From the Quantum Physics that I did at uni I would have thought that the relationship stated in the article was blindingly obvious, but then the way Scientists like to complicate Quantum Physics is one of the reasons I'm glad I never completed the degree in Applied Physics.
They have the same problem lawyers do, the more complicated it sound the more important they feel.
I read the comic book style chrome blurb that google put up and part of it proclaimed that chrome would not crash your system like other browsers cause it opens each tab in a separate process and you can just close the tab to release the memory.
Well being a software engineer i installed chrome, opened a few tabs and task manager and well i watched the memory grow. Instead of one process that leaks memory you now have numerous processes that leak memory.
And they all seemed to get to 10Mb very fast and you could just sit there and watch the Kb tick over, all while your not doing anything. (the first tab was at 25mb)
So if your like me and use a minimum of 5 tabs I bet the amount of memory that you use for chrome will actually be more than firefox as there will be a memory leak in each tab and they will all grow.
But at least it gives the google devs and excuse not to fix the memory leaks.
Wouldn't it be simpler to encapsulate the spell checker within the syntax highlighter, or call it from the syntax checker. That way you could define a list of do not spell check words for the language and use the syntax checker to define what needs to be checked for spelling.
The syntax checker would do most of the string analysis that would be needed to identify what should be spell checked and what shouldn't, I am assuming?
But there are huge number of predictions that have been made based on evolution that have shown to be true.
What predictions would those be? Probably in a single celled organism.
I give you a challenge I bet you have no idea of the scientific evidence that does support the scientific theory of creationism. Go look at this evidence and rationally and objectively study the evidence. And Creationism is an evolving body of knowledge and one addition that was made to this body of knowledge is the white whole theory of creation. This theory, with accompanying mathematical explanation, explains how the earth could have been created in six days while the rest of the universe existed for millions of years as it is essentially the opposite of a black hole.
But the hidden agenda behind this whole debate is that people do not want to believe in creation as this would mean they have to admit that we as humans are not the centre of the universe (or America isn't anyway:) ) and that there is a God. This is the major and real reason that people will not believe in creation.
And I do not believe that you can back up that claim of mounds of data supporting evolution. How do you as an evolutionist reconcile the theory of evolution with the second law of thermodynamics, that a system tends to disorder. Doesn't evolution require that the earth system become more ordered?
Another thing is that the decay in the earths magnetic field supports an age of about 6000 years and making the age of the earth larger than this leads to problems as it gets rather strong.
Along with this if you do a simple study of population growth you can also get today's population in the age of the earth predicted by creatonism.
Also I would like to know just how a closed system can add information to itself as you seem to be proposing that evolution does. Where does this information come from, does it just appear out of thin air, its one of the basic and fundamental principles of physics that energy is neither created nor destroyed but this is essentially what evolution proposes. As this would mean that the oil and coal we burn today for energy had its origin in well thin air as there was no energy added to the system, the plants that formed coal and oil essential appeared one day pulling themselves up by there boot straps violating the basic principles of physics.
I am continually surprised that intelligent rational people seem to loose there intelligence and rationality when confronting the issue of the creation evolution debate.
Neither theory can be experimentally verified as this would require the creation of a new universe. All we can do is look at the evidence that presents itself and compare this with what each theory predicts. Unbiased scientific study requires the ability to admit that your pet theory may be wrong if none of the facts that you find are predicted by your theory.
Evolution predicts that one species (ie a bird) will evolve from a species that is not a bird (ie a reptile). Yet any evolutionist worth his salt will have to admit (when pushed) that no transitional fossils have been found.
Also Evolution requires that the earth as a system goes from a system containing only single celled organisms to what we have today. This means that a lot of information has to be added to the system (ie DNA) where even one mistake in that DNA could spell doom for the entire new species. Therefore the new species has to be virtually born as is from parents that do not contain all the genetic information that the new born child has. And this is just two of the hurdles that the theory of evolution is yet to overcome despite a century of research. So before you go bagging creationism as unscientific do an examination of the facts and see which theory has more scientific evidence to support its claim.
Evolutionism is as much based on faith as creationism is.
