No, the article is spot on. I noticed this two weeks ago when I was looking for fixes for our W2K and E2K servers. The patches they provide are only good for W2K3 and E2K3 stuff. Of course, they also offer instructions for free on how to patch them yourself - which is what I ended up doing.
FYI, benchmark I just did. Both done with a clean start of the application. Time to load this particular page, with 500-something comments, in the new comment format. This is timed from when you click go on the URL to when the page is fully loaded and rendered. Same background load for both runs.
Machine: 3.0 GHz Pentium 4, 1 GB RAM, 160GB SATA drive, Windows XP SP2 fully patched
No, I'm not. It blows because it's ludicrously slower than Firefox on the same machine, and this has been on every machine I've tested it on. The features are nice, but the speed of rendering is horrendous compared to Firefox.
Quite honestly, it has changed a lot. I'm running RC1 right now, and (like I stated before) the prompting really isn't any more intrusive than on Edgy. To tell the truth, I was rather surprised.
It's also a lot faster than it used to be. Beta 2 was pretty much unusable to me on my old machine (a 2.4 GHz with 1.2GB of RAM). That was almost enough for me to write it off for good. But a friend of mine just bought a Vista laptop with 1 GB of RAM, and it was surprisingly responsive (especially after the fiasco I had with Beta 2). So I gave my RC1 disk a whirl, and was pleasantly surprised.
On the flip side, I'm running Vista RC1 on a 3.06GHz machine with 512MB RAM, and it runs fine. Not ideal, but fine. It's not noticeably slower than my Ubuntu Edgy install (and a heckuva lot faster on startup). IE7 blows on it, but what platform doesn't it blow on? A Firefox install fixed that quick. I'm sure it'll be much better when I bump it up to 1 GB.
I don't see why everyone bashes this so much. My Ubuntu install works in a very similar manner. Whenever anything needs root privileges it pops up a password dialog (unless, of course, I'm in a shell and have to sudo instead), but you don't hear everyone yapping all day about "Synaptix needs root privileges, please enter your password".
Everyone's been barking about Windows running as root constantly, and now that they've changed that model everyone barks because Windows prompts you before it runs something with root access. Come on.
Yes, I called their support regarding my $1600 (AFTER discounts) Inspiron 8500 twice - once for a DVD+RW that died inside of a couple months, and once for a motherboard that died within a year and a half. Both times, connected with someone from another country. The DVD+RW was cross-shipped quickly, the motherboard was given the "sorry about your luck, a replacement runs $600" routine.
Lesson learned. FYI, we just replaced our entire sales force's laptops, and they were NOT Dells.
To truly worship and follow Christ, one must know who He is. If one ascribes false identity and attributes to Him, one can no longer truly be said to worship and follow Him. If one declares that "democracy" is now a state that is ruled by an authoritarian autocrat who can never be deposed and then claims to be a "democracy adherent" they are obviously wrong. Likewise, if one ascribes Jesus to being a creature that somehow ascended into godhood and is now worshiped as a distinct god (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit), one is no longer following and worshiping Christ. Calling it the same thing doesn't make it the same thing.
Those of us who've been in IT for a long while remember when the OS and power application lived on a floppy, because the computer didn't have a hard disk.
Those of us who've been in IT for a long while remember when the OS and power application lived on 80 column cards.
(OK, I don't, but my boss tells me about it all the time and I have screwed around with the manual punch machine we still have)
Back in the days of yore, when I was a wee lad of 18, a couple friends of mine had met some ladies from Canada on a MUSE (yeah, it was the days of yore). Naturally, we scheduled a road trip to Toronto to physically meet them. We arrived at the hotel, they showed up with some Molson XXX and neglected to mention that its alcohol content was twice what we were used to. Being the young strapping college lad that I was, I immediately embarked on a mission to down four as quickly as I could (i.e., in about 10 minutes).
