Summary:

Pros - Very fast (almost twice as fast as IE and Firefox), great tab system, very elegant, operates like an Operating System, runs smoothly, lots of space, great javascript controls, great URL bar options.

Cons - Limited on options to adjust style codes and features, sometimes slows while multitasking, does not have a full screen display (but doesnt need one), not all sites support it yet.

Comment - This is a great operating system, with no doubt its better than IE and Safari but is still competing for the spot from Opera and Firefox. It has the speed on both of them, but the features that Opera and Firefox offer still put of battling marks for Google to take on. I feel its a bit scary that Google is not putting out a competing browser because that puts them one step closer to taking over the metaphorical cyber-white house. Google is already a POWERHOUSE in the world and its almost scary for them to be branching out to browsers and rumors says they will have an Operating System in the upcoming years. AHH! But I must say that they really did go all out with this thing. It’s still needs some work but for a beta, this is the best browser to come in the game with such a mighty stomp.

First of all the interface -

The interface of this browser is pretty spectacular in many aspects. The ability to operate much like an Operating System in terms of its tabs, as you can easily drag a tab from one open browser into another and it moves it like if you were to drag a file from one folder to another. Its the first browser to really go all out on the tabs.

Also while operating in a maximized window, it consumes most of your view with the web page, not the browser options at the top. They managed to reduce the size of the options bar to Tabs and URL alone. No title bar, no bookmarks, no ads, no RSS feeds, just simple and to the point….

Creating new tabs are also pretty spectacular. As you click on the new tab button it gives you a screen shot and link to the 9 most used websites in your history. Also to the side of that is a search bar of your history so you can search your history to past sites you have been too… This is far better than an instructional guide page as you open up a new tab like Mozilla and IE put on.

Beta testing-

As for the Acid1 and Acid 2 tests it scores very well against competing browsers. While it has not yet passed the Acid3 test, Google Chrome scores 78/100—higher than both Internet Explorer 7 (14/100) and Firefox 3 (71/100), but lower than Opera’s 84/100.

Note that is has not been tested much against Internet Explorer 8.

Speed -

As it takes a new approach in its Javascript virtual machine it has been tested that is running about twice as fast as Internet Explorer 8 and Firefox 3. There is no doubt that this is one of the fastest browsers out there for the operations.

Compatibility -

While its only available for Windows as of right now, the Mac OS and Linux versions will be coming out soon. Some sites such as CNN.com’s Video page still do not support the browser and Google Chrome did not make it self suitable to run Active X.

Web Developers Capability -

The ability to have a task manager for each individual browser allows a great display of what websites are sucking out of your computer. It also allows a security issue to be cured… Since each tab is on its own process, they cannot get information off your other tabs and heighten security in many other aspects.

Also there is a great display of options for web developers to mess around with

So most likely I will be redoing the site instead of fixing what has already happened…. Unfortunately, I have no back up so that is not an option….

So blah.

            God is easily represented as a simple way to explain the universes and there is no arguing that in many cases that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. Nonetheless, it is needless to say that God is far more complex than what he’s made out to be. The idea that an all powerful, all knowing super being creating the universe is raising a far greater question that philosophers have been asking for hundreds of years, “How was God (a ridiculously complex deity) created?” This question later allowed science to ask that same question but using the Scientific Method.

            I like to refer to the Scientific Method like a game of Sudoku (a logic-based number placement puzzle. The objective is to fill a 9×9 grid so that each column, each row, and each of the nine 3×3 boxes contain the digits from 1 to 9, only one time each). When beginning this game of Sudoku, you are given a series of numbers to start the game (as displayed in the picture below).

These given numbers are what I refer to as facts in science, this would include anything that we know as laws of the universe or anything we can see touch or measure (all things that cannot be disputed). Given that information you are able to make assumptions, based on the facts that you have, that a particular box is more than likely a certain number.

(this example shows the logic used to indicate why it makes sense that this is write)

That particular show of logic is what science would call a theory, something that would go through all the rules of Sudoku (the Scientific Method) and find no evidence that contradicted the theory. After that there are many situations in the game where only a particular few numbers will properly fit into a given box.

