down). I'd like to see a NoScript equivalent in Chrome as well, but with granular control like the one that Opera offers (per-site settings regarding javascript, css, plugins, etc). I asked NoScript's author if he was ever gonna make NoScript able to perform these kinds of custom blockings and he said that he would... However, not until v2.0, at least. Looking forward, though. (especially if Chrome somehow begins supporting firefox's extensions to some degree)

Sorry if I did sound like I was a little mad, rayzoredge. After all, this "rant" wasn't supposed to be a rant at all (i just got carried away, not a pretty good day today :s). But after enabling javascript for Xisto's forums, I realized that this is a severe defect in the forum itself. So, this post is instead targetting the developers behind Xisto... Even though javascript resizing is good because it saves the trouble of having to waste some space in thumbnails, users like myself, who use noscript, don't get the resizing at all... and it looks *bad*. I know, I know, i just have to "turn on javascript for Xisto" and it'll all work. Which I did, of course... But still, I think it is pretty bad to leave such core layout features to the scripting engine which may not be available to all Sorry for the people who posted the big images with nothing bad in mind. In fact, I encourage posting images! I like posts with them... still, I prefer thumbnails. However, as it is, it wasn't the users' fault (neither was it my fault... I didn't know that the forum required javascript for reducing the images' size) sorry for all the trouble :x Also, sorry for the off-topic generated.

Just a tiny detail... don't you people know how to use thumbnails? I'm viewing the forum in a 1440x900 display (unusual for me) and images can't fit in the screen... Even though Opera can fit the image to the screen (and I'm sure some firefox extension does it too), people could simply post the images in thumbnail form, and people wanting to actually see them would click the thumbs. That saves some people the trouble of getting an horz-scrollbar and also the scrolling part (to get past the image). Remember that some people (especially those with computers not made for gaming), tend to have smaller screens, and use resolutions like 1024x768. It's just irritating when I see images *in a forum* that are bigger than my screen. Please don't do that. It's really not funny nor pretty. EDIT: Everything said in this reply was the result of a hot-head and some safe browsing (no javascript). I apologize everyone who may have felt offended by this

Google Chrome has the potential to become the best browser there is... First, Google had the guts to do what all the other ones didn't: pick up the good things from every other browser and build a new browser based on all of the good things they caught... Also, they released the code for free!. However, there's still a lot of work to be done... especially in single-core machines (like mine, since I am no speed-freak), Chrome has a very slow performance when handling flash-heavy sites like deezer! (even youtube causes it to freeze momentarilly).Also, memory consumption is pretty high, but I guess that would be a side-effect from the all the sandboxes... pretty neat, though. Even being a memory-hog, Chrome is a fast memory-hog :pAnother defect... Chrome has no support for animated PNGs nor animated SVGs, which is kind of going backwards in features, relatively to Opera (which supports APNG and ASVG) and Firefox (which supports APNG). It would be nice if it passed the Acid3 when it is done, too...Aside from these minor annoyances, Chrome really makes browsing comfortable... But it's not ready (it's a beta, lol!)

I have been using Chrome for a few days now...Here's what I think of it 'till now:Firstly, Chrome is a pretty bad name, giving excessive credit to the underlying framework, lol! Webkit deserves mentions too!And now for the real stuff.I too have seen the comic, and I loved it. As we all use Chrome's beta version, the comic is the only "preview" of the features it will have in the feature, and how they will work; and I must say that the whole browser was well thought up.Google began by fusing the best of the current browsers, which meant grabbing Apple's Webkit, Mozilla's chrome, IE's "simplicity" (very arguable point, here), and A few of Opera's good ideas (such as the speed-dial). While most people here tend to say Google copied everything and think that doing that is a bad thing, I think it is a wonderful thing. Browsers have reached a point where innovation is terribly hard to achieve; they can, however, copy each others features and perfect themselves a little more... and that's what Google did in Chrome.Performance is great. I love clicking that icon and the browser's window appearing in not much time than the startup of notepad. Only Opera had a startup close to this. IE's connections and "preloading" by the system exclude it from the "startup benchmark". Firefox takes a considerable amount of time to startup. Extensions only worsen the case. However, Chrome is still pretty bare bones... We'll have to wait for extensions and future betas to measure real startup times and performance too.Now, the rendering. Unlike some people here, I haven't had any problem whatsoever related to webkit's rendering. I've had scrolling issues with some specific CSS stuff (such as fixed backgrounds, which really slowed Chrome's scrolling down). Despite that, I still think that using (and investing in) Webkit is a great choice. Why reinvent the wheel? We might as well pick up the best wheel we've got and perfect it instead of building one from scratch.The design is also a big plus. I thought I would hate it, but I've come to love it. Simple, clean, pretty straightforward. Tab reordering is smooth (it's a small sparkling detail, lol)... Tab opening and closing is also smoothly animated. However, LOTS of tabs look horribly bad (missing some scroll or multiline options here, i guess). Other than that, I like the url bar UNDER the tabs... because it pretty much makes sense that if a tab is assigned to a site, and that site has an address, then that tab should have its own address bar. The toolbar is also really simple. I don't really like similarity with IE's toolbar (the two little right buttons), but I have to admit it may attract former IE users. I miss a status bar for checking links' urls, etc...Oh, and I must say... the Location Bar is awesome. It certainly is MUCH better than firefox's bar (which is... slow... and lacks some tiny details that Google focused on, such as never getting addresses you never typed in autocompletion, etc...)About the task manager now... It's really cool! Even though chrome still has some memory management problems (heavy use may cause hangups, especially using plugins), this task manager WILL come in handy in the future. It's a really nice feature... And the separate processes for each tab... another delight.A memory hog, many will say... but I have it running with 512MB of RAM in a P4 1.6GHz (FSB 133) and it kicks firefox's and opera's *bottom* any time...... with the exception of flash based sites. Plugin handling is in fact defective. I've tried it in other computers, and Chrome simply degrades horribly when in the presence of flash or adobe's pdf plugin. Using deezer in Chrome is a PITA... really.Anyway, I loved the browser. It's my primary browser on windows, btw. I'm just awaiting a linux version LOL!I know I missed several things... I'm just tired now. Maybe someday I'll talk a bit more about this

Loved the joke about Gordon Freeman xDAnyway, you can't create a "stable" black hole unless you grab something as massive as 1.2x (or 1.4x) the mass of our Sun... The "black holes" created by the LHC will be so transitory that many of them will be created and evaporate in just one second.People often talk without knowing a damn thing about what they are talking about... Mis-information is bad