text:
Noise Pollution Should Be a Punishable Offense
Published: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 at 12:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, November 18, 2013 at 11:29 p.m.
I recently got into an interesting conversation with a Lakeland police officer.
The subject was a circuit court judge in Tallahassee who caused his case to be resentenced. The reason? He injected his own religious beliefs into the case, saying that the defendant had strayed outside of the Roman Catholic faith.
After discussing this, the officer said that the people riding around with the thumping stereos really got to him. He said that the people ride around with these stereos loud, and you see an officer standing there, powerless.
The reason that they feel powerless is that a judge ruled that law enforcement can't issue citations for noise pollution or public disturbance because it would be an infringement on the person's freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is one thing, but noise pollution is another. The lyrics in what these people call music are offensive, degrading and should be illegal to put out in the general public.
I once witnessed an Army driver, in an Army truck, get a citation from a Highway Patrol officer for wearing hearing protection headphones while driving. The headphones were regulation, but the driver was on a public thoroughfare. He was told that he wouldn't be able to hear an emergency vehicle if it came up behind him.
These people and their cars should be treated the same way. The driver could be cited for not being able to hear any emergency vehicles. And not only them but everyone around them for about 75 feet, which could cause an accident.
Also, their noise could disorient a driver, putting their life in danger.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
WACO (December 11, 2012)—Barring an objection from McLennan County District Attorney Abel Reyna, it appears the capital murder trial of the second defendant in a shooting outside a Waco apartment complex that left two dead and two injured will be moved to Georgetown.
Attorneys representing Albert Leslie Love, Jr., filed a motion seeking a change of venue last week and Tuesday morning County Auditor Stan Chambers told McLennan County Commissioners that State District Judge Ralph Strother plans to move the trial to Georgetown.
Reyna has 10 days in which to respond.
On Nov. 7, Rickey Donnell Cummings, 23, of Waco, was sentenced to death for the March 2011 deaths of Keenan Hubert, 20, and Tyus Sneed, 17, both of whom died in a hail of bullets as they sat inside a car parked at Lakewood Villas apartment complex.
Marion Bible, then 22, and Deontrae Majors, then 20, were wounded in the shooting, which prosecutors say was in retaliation for the April 2010 murder of Emuel Bowers III, 21, who was shot as he sat in his car at the intersection of Rose and McKeen Streets.
Love, Tyrece Edward Richards, Darvis Tyrell Cumings, and Kennedy Wayne Hardway, who's also known as Kevin Wayne Hardaway, were also indicted in the shooting, but prosecutors later dismissed the capital murder charge against Richards.
Ricky and Darvis Cummings and Tyrece Richards are brothers. Kennedy Hardway is their cousin, authorities said, and the four are closely associated with Love.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
How do you find out the name of a song that is stuck in your head?
I have a song stuck in my head and I believe the lyrics are either "And I wonder" or "And I wander". It is a slower song almost Jack Johnson like (but I know it is not Jack Johnson). I think I heard it recently in a movie, but can't remember the movie either. No it is NOT Kanye West or a 50s song.
I have tried to search the lyrics in Google, but there are a ton of songs with those lyrics and I can't think of any additional lyrics to narrow down my search. So Google isn't an option. Next time I hear the song I can always Sound Hound it, but I have no idea when that will be.
Any other suggestions besides Googling lyrics and Shazzam type software?
24 Answers answer
I use youtube & enter the lyrics - the main refrain. Usually find that pesky song, too! :-) Then it becomes a full-blown earworm.
I usually just google the parts of the song I can remember and usually have pretty good luck in finding it.
Is it "Who'll stop the rain" by CCR? http://www.lyricsfreak.com/c/creedence+clearwater+revival/wholl+stop+the+rain_20034319.html
Yeah, tried the YouTube outlet with no luck. If I knew more then three words im sure it would be easy, but alas I stink.
The wife suggested CCR too. Great tune, but not the one I am looking for.
Thanks for the suggestions!
just start singing it at the top of your lungs in the middle of the office. someone will figure it out for you.
@coondogg97: is it this song?
edit: oops, wrong link. here's the right one:
Maybe Jonny Lang, Wander this world? Has the Jack Johnson style Guitar tapping
I usually google lyrics also to identify songs. This is the one I thought of based on your original post...
Thanks @carl669 - Most of the people in my office do not get back for another hour. I am sure the song will still be barreling around in my head I will start singing it aloud to the masses.
Thanks for the suggestion, but unfortunately that is not it either.
Maybe this will help:
And I wonder.... da dada la dada la da....... And I wonder......
@lichme: No, but you're right, it does have a Jack Johnson feel to it. But the song I am stuck on is even a little slower then that tune.
It is a very soft "And I wonder" and I believe (at least in that section of the song) there is only an acoustic guitar playing the "da dada la dada la da" part.
Thank you everyone again, I appreciate the help!
How about Little Runaway?
"And I wonder, I w-w-wonder
Why, why why she ran away?
And I wonder where she will stay?