In scientific view, these would be hypothesis, which are any hints or educated guesses that potentially hold through the discovered evidence, although does not have enough evidence to be though without a doubt.

            By this Sudoku terminology, completing the grid is the scientific goal. Steven Hawkings (one of the most prestigious scientist in the world) has many times over said that “one day I have hopes that we will discover all the mysteries of the universe and be able to simplify them in ways that can be taught to children.” However, until that we are left with a series of hypothesis and a multitude of theory that all cannot become fact until the puzzle is filled. Until then, these empty boxes get used by Creationist to help persuade a deity. The largest of these gaps today are still in retrospect the largest to ever exist; the probability of the cosmos, universe and life itself.

            The Anthropic Principle is widely introduced philosophical viewpoint of how the cosmos, universe and life itself were able to be produced under such high improbability. By definition, the anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed. In other words, the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If it were a different type of universe, we would not exist to see it. Inconclusively, we are figuratively a needle in a stack of 100 billion haystacks. So from the needles perspective, it’s easily comprehensible to believe that the chances of it being the needle seems imposable, but from every other part of the 100 billion haystacks, the needle seems to have to be somewhere.

In a planetary sense, our planet is in perfect track to what a planet needs to support life, thus being able to support life. Now under the concept that these conditions are rare, it seems entirely possible considering how many unsuccessful tries the cosmos was given. It is estimated that the cosmos as we can see consists of over a billion different galaxies each consisting of over 100 billion planets. That would be in total, there are 100 billion billion (or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000) planets in the universe. So even if the chances of all the building blocks required to produce life are 1 in 100 billion, there would be billions of planets producing life.

(Take a note how big a billion actually is; A billion credit cards combined would weigh the same as 1562 hippopotamuses, 52 blue whales, or 78 brachiosaurus. If a billion credit cards stacked up they would be as high as: 120 Mt. Everests or 7,219 Great Pyramids)

            Getting past that it is easy to say that even if we are the ONLY planet in the universe with life, it is statically very possible that it would happen, and if it wasn’t we wouldn’t be around to justify its existence.

            “The anthropic principle is usually applied not to planets but to universes. Physicists have suggested that the laws and constants of physics are too good - as if the universe were set up to favour our eventual evolution. It is as though there were, say, half a dozen dials representing the major constants of physics. Each of the dials could in principle be tuned to any of a wide range of values. Almost all of these knob-twiddlings would yield a universe in which life would be impossible. Some universes would fizzle out within the first picosecond. Others would contain no elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. In yet others, matter would never condense into stars (and you need stars in order to forge the elements of chemistry and hence life). You can estimate the very low odds against the six knobs all just happening to be correctly tuned, and conclude that a divine knob-twiddler must have been at work. But, as we have already seen, that explanation is vacuous because it begs the biggest question of all. The divine knob twiddler would himself have to have been at least as improbable as the settings of his knobs.” [Richard Dawkins] Although, as far as scientist know, it’s possible that these knobs were never able to be readjusted and that physics works under the laws that it does because it has to in order to work at all. Even if that is not the case, understanding the planetary anthropic principle it works the same way when it comes to the universe(s). If there are a series of different universes, with an unknown number or infinite number of them, it would seem unlikely that we of all universes would be the ones that could produce life, although the fact that we are able to observe that scenario guarantees that we are a universe that can produce life. In other words, if there were only universes that could not produce life, there would be no life to question how it would. “As physicists have said, it is no accident that we see stars in our sky, for a universe without stars would also lack the chemical elements necessary for life. There may be universes whose skies have no stars: but they also have no inhabitants to notice the lack.” [as quoted in The God Delusion]

The atheist belief of how the cosmos’s fundamentally functions can be seen, tested, and evaluated by abundant amounts of people and offer information that is normally out of reach of the everyday view. For instance, Daniel Dennett mentioned in his book Breaking the Spell that “you are normally oblivious of your own blind spot, and people are typically amazed to discover that we don’t see colors in our peripheral vision. It seems as if we do, but we don’t, as you can prove to yourself by wiggling colored cards at the edge of your vision—you’ll see motion just fine but not be able to identify the color of the moving thing.” Science has been able to find answers that are visible to the world, with proof, ideas that an everyday person would not even consider. Undoubtedly, religion does offer a well structured argument that really throws people off perspective and to the average person seems to be lost to think there is no other answer. The complex universe has numerous variables that, if changed in the slightest, would make the universe inhabitable. Our loss of ability to view this blind spot leaves the norm to believe that all these misleading blind spots are subject of a deity. This however is not the case.