Slashdot Mirror
From the Quantum Physics that I did at uni I would have thought that the relationship stated in the article was blindingly obvious, but then the way Scientists like to complicate Quantum Physics is one of the reasons I'm glad I never completed the degree in Applied Physics. They have the same problem lawyers do, the more complicated it sound the more important they feel.
I read the comic book style chrome blurb that google put up and part of it proclaimed that chrome would not crash your system like other browsers cause it opens each tab in a separate process and you can just close the tab to release the memory.
Well being a software engineer i installed chrome, opened a few tabs and task manager and well i watched the memory grow. Instead of one process that leaks memory you now have numerous processes that leak memory.
And they all seemed to get to 10Mb very fast and you could just sit there and watch the Kb tick over, all while your not doing anything. (the first tab was at 25mb)
So if your like me and use a minimum of 5 tabs I bet the amount of memory that you use for chrome will actually be more than firefox as there will be a memory leak in each tab and they will all grow.
But at least it gives the google devs and excuse not to fix the memory leaks.
Wouldn't it be simpler to encapsulate the spell checker within the syntax highlighter, or call it from the syntax checker. That way you could define a list of do not spell check words for the language and use the syntax checker to define what needs to be checked for spelling. The syntax checker would do most of the string analysis that would be needed to identify what should be spell checked and what shouldn't, I am assuming?
But there are huge number of predictions that have been made based on evolution that have shown to be true. What predictions would those be? Probably in a single celled organism. I give you a challenge I bet you have no idea of the scientific evidence that does support the scientific theory of creationism. Go look at this evidence and rationally and objectively study the evidence. And Creationism is an evolving body of knowledge and one addition that was made to this body of knowledge is the white whole theory of creation. This theory, with accompanying mathematical explanation, explains how the earth could have been created in six days while the rest of the universe existed for millions of years as it is essentially the opposite of a black hole. But the hidden agenda behind this whole debate is that people do not want to believe in creation as this would mean they have to admit that we as humans are not the centre of the universe (or America isn't anyway :) ) and that there is a God. This is the major and real reason that people will not believe in creation.
And I do not believe that you can back up that claim of mounds of data supporting evolution. How do you as an evolutionist reconcile the theory of evolution with the second law of thermodynamics, that a system tends to disorder. Doesn't evolution require that the earth system become more ordered?
Another thing is that the decay in the earths magnetic field supports an age of about 6000 years and making the age of the earth larger than this leads to problems as it gets rather strong.
Along with this if you do a simple study of population growth you can also get today's population in the age of the earth predicted by creatonism.
Also I would like to know just how a closed system can add information to itself as you seem to be proposing that evolution does. Where does this information come from, does it just appear out of thin air, its one of the basic and fundamental principles of physics that energy is neither created nor destroyed but this is essentially what evolution proposes. As this would mean that the oil and coal we burn today for energy had its origin in well thin air as there was no energy added to the system, the plants that formed coal and oil essential appeared one day pulling themselves up by there boot straps violating the basic principles of physics.
I am continually surprised that intelligent rational people seem to loose there intelligence and rationality when confronting the issue of the creation evolution debate. Neither theory can be experimentally verified as this would require the creation of a new universe. All we can do is look at the evidence that presents itself and compare this with what each theory predicts. Unbiased scientific study requires the ability to admit that your pet theory may be wrong if none of the facts that you find are predicted by your theory. Evolution predicts that one species (ie a bird) will evolve from a species that is not a bird (ie a reptile). Yet any evolutionist worth his salt will have to admit (when pushed) that no transitional fossils have been found. Also Evolution requires that the earth as a system goes from a system containing only single celled organisms to what we have today. This means that a lot of information has to be added to the system (ie DNA) where even one mistake in that DNA could spell doom for the entire new species. Therefore the new species has to be virtually born as is from parents that do not contain all the genetic information that the new born child has. And this is just two of the hurdles that the theory of evolution is yet to overcome despite a century of research. So before you go bagging creationism as unscientific do an examination of the facts and see which theory has more scientific evidence to support its claim. Evolutionism is as much based on faith as creationism is.