My little runaway, run, run, run, run, runaway "
Foo Fighters - Everlong
They have released many recordings of this live, with Dave Grohl going semi-solo on it. Sounds kinda Jack Johnson like I guess.
@coondogg97: Oh, dear. Now I have the earworm, too. It's an old song, and I haven't clicked on any of the youtuber things, but suspect that no one's come up with it yet.
Do you think it is the christmas carol you are thinking of?
I first heard this sung by Peter Paul and Mary (RIP, dear woman), in the long ago.
{Almost forgot the title, which is, to no one's surprise, "I wonder as I wander"}
@xdavex: I grew up listening to my parents play Cousin Brucey, so I am fond of the oldies, but it is not an oldie.
@fierytresses: I thought you had it! But no, that's not it. I think that may be the closest I have seen to it here.
@shrdlu: Sorry to suck you into my world. But you actually hit the other side of the spectrum for once and went too slow. The other suggestions were too upbeat.
This happens to me from time to time but I have never been this "stuck". I can't imagine the artist is very popular or the words Wonder or Wander are in the title or I (you) would have found it by now.
Anyway, thank you all again for the continued help.
Shoot! First thing that came to my mind was the Howard Jones song, but you said that's not it. No idea at this point, but now I'm dying to know what it is, so please keep us posted.
You can hum or sing it into Soundhound. Doesn't work with Shazam, but Soundhound's fingerprinting gets the melody and will point you to the right song. If there's more than one version of the song by different artists, that won't get you all the way there, but close.
@omnichad: That never seems to work for me. Either I am a moron or my iPhone doesn't like my breath.
@pitamuffin (and everyone else who played): I FOUND IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh man, you have no idea the amount of joy that went through my body when it started playing and it was the right song! It is.....
Chris Isaak - Now I Wonder
After learning it was Chris Isaak I thought "duh, it sounds like him". But in my defense I don't know much Chris Isaak stuff.
I am happy I found it and Amazon should be happy its a buck richer!
Thanks again for all of your help everyone. I know if I wasn't me and I read my post I wouldn't like me. So thanks for contributing!
I'm glad you figured this out because I was wondering how to do that too!
@coondogg97: Yeah after reading your post I had a song stuck in my head too. I think it was Foo Fighters but I'll listen to the Chris Issak song when I get home.
I usually just force the song, eventually a little bit of a riff or another line comes to me if I keep thinking of it.
Maroon 5 - Makes Me Wonder
Now I Wonder if I can forget that this search ever happened. My resources were exhausted.
@xdavex: not fair...stuck now.
Check this android app out: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.melodis.midomiMusicIdentifier.hound&feature=nav_other#?t=W10.
best app is SOUNDHOUND. you click and let your phone listen for a few seconds, and it then either offers the exact song, or a selection of a few songs that could be a match. Also includes links to buy/listen/watch the song. Got it free on amazon a few months ago and love it. You can even hum or sing the song to this app, and it's usually right on the name of the song.... My wife didn't believe it, so I started the app, she hummed about 10 seconds of a song I didn't even recognize, but soundhound figured out it was "firework" she was humming.


text:
Newegg.ca - A great place to buy computers, computer parts, electronics, software, accessories, and DVDs online. With great prices, fast shipping, and top-rated customer service - once you know, you Newegg.
If you are reading this message, Please click this link to reload this page.(Do not use your browser's "Refresh" button). Please email us if you're running the latest version of your browser and you still see this message.
Newegg.ca - Computer Parts, Laptops, Electronics, HDTVs, Digital Cameras and More!
External hard drives are ideal for backing up your hard drive or storing additional media separately from your main hard drive. Photos, videos, and digital music have all become so popular in recent years that people need a place to put it all. CDs and DVDs do not have the capacity to hold PC backups and are not all that convenient. However, the prices of external hard drives have come down so much that they are perfect for backing up your important data.
The two most common interfaces for hooking up external drives to your computer are USB and FireWire with eSata now becoming popular also. USB has been around for years and are standard on just about all computers today while FireWire ports are newer and if you use a digital video camera with your computer you probably already have one. In terms of access speeds the latest eSata standard offers the fastest connection however that comes with a price. USB 2.0 and Firewire can cover most of your general needs without having to upgrade your system with a new eSata card. Any of the interfaces will do the job however be sure to purchase an external hard drive with the same type of port that your computer has.
Your backup drive should have a capacity at least as big as your computer's largest hard drive. That will leave you with plenty of room to back up your important files or mirror/clone your current drive. You can also buy an external hard drive case and mount an internal hard drive inside it. This method will give you a choice of brands and models, and if anything goes wrong with your internal hard drive, you can simply install the external one inside your computer to replace it.
One drawback to using external hard drives for backups is that they are still relatively new for home computer use. They come with Windows drivers; should Windows fail, you will not be able to access your external drive through DOS. There are DOS drivers available but they can be difficult to find and most manufacturers do not provide support for them. This isn't a frequent occurrence, just something to keep in mind as you select your external hard drive.