In contrast with intelligent design theory, Anthropic Principle implies that the creation (or lack-there-of) of the cosmos is a statistical guarantee along with the question of the universe and our inhabitable planet; and from the perspective of observers of this, we are subject to a bias to think the opposite. This is all in spite seeing that out of the entire cosmos, we are justifiably the sole purpose of it all; not just earth, but the human race alone.

By definition, the anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed. In other words, the only universe we can see is one that supports life. If it were a different type of universe, we would not exist to see it. Inconclusively, we are figuratively a needle in a stack of 100 billion haystacks. So from the needles perspective, it is easy to find itself, but from every other part of the 100 billion haystacks, the needle appears to be impossible to find. In a planetary sense, our planet is in perfect track to what a planet needs to support life, thus being able to support life. Now under the concept that these conditions are rare, it seems entirely possible considering how many unsuccessful tries the cosmos was given. It is estimated that the cosmos as we can see consists of over a billion different galaxies each consisting of over 100 billion planets. That would be in total, there are 100 billion billion (or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000) planets in the universe. So even if the chances of all the building blocks required to produce life are 1 in 100 billion, there would be billions of planets producing life. (Take a note how big a billion actually is; A billion credit cards combined would weigh the same as 1562 hippopotamuses, 52 blue whales, or 78 brachiosaurus. If a billion credit cards stacked up they would be as high as: 120 Mt. Everests or 7,219 Great Pyramids) Getting past that it is easy to say that even if we are the ONLY planet in the universe with life, it is statically very possible that it would happen.

“The anthropic principle is usually applied not to planets but to universes. Physicists have suggested that the laws and constants of physics are too good - as if the universe were set up to favour our eventual evolution. It is as though there were, say, half a dozen dials representing the major constants of physics. Each of the dials could in principle be tuned to any of a wide range of values. Almost all of these knob-twiddlings would yield a universe in which life would be impossible. Some universes would fizzle out within the first picosecond. Others would contain no elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. In yet others, matter would never condense into stars (and you need stars in order to forge the elements of chemistry and hence life). You can estimate the very low odds against the six knobs all just happening to be correctly tuned, and conclude that a divine knob-twiddler must have been at work. But, as we have already seen, that explanation is vacuous because it begs the biggest question of all. The divine knob twiddler would himself have to have been at least as improbable as the settings of his knobs.” (Richard Dawkins) Although as far as scientist know, its possible that these knobs were never able to be readjusted and that physics works under the laws that it does because it has to in order to work at all. Even if that is not the case, understanding the planetary anthropic principle it works the same way when it comes to the universe(s). If there are a series of different universes, with an unknown number or infinite number of them, it would seem unlikely that we of all universes would be the ones that could produce life, although the fact that we are able to observe that scenario guarantees that we are a universe that can produce life. In other words, if there were only universes that could not produce life, there would be no life to question how it would. “As physicists have said, it is no accident that we see stars in our sky, for a universe without stars would also lack the chemical elements necessary for life. There may be universes whose skies have no stars: but they also have no inhabitants to notice the lack.” (as quoted in The God Delusion)

….This passage will be added to later on with additional content including the anthropic principle regarding to life itself and much more.

________________________________________

How to change the background by simply replacing the old ones

You know hand coding it is not very hard if you have Resource Hacker

Simply open up
ZuneShellResource.dll
(This file can be found in your C:/Program Files/Zune folder)

after that there are only a couple things you need to do to edit your bunch of crap. first off… if you go into the RCData section you will see a series of 6 items called

FRAMEBACKGROUND[xx].PNG

For those who are unfamiliar with Resource Hacker, the program opens up .dll files so that you can read them. In that file may contain images and style sheets, so those files have to be modified to change the background

For changing the Zune background the file that you will be looking to replace is

the RCData sub named FRAMEBACKGROUND[XX].PNG

XX - being the number you want to replace.