Half an hour later I was in the bathroom trying to conceal the sounds of my sudden alcohol content revelation.
About 2 in the morning, one of my buddies starts shaking me awake. "I think I'm gonna be... BLARGH!!" All over my shirt.
I learned my lesson, though, and was much better prepared for my next trip.;) (The first night of that trip consisted of 38 draft Labatt Blues, a shared 16 pack of Molson from the beer store, and two shared pitchers of something I don't remember anymore at another bar).
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
No, again, there was only ever one Pope. Obviously, though the pretenders may claim the office of St. Peter, there is only one legitimate successor. And I have no doubts as to the authenticity of those disputed successors, as Christ guaranteed that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church. If an imposter were in the line of succession instead, I think this promise would have been rendered void.
I know well about the Council of Constantinople and the Arian heresy. Again, just because someone, outside of the confirmation of the universal Church, claims that a certain doctrine is intrinsic to the Faith does not make it so. Canonical lists abound well before this council, and the lists agree greatly with the canon that we currently hold.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Church does not make formal proclamations until there is contention on the matter.
You miss my point. Just as there is one version of the Constitution of the United States of America - even though it may have gone through drafts prior - there is only one version of the Bible. Just because a disparate cult claimed that something was Scripture does not make it so.
And indeed there was a constant succession to the Apostles in the Catholic Church. I didn't grow up believing that - I grew up far opposed to it. It was only through deep study into the earliest Christian writings (a.k.a. the Church Fathers) that I came to acknowledge this.
I never said that the English language was delivered from Heaven upon leaves of gold. If you'll notice, my first comment was that Christ left us a Church, not a book.
Now, on to your errors of faith. The "Church of Rome" (a.k.a. the Church Universal or Ekklesia Katholikos or Catholic Church) NEVER withheld scripture from Her people. You hear more Scripture in a Catholic Mass than in MOST Protestant services (and I grew up Fundamentalist, so I do know what I'm talking about). You forget that up until a few hundred years ago, Latin was the common language of people who lived in Europe. Obviously, dialects arose - and translations into those dialects were also given when the demand grew. That is why St. Jerome's bible is called the Vulgate - the "vulgar" or common language of the people. The Church made scripture very available for a mostly non-literate populace, and the monks are the ones who preserved the Bible for centuries. If we were so determined to hide the Bible from people, why were our monks spending their lifetimes copying Scripture by hand?
As to your "do what you want as long as you confess", there is a sin of presumption - and one would be committing it if they sinned with impugnity and expected to be forgiven.
Finally, referring to priests being unnecessary, look to John 20:19-23
'On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you."
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."'
You are wrong, wrong, wrong. History is not as you have presented it. "It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. But this must be understood in historical context. The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender. In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force in Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free. By modern standards this may seem brutal. Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women, and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days. It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property, and allowed to worship freely. As for those streets of blood, no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention. Jerusalem is a big town. The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three-inch depth would require many more people than lived in the region, let alone the city."
Likewise, your take on the Inquisition. Refer to the BBC documentary and article about it here: http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/11 12-96/article4.html. The Myth of the Inquisition was a propaganda tool of the Protestants that surfaced 100 years after the Inquisition (which itself was a civil, not ecclesiastical, affair). Recent study into the actual Inquisition archives has debunked it.
And I don't believe that power is 'transferred', as it isn't mentioned in the bible, it was bestowed by Jesus to people at that time.
Indeed, it was, and an example is given in scripture. Acts 1:18-26.
(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms,
" 'May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,' and,
" 'May another take his place of leadership.' Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."
So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Slashdot Mirror
I tried that, but they all just ran away screaming when I clicked.
Maybe I need to click with something heavier next time.
...and, worst of all, no more Hard Edge...
No, the article is spot on. I noticed this two weeks ago when I was looking for fixes for our W2K and E2K servers. The patches they provide are only good for W2K3 and E2K3 stuff. Of course, they also offer instructions for free on how to patch them yourself - which is what I ended up doing.