text:
Home > Food > Recipes > Mocha Pots
Mocha Pots
Categories: Big-Batch Meals, Chocolate, Entertaining, Quick to fix, Sweet
Type: Desserts and Baked Goods
Type: Desserts and Baked Goods
These mocha pots are wonderfully sweet and so simple to make.
Prep Time: 30M
Serves: Makes 6-8
- 51/2oz (150g) semisweet chocolate, broken into pieces, plus a little extra, shaved with a vegetable peeler, for garnish (optional)
- 2 tbsp butter, cut into pieces
- 4 large eggs, at room temperature, separated
- pinch of sea salt
- 1/3 cup granulated sugar
- 3 tbsp brewed espresso or strong coffee, at room temperature
- 2/3 cup heavy whipping cream
- unsweetened cocoa powder, for dusting
Save Recipe
Add to shopping list
- In a bowl set over a saucepan of barely simmering water, melt the chocolate with the butter, stirring occasionally until smooth. Remove the bowl from the pan, set aside, and leave to cool to room temperature. Meanwhile, combine the egg whites and salt in a bowl and beat with an electric mixer until stiff peaks form. Gradually beat in the sugar until the mixture is stiff and shiny.
- Stir the egg yolks into the cooled chocolate mixture, adding them one at a time. Gradually fold the beaten egg whites into the chocolate mixture, then stir in the espresso. Spoon the mixture evenly into six 2/3 cup or eight 1/2 cup freezer-safe ramekins or custard cups, leaving room on top for whipped cream. Place the cream in a bowl and beat with an electric mixer until stiff peaks form. Spoon the cream over the top of each mocha pot, then freeze until solid. Wrap in foil and return to the freezer.
- To serve, defrost overnight in the refrigerator or for a few hours at room temperature. Dust with cocoa powder and garnish with shaved chocolate, if you like.
- Cheat...Omit the espresso and use coffee-flavored chocolate instead of plain semisweet chocolate.
excerpted from:
Excerpted from The Illustrated Quick Cook.
Copyright © 2009 Dorling Kindersley Limited.
Buy this book now!
Sign-Up Now!
Sign up to save recipes or create shopping lists online.
Already registered? Login here
Cooking Tips
Loading the player...
More Videos:


text:
Being interested in the very foundations of mathematics, I'm trying to build a rigorous proof on my own that $a + b = b + a$ for all $\left[a, b\in\mathbb{R}\right] $. Inspired by interesting properties of the complex plane and some researches, I realized that defining multiplication as repeated addition will lead me nowhere (at least, I could not work with it). So, my ideas:
Defining addition $a+b$ as a kind of "walking" to right $\left(b>0\right)$ or to the left $\left(b<0\right)$ a space $b$ from $a$. Adding a number $b$ to a number $a$ (denoted by $a+b$) involves doing the following operation:
- Consider the real line $\lambda$ and its origin at $0$. Mark a point $a$, draw another real line $\omega$ above $\lambda$ such what $\omega \parallel \lambda$ and mark a point $b$ on $\omega$. Now, draw a line $\sigma$ such that $\sigma \perp \omega$ and the only point in commom between $\sigma$ and $\omega$ is $b$. Consider the point that $\lambda$ and $\sigma$ have in commom; this point is nicely denoted as $a + b$.
(Note that all my work is based here. Any problems, and my proof goes to trash)
This definition can be used to see the properties of adding two numbers $a$ and $b$, for all $a, b \in\mathbb{R}$.
Using geometric properties may lead us to a rigorous proof (if not, I would like to know the problems of using it).
So, I started:
- $a, b \in\mathbb{N}$:
$a+b = \overbrace{\left(1+1+1+\cdots+1\right)}^a + \overbrace{\left(1+1+1+\cdots+1\right)}^b = \overbrace{1+1+1+1+\cdots+1}^{a+b} = \overbrace{\left(1+1+1+\cdots+1\right)}^b + \overbrace{\left(1+1+1+\cdots+1\right)}^a = b + a$
(Implicity, I'm using the fact that $\left(1+1\right)+1 = 1+\left(1+1\right)$, which I do not know how to prove and interpret it as cutting a segment $c$ in two parts -- $a$ and $b$. However, this result can be extended to $\mathbb{Z}$ in the sense that $-a$ $(a > 0)$ is a change; from right to left).
- $a, b \in\mathbb{R}$:
Here, we have basically two cases:
- $a$ and $b$ are either positive or negative;
- $a$ and $b$, where one of them is negative.
Since in my definition $-b, b>0$ means drawing a point $b$ to the left of the real line, there's no big deal interpretating it; subtracting can be interpreted now. So, it starts:
$a + b = c$. However, $c$ can be cut in two parts: $b$ and $a$. Naturally, if $a>c$, then $b<0$ -- many cases can be listed. So, $c = b + a$. But $c = a + b$; it follows that $a + b = b + a$. My questions:
Is there any problem in using my definition of adding two numbers $a$ and $b$, which uses many geometric properties? Is there any way to solve it from informality? Is there anything right here?
Thanks in advance.