00 being the first one on the display screen for your Zune software
05 being the last

To change this with a file you have (does not have to be PNG) go to
Action > Replace other Resource
it will ask what resource type it is. Just type in RCData
then replace the FRAMEBACKGROUND[XX].PNG that you desire.

(If you would rather add an additional background scroll down and I will show you how to do that as well)

When your done with that make sure to right click on the .png you uploaded
it will open up with a single drop-down reading “0″
Right click on that and hit Change Language
Change the “0″ to “1033″

________________________________________

Change the color scheme

In addition to this tutorial I would like to show everyone how to change the color scheme of the program as well. I have most of it mapped out but some of it is a mystery.

To change the colors its pretty simple

Go to the RCData and scroll down Styles.UIX
Open the 1033 file to see the style code.

If you scroll down (not to far) you will see this immediately:

Quote:

if you change the

<color name=”w/e” Color=”xxx, xxx, xxx”/>

xxx value to your desired colors, using the RGB spectrum and it will change all the font on the screen.

For mine I simply change Dark Gay to Orange and changed DoradoBlack to pink and some minor changes to other.

________________________________________

Adding a new item on the display menu

Now if you want to add a new section to your menu on your actual Zune software just follow this instruction.

If you scroll down far enough in the Styles.UIX file you will also find a section that looks like this

Quote:

In order to create a new option on the menu simply modify what I added in to my code above and modify the name to what ever you desire, as for the background image use the same process to add a new image to your .dll file;

go to Action > Add New Resource
Again, the resource type is RCData
And name it whatever name you would like

I stayed with the FRAMEBACKGROUNDXX.PNG to stay organized….

________________________________________

Saving after modify

At the end of this don’t try to save it directly. To make sure it works, move the unmodified version out of the Zune folder to somewhere safe (I just used my desktop). Then compile the code and Save As in the Zune folder the same file name, ZuneShellResource.dll.

If you receive and error while opening it, you did something wrong, simply move the safe original copy back into the folder.

A question of time has much baffled great scientist and norms alike. When did it start? When does it end? Is there a start? And how did it happen? Many will argue that a personal God is the answer to all these questions. God is the creator of the universe and he eternal. This leads to a question of “What created God?” to the popular mind. The only way out of this is to say that he has always been here, which is the common answer to hear by most theists. Although there appears to be lurking a new questions beyond this, and not even I really though about it before I heard someone ask it. If god has been here for all of eternity, why did he wait an infinite amount of years before creating the universe? This question is designed, not to have an answer but to address an issue, although the designer of the question did not realize that there is even a deeper issue beyond the underlining issue.

To understand my point in full I have to explain exactly what infinity is and how it does and does not work. Infinity is a notion that was grasped by most grade school students. Minimally it is describe to have no beginning and no end is to be infinite. People like Stephen Hawking and Einstein take this concept to the next level: they take it to the physical level of the universe, to a quantum level of matter, and to the level of the origin of the cosmos. Although, when you put in the idea of a personal god or creator of the universe, this whole idea changes completely. In order for the idea of infinity to work it must both have no beginning and no end, it can’t have one without the other or it defies the very laws of infinity.

I have talked about this topic before and I did find that there are some issues that people do not immediately understand. The phrasing of the question was one. “If god has been here for all of eternity, why did he wait an infinite amount of years before creating the universe?” This question implies some concepts that are not exactly understood by everyone. I was put for by the questions, who said he waited an infinite amount of years before creating the universe. In an infinite timeline, if you put the creation of the universe at any point on the timeline there will still be an infinite amount of time before and after that point, so no matter when it was created there was an infinite amount of time put forth before it, thus meaning that he waiting an infinite amount of time before creating it. However, this is not where the problem essentially lies, to be infinite would imply that there is no end and no beginning like I said before, this means for God to decide to wait for an infinite amount of time before creating the universe, he himself would have to be able to defy infinity itself. This is much like asking the question “could God create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it?” (Stephen Hawking) Could he break down the very principles that he himself exists in. In order to fully understand the problem I have to bring up Murphy’s Law, Murphy broadly proclaimed that in an infinite amount of time, if you give something a chance to happen, it will happen. This would entail that God being able to defy the laws of infinity itself, infinity could not exist because it will eventually be defied. This would mean that God could not be living in an infinite state of being and if he does, he would not be able to function in it or defy it.