Same test, different machine (at home), new style comments off.
3.06 GHz Celeron, 512MB RAM, Vista RC1
IE7: 8 seconds
FF2: 5 seconds
That you'd probably never notice, but it becomes very apparent on more complex pages that take a while to render.
Erm.. 160GB PATA drive.. Don't think that really matters tho.. ;)
FYI, benchmark I just did. Both done with a clean start of the application. Time to load this particular page, with 500-something comments, in the new comment format. This is timed from when you click go on the URL to when the page is fully loaded and rendered. Same background load for both runs.
Machine: 3.0 GHz Pentium 4, 1 GB RAM, 160GB SATA drive, Windows XP SP2 fully patched
IE 7: 37 seconds
Firefox 2: 19 seconds
No, I'm not. It blows because it's ludicrously slower than Firefox on the same machine, and this has been on every machine I've tested it on. The features are nice, but the speed of rendering is horrendous compared to Firefox.
Quite honestly, it has changed a lot. I'm running RC1 right now, and (like I stated before) the prompting really isn't any more intrusive than on Edgy. To tell the truth, I was rather surprised.
It's also a lot faster than it used to be. Beta 2 was pretty much unusable to me on my old machine (a 2.4 GHz with 1.2GB of RAM). That was almost enough for me to write it off for good. But a friend of mine just bought a Vista laptop with 1 GB of RAM, and it was surprisingly responsive (especially after the fiasco I had with Beta 2). So I gave my RC1 disk a whirl, and was pleasantly surprised.
On the flip side, I'm running Vista RC1 on a 3.06GHz machine with 512MB RAM, and it runs fine. Not ideal, but fine. It's not noticeably slower than my Ubuntu Edgy install (and a heckuva lot faster on startup). IE7 blows on it, but what platform doesn't it blow on? A Firefox install fixed that quick. I'm sure it'll be much better when I bump it up to 1 GB.
I don't see why everyone bashes this so much. My Ubuntu install works in a very similar manner. Whenever anything needs root privileges it pops up a password dialog (unless, of course, I'm in a shell and have to sudo instead), but you don't hear everyone yapping all day about "Synaptix needs root privileges, please enter your password".
Everyone's been barking about Windows running as root constantly, and now that they've changed that model everyone barks because Windows prompts you before it runs something with root access. Come on.
Yes, I called their support regarding my $1600 (AFTER discounts) Inspiron 8500 twice - once for a DVD+RW that died inside of a couple months, and once for a motherboard that died within a year and a half. Both times, connected with someone from another country. The DVD+RW was cross-shipped quickly, the motherboard was given the "sorry about your luck, a replacement runs $600" routine.
Lesson learned. FYI, we just replaced our entire sales force's laptops, and they were NOT Dells.
To truly worship and follow Christ, one must know who He is. If one ascribes false identity and attributes to Him, one can no longer truly be said to worship and follow Him. If one declares that "democracy" is now a state that is ruled by an authoritarian autocrat who can never be deposed and then claims to be a "democracy adherent" they are obviously wrong. Likewise, if one ascribes Jesus to being a creature that somehow ascended into godhood and is now worshiped as a distinct god (along with the Father and the Holy Spirit), one is no longer following and worshiping Christ. Calling it the same thing doesn't make it the same thing.
Those of us who've been in IT for a long while remember when the OS and power application lived on 80 column cards.
(OK, I don't, but my boss tells me about it all the time and I have screwed around with the manual punch machine we still have)
Egads, I've been that American.. :)
;) (The first night of that trip consisted of 38 draft Labatt Blues, a shared 16 pack of Molson from the beer store, and two shared pitchers of something I don't remember anymore at another bar).