text:
Benedict's Act of Humility
The last pope to resign did so more than seven hundred years ago, which is a long time even by church standards. The controversy surrounding Celestine V's abdication and the succession of Boniface VIII did not recommend the practice to later popes, and while canon law admitted the possibility a pope could resign, there were many who thought that, like those old disputes about what the church can do if a pope becomes a heretic, it was best consigned to ancient history, no longer applicable. This view was confirmed by a very modern theology and even mystique of the papacy that so identified the pope with Christ as to suggest that for him to resign would be to betray Christ. It seems that Pope Paul VI gave some thought to resigning, but a close adviser said that he wouldn't because "he cannot come down from his cross." Similar words were applied to Pope John Paul II as the church watched him fade away: "You don't come down from the cross," his former secretary said just the other day. It is not surprising, then, that many Catholics were stunned by Pope Benedict XVI's act: "Can a pope resign?" one of my sisters telephoned to ask me.
There is potentially great significance in Benedict's action, and it may be that his resignation will be his greatest contribution to ecclesiology. He has so subordinated his person to the office that he could renounce it. His frank admission that he no longer had the strength of mind and body needed for the Petrine ministry not only humanizes the pope himself but helps bring the papacy back within the church, down from what Hans Urs von Balthasar called its "pyramid-like isolation." All those unique titles that seemed to place the papal office above and beyond all other offices and ministries in the church suddenly have to yield to what their occupants all have in common: a fragile, sinful, and mortal humanity. The pope—and not just this one—loses something of his sacral apartness. He rejoins the rest of us.
Benedict's action also suggests the thought that if a pope can resign for reasons of health or of age, he might resign for other reasons too. There could come a pope who agrees with what John Henry Newman wrote in 1870, during the longest pontificate in church history: "It is not good for a pope to live twenty years. It is anomaly and bears no good fruit; he becomes a god, has no one to contradict him, does not know facts, does cruel things without meaning it." In other words, even though no term limits may be assigned to the papal office, a pope can have his own term limits in mind, and say to himself, and to the church, "Basta!" If papal resignations were to become something normal (that is, more frequent than every seven hundred years), then there might be less reluctance to elect someone younger and still energetic without worrying that he will fall victim to the tendency Newman feared.
Benedict visited at least twice the basilica where Celestine V is buried and prayed at his tomb. Paul VI had done so beforehand, and I wonder whether Benedict might have remembered his predecessor's explanation of why Celestine resigned: "After a few months he understood that he was being deceived by people around him who were profiting from his inexperience." That's when Celestine's holiness shone out, Pope Paul said: "As he had accepted the supreme pontificate out of duty, so out of duty he renounced it—not out of cowardice, as Dante wrote (if his words really do refer to him), but out of heroic virtue, out of a sense of duty." Perhaps Benedict also felt betrayed by people around him and recognized that he was not up to dealing with it.
One didn't have the impression that Joseph Ratzinger enjoyed being pope. He was the second pope in a row not to take much interest in administration, but whereas John Paul II seemed always on the road, exhibiting the most personalized papacy in church history, Pope Benedict retreated into his study, where he composed not only his official homilies, speeches, and encyclicals, but also three books, which he explicitly exempted from official authority. The result of this approach to the office—call it the two "vacancies" of papal responsibility—has been not only the sort of unedifying spectacle of curial rivalries we saw in the "Vatileaks" scandal, but a return to, and even heightening of, the centralized theory and practice that many had hoped Vatican II would bring to an end. Instead, after modest efforts at institutionalizing the council's ecclesiology, we have seen over the past forty years the atrophying of structures for co-responsibility and cooperation at every level of church life.
A certain paradox is visible in the events now unfolding. The very act that humanizes the papacy also produces the hullabaloo over the upcoming conclave, which tends to reconfirm the inflated notion of the Petrine office that has developed over the past two hundred and fifty years, and the impression is given, once again, that the future of the church hinges on the choice of a successor to the See of Peter. One can hear it from both sides: from traditionalists who want still-tighter disciplinary control over doctrine, worship, and practice; and from progressives who want a pope who will loosen things up in all those areas. They both want something from Rome; they want the new pope to do something about what they each perceive as critical points. But the church is not the pope, and the pope is not the church, and perhaps what we most need is a pope who will encourage and allow the laity, the religious, the clergy, and the hierarchy to assume their responsibilities for the difference the church is supposed to make in the world. Benedict's resignation was a self-denying act of personal humility. What we need now in Rome are acts of institutional humility and self-denial.
About the Author
Rev. Joseph A. Komonchak, professor emeritus of the School of Theology and Religious Studies at the Catholic University of America, is a retired priest of the Archdiocese of New York.
20 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
My take on Brother Ratzinger's resignation is quite different from my Roman classmate's, Brother Komonchak*. The resignation is not some change in the concept of the papacy, but a calculated move to better preserve the conservative values that Brother Ratzinger along with Brother Wojtala have cultivated for so long and astutely. *1960-1964, North American College, Gregorian U., Vat II- The only reason this bit of trivia is important is that I'm a dissenter on the side of sexualities, married priests, women priests, and in general church governance according to what I understood was the gist of Vat.II ecclesiology.