As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn’t reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe.

[Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 8]

If time did not exist before the existence of the universe, this would break down the very process of anything, nothing could be manufactured without the mere perspective of time, so to be able to create a universe (in six days, ironically enough) would not be possible, it defies everything that has even been and has answers no real question. Simply saying that time was created by something that exists without time is unproven, un-cited, unapplied in any works of god or science and is less rational than the alternatives. It would be just as rational (if not more) to believe that our timeline is circular and over a period of time (an unimaginable amount of time) the universe would repeat itself, much like what’s implied by my article The Theory of Atheism. This would be an alternative solution that would not defy every bit of evidence that we do have and the very matter of being itself. Although there are perhaps other alternatives, a timeless dimension seems to be the least logical of which would be our creator.

This is an audio-book / novel / e-book that really come to surprise to me when I first listened to it. A Letter To A Christian Nation puts a full debate on Christianity and the flaws in its faith. Sam Harris showed great understanding of Christianity and Atheism equally and fights almost every controversial subject brought forth between Christians and Atheist. I highly recommend anyone who is interested in Christianity or Atheism or just curious on the topic to read this book or listen to the audiobook. Sam Harris goes over the good of god, stem cell research, abortion, the truth of god, the voice of god, economic vs. Christianity, and so on. All in which are argued for both sides and very factual and sighted. Short, sweat and to the point.

Here is a torrent to this e-book.

Here is a torrent to this audiobook.

By definition, a member of the Republican Party is the more socially conservative and economically libertarian of the two major parties, and has closer ties to both Wall Street (large corporations) and Main Street (locally owned businesses) than do the Democrats and less affiliation with labor unions. Republicans have a strong belief in personal responsibility, limited government, and corporate entrepreneurship. Republicans generally oppose gay marriage, oppose abortion, and oppose embryonic stem cell research. In the next few passages I am simply going to rant about the Republican belief and the flaws in there logic.

Generally Republicans’ main concern is making sure that government has little power over business. Ideally this is a good idea, this helps keep our economy strong and helps pay off our outstanding debt and inflation and on top of that it makes us a stronger country to let businesses do what they do best. However, there are many flaws in that logic. Business do anything they can to keep there business strong and above all other, keeping government out helps them set up forms of a monopoly, a situation in which one company controls an industry or is the only provider of a product or service. This alone can break our entire economy down make us slaves to these businesses as they raise prices to things such as bread, flower, copper, steal, tin, water, or any other commonly used item. Although we do have laws to help prevent against a monopoly, there is only so much the government is able to do when a company is at large. A Republican government would also be absent for large companies giving increasingly lower wages for work worth far more than what they are putting out. Take China for example, China makes millions and billions of dollars from there exports each year and pay there workers penny’s on the dollar to do the work, this will cause the gross of money to the business owners and not to the business workers. This is how today’s economy is stretched to where 99% of our total economy in America is owned by only 1% of citizens. This is good for the country and good for the business owners, but in the end it hurts everyone the same.

Republicans are known to believe that the impending doom of the world is far beyond what we can see and nothing we are doing is contributing to things such as global warming and the usages of all the world’s materials. Republicans generally take economy over environment on most issues. Party members care about what’s happening now but take no part in looking at the future issues that we are creating today because it would raise taxes and break businesses. What republicans don’t seem to realize though is that the future is much closer than it appears and that what we are doing now is only making things worse. The general public has been made to believe that global warming is just a played out myth that isn’t really happening because of one word that we use to describe it; The Theory of Global Warming. In science, facts must be explained in reference to other facts, these larger explanatory models are “theories”. Theories make predictions and in principle can be tested. One that thinks that the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Global Warming cannot be justified in fact is mistaken. Disbelief in those theories is just as illogical as disbelief in the Theory of Gravitation or the Germ Theory of Disease. The fact of the matter is that without tax raises and economic penalization Global Warming will take outstanding effect in our society. In just the past 10 years we have beaten out the global temperature high record that could be recorded up to 100,000 years back, and there is MUCH belief that there is reason to blame green house gasses produced by humans inefficient ways. Sure, taxes may go up and big business may lose a lot of profit, but in return you are sparing our world from losing all usability within the next 100 years.