Back in the days of yore, when I was a wee lad of 18, a couple friends of mine had met some ladies from Canada on a MUSE (yeah, it was the days of yore). Naturally, we scheduled a road trip to Toronto to physically meet them. We arrived at the hotel, they showed up with some Molson XXX and neglected to mention that its alcohol content was twice what we were used to. Being the young strapping college lad that I was, I immediately embarked on a mission to down four as quickly as I could (i.e., in about 10 minutes).
Half an hour later I was in the bathroom trying to conceal the sounds of my sudden alcohol content revelation.
About 2 in the morning, one of my buddies starts shaking me awake. "I think I'm gonna be... BLARGH!!" All over my shirt.
I learned my lesson, though, and was much better prepared for my next trip.
From the FAQ:
"Note that being moderated Funny doesn't help your karma."
Thus the reason that people will mod a Funny post Informative.
From the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I second the request for more info on your neighbor's story.
No, avian carriers. Obviously.
Great film.
Hey we could call it Skynet!
No, again, there was only ever one Pope. Obviously, though the pretenders may claim the office of St. Peter, there is only one legitimate successor. And I have no doubts as to the authenticity of those disputed successors, as Christ guaranteed that the Gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church. If an imposter were in the line of succession instead, I think this promise would have been rendered void.
I know well about the Council of Constantinople and the Arian heresy. Again, just because someone, outside of the confirmation of the universal Church, claims that a certain doctrine is intrinsic to the Faith does not make it so. Canonical lists abound well before this council, and the lists agree greatly with the canon that we currently hold.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The Church does not make formal proclamations until there is contention on the matter.
You miss my point. Just as there is one version of the Constitution of the United States of America - even though it may have gone through drafts prior - there is only one version of the Bible. Just because a disparate cult claimed that something was Scripture does not make it so.
And indeed there was a constant succession to the Apostles in the Catholic Church. I didn't grow up believing that - I grew up far opposed to it. It was only through deep study into the earliest Christian writings (a.k.a. the Church Fathers) that I came to acknowledge this.
I never said that the English language was delivered from Heaven upon leaves of gold. If you'll notice, my first comment was that Christ left us a Church, not a book.
Now, on to your errors of faith. The "Church of Rome" (a.k.a. the Church Universal or Ekklesia Katholikos or Catholic Church) NEVER withheld scripture from Her people. You hear more Scripture in a Catholic Mass than in MOST Protestant services (and I grew up Fundamentalist, so I do know what I'm talking about). You forget that up until a few hundred years ago, Latin was the common language of people who lived in Europe. Obviously, dialects arose - and translations into those dialects were also given when the demand grew. That is why St. Jerome's bible is called the Vulgate - the "vulgar" or common language of the people. The Church made scripture very available for a mostly non-literate populace, and the monks are the ones who preserved the Bible for centuries. If we were so determined to hide the Bible from people, why were our monks spending their lifetimes copying Scripture by hand?
As to your "do what you want as long as you confess", there is a sin of presumption - and one would be committing it if they sinned with impugnity and expected to be forgiven.
Finally, referring to priests being unnecessary, look to John 20:19-23
'On the evening of that first day of the week, when the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, "Peace be with you."
When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
(Jesus) said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit.
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."'
You are wrong, wrong, wrong. History is not as you have presented it. "It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. But this must be understood in historical context. The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender. In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force in Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free. By modern standards this may seem brutal. Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women, and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days. It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property, and allowed to worship freely. As for those streets of blood, no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention. Jerusalem is a big town. The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three-inch depth would require many more people than lived in the region, let alone the city."
1 12-96/article4.html. The Myth of the Inquisition was a propaganda tool of the Protestants that surfaced 100 years after the Inquisition (which itself was a civil, not ecclesiastical, affair). Recent study into the actual Inquisition archives has debunked it.
Likewise, your take on the Inquisition. Refer to the BBC documentary and article about it here: http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/1
Indeed, it was, and an example is given in scripture. Acts 1:18-26.
(With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) "For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms, " 'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, " 'May another take his place of leadership.' Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection." So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.