This is not a judgment of the man's soul. It is an acknowledgement of his sincerity and dedication to the mission of the church as he sees it. But my purpose is to throw out the pastoral challenges that seethe in the souls of many of us who also believe Brother Ratzinger's beliefs are harmful. It is a call to move away from medieval rigidity in dealing with dissent, for the better of the church. No more silence, no more excommunication, removal from jobs and ministries--to avoid repeating the Galileo stories over and over. I am one of those ordained priests who early on considered that the church needed priests experienced in creating family. I had faithfully lived as a celibate for 13+ years and gave myself wholly to the service of the church universal. I followed obediently all of the rules and envisioned the goals set in place for priests. Vat. II gave me impetus to follow my conscience. When I was volunteering as a new priest from Vermont in the inner city of Boston (1967), it became clear to me that the people there, abandoned by the church for the suburbs, deserved priests experienced in establishing and nurturing families in the ghetto. I told my bishop I believed that the church needed married priests. Instead of entering into any discussion, my support for health care and retirement was immediatey withdrawn. I later requested permission to marry and continue on with my ministry. The Vatican refused me permission to marry and "laicized" me against my will. Throw in excommunication. They acted more quickly and resolutely than with the priest pedophiles. This approach to pastoral needs was not what I had envisioned in seminary. To cancel in this manner the whole meaning of the priesthood for a rigid/unspeakable commitment to "Holy Orders" as incompatible with women and sexuality---this to me was the same as the violent, anti-Chrisitian medieval solutions to dissent. I have continued to faithfully live my marriage for 43 years with 3 children and 3 grandchildren. Recently in the mammoth morass of intrigue around sexual abuse by priests I read explanations about "laicization", that in the '70's Brother Wojtala along with Brother Ratzinger and the curial "experts" questioned our maturity--asking to marry-- and vulnerability to the seductions of sex. The possibility that committing oneself to solemn marriage would be far more demanding than living celibacy never could enter into any discussion because of who governs the discussions. To save time I'll just throw in just one more factor in understanding Brother Ratzinger's resignation--homosexuality. It has become clear to me since 2000 that I have "same-gender orientation" (SGO). I remain in my hetero marriage. This has now become a personal, deep agony compelling me in my old age to work for change regarding SGO. The total, deadly silence imposed with the threat of loss of jobs, ministries, excommunications constitutes one of the most crying needs for compassion and openness that we think of when a soul is in torture. What will it take for a 21st century model to handle dissent to come to rescue people like me from suicide, murder, mental illness? I have proposed a "Galileo Reconciliation Commission" that would work out protocols for accepting a bonafide dissent agenda. Both or all sides would be free to work on resolutions. But above all everyone would commit to doing the "least harm", or "no harm" at all. Under such a commission Brother Ratzinger's compulsion to wipe out homosexuality as one of the greatest evils of our time could not allow him to make his repeated worldwide proclamations. So Brother Ratzinger and, let us not be fooled, the legions of people who conceive of religion as he does, realizes that now that he and Brother Wojtala have populated the majority of the college of cardinals pretty well, it's better that he move over and do all he can to promote the selection of a pope who will deal with people like me, people whom he accuses of fomenting disunity rather than calling for a reconciliation process. The persecution will carry on. For a better discussion of my point chec out "Ideological Clone" by John Bingham and Nick Squires Check my blogsite at LEAST HARM
"we have seen over the past forty years the atrophying of structures for co-responsibility and cooperation at every level of church life."
As one who was truly scandalized (not an easy thing for me) by the election of Benedict, I am certainly glad to see him resign. It may be that his witnessing of the last years of JP II's papacy has made him realize how destructive such a period can be -- perhaps especially at a time when the Curia is already running roughshod in so many ways.
Regardless of Benedict's own motives or hopes, I tend to think that his resignation WILL change the perception of the papacy for the better, away from the "absolute monarch" model that we have endured for so long. That does not mean that I believe Benedict will not try his best to manipulate both the election and whomever emerges as the next pope. His living on the grounds of the Vatican seems to almost guarantee such an outcome.
Yet, I wonder why that location was chosen for his retirement. Is it, perhaps, because the case at the International Criminal Court is heating up? He will no longer have the immunity of a head of state, but as long as he remains a resident citizen of the Vatican State, he will probably remain out of reach of the long arm of the law. But who can know, unless and until the Court acts?
At the outset, I quoted the author of this article: "we have seen over the past forty years the atrophying of structures for co-responsibility and cooperation at every level of church life."
My own take on this is that these structures did not ATROPHY. Rather, they were deliberately, systematically assassinated, in service of the god of centralization. This was done, as the author alludes, both by John Paul II and by Benedict; by not only by popes, but by bishops (who abolished or eviscerated diocesan pastoral councils), and by pastors who either never created parish councils or similar bodies, or who followed the lead of their bishops and eviscerated them. I can personally attest to a very large number of talented laypersons who have had experience serving on such bodies, or on other ones (e.g., boards of directors of schools), and who now simply refuse to become involved in such efforts because they were a waste of time. Their opinions were not considered, their expertise not used (or poorly used). So why were they there? Mere window-dressing. The worst cases of this sort have been those involving respected jurists or attorneys who were misused as chairpersons of committees responsible (they thought) for acting on charges of pedophilia or other sexual misconduct by the clergy.