Republicans set a large moral stand against gay marriages by justifying the fact that in the bibles definition it is a union between a man and a woman. In biblical idealization this would be some justification for illegalizing gay marriages if marriage was an idea conceived by the bible. Marriage was an act that took place long before Jesus’ birth and in no way was created by the bible. It was merely a way to enslave a woman to sex and child-baring 2000 years ago. To think that those definitions should still be used today is like thinking that interracial couples should not be aloud to marry (which is stated in the bible) and black people should be enslaved and forced to do white peoples daily chores with no pay. That fact that we were able to outgrow those ideas and realize that not all idea of life during 30 AD was perfectly logical in its thinking but cannot grow out of the idea of letting two people of the same gender marry is insane. Although many may state that this was not the way that people though back then, it was the way that Jesus though us to believe. Before I even bring up that idea of separation between church and state, I would like to point out that the bible also said it if you found that your wife have had sex before marriage, you are to beat her dead on her fathers doorstep. That fact that we no longer practice that idea but are still willing to ban all gay people from marrying is unjustifiable. Many argue that we have substituted marriage for civil unions for those that are homosexual may still get all the rights of a marriage, just as black people were able to get the same water as the white but were not aloud to use the white peoples fountains. All this does is create what we created 50 years ago: separate but equal powers.

Republicans believe that under most circumstances abortion should be illegal. They believe that every life is sacred and that no one has the right to kill another human, although, republicans are also the ones still in favor of the death sentence. Many simply argue that if someone decides to have unsafe sex, they should be prepared to have a child. Besides the fact that that argument seems to make believe that a child is simply a punishment of a careless sex fiend, the idea that argues that people should no be able to have a decision of weather or not that something will be harvesting off your body and food to live for 9 months along with 18 years more of leaching of all your other worldly possessions is irrational. Do you think its justifiable that you should be forced let a dying man on the street live in your body and feed off you in order to live without your consent simply due to the fact that you were the one to stumble about him? I know I wouldn’t.

Stem cell research has shown to be one of the greatest revolution in genetic science EVER. Stems cells have the ability to be put onto a human body and reconstruct and recreate damaged or missing cells no matter what kind of cell they were. Stem cells have the potential to be any type of cell and can be used that way. Normal stem cells are taken from 6 day old embryo. A 6 day old embryo has been proven to have no developed brain of any sort and would have no way of feeling pain or misery. So to think that a 6 day embryo has the right to live more than a 20 year old man that has been paralyzed due to a spinal cord injury is also insane. To make the argument that embryo is potential life and is sinful to kill would also be illogical. Due to recent discovery we have found that almost every one of our cells can be made into potential life not just sperm and eggs. So thinking this would mean that if you were to scratch you back you are performing genocide of potential life forms.

My main purpose of this argument was to state that Republicans take ideals from the past and build on them for today and build the best “today” that they can without thinking of any future consequences. If we were to spare every life and let businesses have control of economy, we would be an incredibly rich, over populated, malresourced country in the world for the next 50 years before it becomes completely unusable. So please give me input on what you have to say and feel free to add on whatever argument you would like. I would love to hear you input.

Well folks. It happened. Stephen Colbert finally took the plunge. Last night he announced that he is running for President of the United States of America both as a Democrat and a Republican in his home state of South Carolina.

Although, because you can’t run for more than one party, he was forced to be a part of only the democratic party. He will still need signatures from South Carolina residents to become a valid member but as of now, he will be in the campaign. This will include him being in the debates and having fundraisers. Now this is gonna be interesting.