The notion that bishops, clergy, and laity should assume their rightful responsibilities is a good one; but it seems that it will take a very good long time before the wounds of the past three or four decades are healed. The generosity and goodwill which followed upon Vatican II will be very, very hard to regain. One can only hope that there are enough bishops and cardinals around who have felt very hemmed-in, even disrespected, by the goings on of the last two papacies, and are ready for a change. As long as they realize that the same feelling extends down the line, and do not act like the servant who was forgiven a large debt but refused to forgive a small one, there may yet be hope.
Maybe there's still another John XXIII hiding out there in plain sight? If so, let's hope he's elected, and doesn't meet the same fate as John Paul I. We all have responsibilities to fulfill, but at this juncture, the tone must be set from the top.
The call for change is ramping up already:
Latest News
Benedict XVI's centralisation slated
18 February 2013
The Bishop of Arundel and Brighton has called for a review of the "unnecessary" centralisation of power that took place during Pope Benedict XVI's papacy.
Bishop Kieran Conry told The Times that over-centralisation had taken power from local bishops and led the Church away from the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. He said that the new English Mass translation, introduced last year, had a negative impact on Catholics that might have been avoided if power was devolved to a local level.
He said: "There is a need for the Roman Curia, the central administration, to be reviewed. That was not one of Pope Benedict's strengths. It needs reviewing because it is not working very well. There seems to be a degree of centralisation that is not really necessary which might indicate that there is a degree of inefficiency."
The aim [of Vatican II] was that Rome should work more collaboratively with the local bishops. That has not really developed."
AND THERE IS THIS AS WELL: http://www.churchauthority.org/
In the spirit of full disclosure I am a disgruntled Catholic, nonetheless I love my church, and I am ashamed when I read about the politics in the Vatican. According to news reports, Benedict complained about Vatican rivalries, and fierce power struggles in the Curia contributing to his decision to step down. I know that (some) Catholics still believe the Holy Spirit guides the process of papal elections. I think that's sweet. I guess they just don't read much Church History. I have been watching the Showtime series The Borgias - I know it is historical fiction but it contains, sadly, a lot of history. Watching the political machinations of the Curia in their red, medieval costumes in this show I was amused and sickened by the realization that so little has changed. No, we won't have murders and armed show-downs of Vatican factions in St. Peter's Square, one hopes. But we are already having - according to Benedict himself - power struggles and in-fighting. And all too soon we will have parades of medieval costumes across the Square.
It is time for visible CHANGE. Change the medieval dress, change the medieval structures. Institute a more democratic style of representational leadership as opposed to appointed leadership. Set the lifestyle of the clergy in the Vatican around community service, scholarly pursuits, prayer, and monastic living. What a concept. Then it wouldn't be such a stretch to imagine the presence of the Holy Spirit in Rome.
perhaps after this act of "humility" (whatever virtue fits best) we are open to collegiality...nobody is using the word "vicar of Christ" thanks God! giant advance in terminology within our antiquated "ecclesioloy".... history of the papacy is not a good blueprint for "progress" in our understanding of the "church to the service of the world"...our excuse to keep the appearances intact is 'continuity'. Of faith and tradition I hope... could be obtained without outmoded paths.
These new posts trouble me. They repeat reform calls, intervention of the Holy Spirit, single voices of reform here and there. It won't happen that way. My bias comes from having been ordained a priest in Rome in 1963, within the womb of the "mother" church. This experience was very rich and at the same time very humbling. I experienced the total humanity of the church, its hierarchy and its worldwide membership for 4 years right there in Rome. Curia politics, hierarchical politics. This has given me the analysis I wrote about last night.
I still feel that Brother Ratzinger is deliberately doing what he sees as the best way to ensure his conservative, centralized view of catholicism will continue to hold sway. He doesn't need to do any more active promotion as he basks in the glow of admiration. When I read the comments above I'm struck by the various attitudes that somehow the church can be reformed now that the latest leader--don't forget "blessed" Brother Wojtala either--of conservatism is moving on.
Yes I witnessed the transformation --short lived--of the church under Brother Roncalli. But for the last 50 years the conservatives have expertly and stiffly held sway so that Brother Roncalli's changes have been twisted and stopped. Those of us who want so badly a series of reforms that would change the church from top to bottom have to realize that we have no power in the church of today. The mechanisms are not available now as Michael Cassidy has detailed above with which to pressure for a chance to make reforms. Pastoral Councils have been eviscerated. We cannot change via the old way, having babies who become radical catholics with a vocation of celibacy and make it to the hierarchy.
It will take conscience driven, non-violent, loving pressure forcing the other side to respect our consciences as we respect theirs. We need to "force" a stoppage of medieval methods for control--firings, silence, threats of excommunication, etc. etc. It is a fact that we radicals have not been able to rise up in sufficient numbers and with sufficient perseverance to begin the changes. Many, probably most of us, feel it isn't worth the bother. Many think time is what will bring change. Some think we might as well join a church that fits us better. But for me as a same-gender-oriented person with a special knowledge of this church and the horrors it causes to the LGBT people, I feel we have to organize. Insist on having a Galileo Reconciliation Commission that will stop persecution. Do this by having a majority in the pews that is organized and ready to push unrelentingly for this type of change in the church. Give Brother Roncalli something to be proud of!
You are right of course Thomas, the trappings of the Middle Ages are a mere symptom of an internal dysfunction, dis-ease even, that a new procedure for electing a pope won't cure. The problem is that good, educated, spiritual Catholics like you and me who have been devoted to the church and then rejected by the same church are left feeling marginalized and, excuse the term, castrated - it is more powerful a word than impotent. I was a theology teacher for 27 years, BD, MRE, I was good. Then Boston 2002 then going public with my abuse history, then Cardinal George ignoring his own review board and his own Guidelines... and I was done with the hierarchy. I couldn't sign a contract supporting my bishop any more. But I still think there is so much worth saving in our Church. If only we could get back to bishops and parishes and national synods. There should never ever be a situation where a clergyman is rewarded with property and income by the pope, especially one who is under a cloud of scandal like Cardinal Law. No pope should have that power. The Curia should not be a permanent Roman body. Should Catholics like us just break from Rome and join the schismatic Catholic Churches? Is there just simply too much to change?
I'm a non-cradle Catholic who's been faithfully attending mass for 13 months, and I am currently 1/3 of the way through an adult confirmation program. I think that there is much to be said for relatively unchanging conservatism in Church organization, dogma, doctrine, and liturgy.
When Paul left the church he established in Corinth, it was not long before there were squabbles between 4 distinct sects which had quickly emerged in what was initially a united church. In my own particular birth sect of Christianity (Apostolic Finnish Lutheranism), a bewildering array of distinct sects also emerged in short order, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Family_tree_of_laestadianism_in_Americ...
Individual Catholics are free to have their own individual beliefs. Everyone is welcome at mass (as long as they don't steal the host for Satanic ritual, I'm told). I keep my heart open to all Church teachings, some of which enter and remain in my heart, others have not yet done so and perhaps never will.
Within obvious limitations, it is possible, at least in a large metropolitan area, to find a parish with doctrinal emphasis with which one can be comfortable. I think it's wonderful, however, that, whereever I travel, there's a church with a familiar liturgy and dogma and doctrines that I understand and expect, even if all do not speak with clarity to my heart.
The Catholic Church has been the innkeeper of Christianity, and it's done a pretty decent job of it -- the clergy abuse horrors being the recent exception, from which the Church will hopefully recover and truly reform.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Oh my Larry, I don't think those of us who have been disappointed, betrayed, and disrespected by the church's leadership in the 50 years since Vatican II can even begin to know how to repspond to your comments.
I will simply say that I believe that Benedict is doing an admirable (probably not humble) thing by resigning. I would bet that not the least of his reasons concerns his watching John Paul II waste away, not able to govern but unable to bring himself to let go of power. I think Benedict is clear that it was harmful for the church. In particular it allowed the Curia fairly free reign to do what political animals do best; run roughsod over the powerless.
Lynn, I wonder if you even understand what it is to be a Catholic? The last thing an informed Catholic would be doing is giving Larry the "Oh my" comment. I hope you don't mind that I would love to "begin to respond", albeit to you and others alike.
For starters, do you even understand that the "end game" so to speak of Catholicm is two-fold: to save your own soul, as well as be the light of Christ to others and hopefully facilitate in their salvation.
For goodness sakes, a mature adult just announced by his own free will he is entering into the Catholic Faith. That's extraordinary! We are his brothers and sisters in Christ, and upon hearing that good news, you choose to diss the Catholic Church, which in essense, is Jesus Christ.
Lynn if you and others feel disappointed, betrayed, and disrespected, it's by your own ignorance, and hopefully, not willful. It's time to be an adult, learn the faith, and finally get your aha moment that it's not about what you or the culture wants but what Christ wants. No one ever said Catholicism is easy, only worth it. The sooner you learn it's not about power, be it pope or "women priest", the sooner you can begin an authentic Catholic Faith.
The fact that you can't even see the absurity in Pope Benedict thinking PJII ' "wasted away" while clinging to power clearly indicates you don't have a clue about what JPII was really teaching, redemptive suffering with Christ, one of the hallmarks of his papacy.
You also appear clueless to the fact the both JPII and Benedict XVI, both of whom were at Vatican II, spent the crux of the papacies trying to "right" Vatican II from the "Do it my way errors," and both with much success. Do you even know how many Anglicans entered the CC under Pope Benedict? Not to mention, the "married priests" that he also allowed.
Lastly, are there betrayal problems within the church. Of course, but they have been there since the time of Christ, who still, at least percentage-wise, holds the greatest amount of betrayal. If you haven't yet figure out that real enemies attack within perhaps now would be a good time to realize that fact along with the fact that the church has been under attack from day one, and always will be.
Isn't it time the "disappointed, betrayed, and disrespected" CINO's either learn the faith or move on, especially when it comes to the expense of new comers like Larry who has a lot to teach all of us.
The only thing that matters, that ever will matter, is the salvation of our souls.
The "essence" of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. An excellent point, Patricia. This should indeed be an aha moment this morning, for this is something upon which we all on this comment stream could surely agree.
The question then remains, of what does that essence consist? Is the essence of Jesus' teaching the saving of one's soul? I don't remember that in the Gospels. I remember more about challenging those in religious power to act with justice; challenging those with means to share their means with the poor. I remember more about the acceptance of the anawim, the socially untouchable, the ritually unclean, the morally (to them) repugnant.
On another issue, Jesus' suffering was that of an innocent man; the attacks on the Church and the suffering of Church leaders is not a sign of innocence. The attacks on the Church concerning their protection of rapists and molesters and their treatment of victims are indeed merited. As for Church leaders, Cardinal Roger Mahony writes on his blog about the suffering of Jesus and Isaiah's Suffering Servant. Such a thinly veiled comparison to his own most deserved suffering is crass.
Hi Mona:
You asked: The question then remains, of what does that essence consist?
It's actually very simple, as Jesus Christ revealed it, consequently, it's the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith, all that HE taught, including Sacred Tradition: teachings on the Real Presence of the Eucharist, marriage, abortion, the priesthood, the 7 sacraments, to name a few.
Doctrines of course are man made and change as necessary with time and culture.
Mona are you actually suggesting that the essence of Jesus Christ was anything other than eternal salvation? Sure, He taught us the importance of love, but not love outside of His obedience, as no authentic love can possibly exists outside of Truth, Truth of course, being God and only God.
I understand that everyone is on a different place in the spiritual journey, consequently, everyone may not be able to immediately accept all truths. There is a big difference between having a heart open for all Truth, and denouncing what we have not yet been given the faith to accept or believe, especially because "our opinion" disagrees with what Christ revealed to us.
FWIW, I've been there. Only to learn the hard way that it was my lifestyle that didn't believe. Had I lived as the Church teaches, I would have avoided a lot of the self-inflicted pain in my life. Thankfully, God has an abundance of mercy.
I'm not yet an "official" Catholic, and I am entirely unqualified to tell any Catholic how they should feel about anything relating to Cathollcism. That said,
I'm trying to understand Lynn's statement about being "disappointed, betrayed, and disrespected by the church's leadership." I don't see how that statement could possibly apply to any of the non-Religious laiety (NRL). As far as I can tell, the Church leaves us NRL pretty much alone, to think our own thoughts, live our own lives, and do our own things. I haven't missed a weekly (or other obligatory) mass, since I began this particular journey 13 months ago, and I have yet to hear, in a homily, even veiled criticism (applied to us parishioners) of contraception, pre-marital co-habitation, homosexuality, or even same gender marriage. I suppose that these topics are occasionally broached, at least in some parishes and/or by some priests or bishops, but there are certainly a great many parishes where non-Religious laiety guilty of such sins may be members in ostensibly good standing, limited only by the dictates of their own consciences, and subject to little, if any, direct rebuke.
The Catholics who might feel that they have a beef would be those in religious orders, who felt called to vocation in the 1960s, by what they perceived as the paradigm-shifting promise of Vatican 2. Without going into obvious detail, I can understand why such people might feel a sense of betrayal. It's a hard thing, indeed, to labor for decades, doing what one felt called to do and not only to be unappreciated by one's hierarchal superiors, but to be actively disrespected and criticized by the same.
It would be beyond presumptuous of me to offer advice to such sisters and priests and brothers, but Chapter 6 of Matthew admonishes not to overvalue attention and rewards from other people, but to rejoice in the knowlege that you are privately pleasing God. And, surely, such sisters and priests and brothers, who devote their lives in selfless service, must be aware at how much their work continues to be valued by so many outside the Magisterial hierarchy.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
It seems odd to me that Komonchak would say Benedict "retreated" into his study. Consider his travel scheule over the last eight years: Germany (2005), Poland, Spain, Germany, Turkey (2006), Brazil, Austria, (2007), US, Australia, France (2008), Cameroon, Angola, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Czech Republic (2009), Malta, Portugal, Cyprus, UK, Spain (2010), Coatia San Marino, Spain, Germany, Benin (20011), Mexico and Cuba, Lebanon (2012). That's way more travel than my 80 year old grandmother ever did. Not to mention his numerous public appearances. Not as much overall travel as JP2, but he wasn't pope for as long either.
Let's face it, we don't really know why Benedict XVI resigned. Even his parting speech(es) is/are couched in such vague language. The one thing I hung my hat on was he declared he acted after prayer and examining his own conscience. That to me is the crucial message. His words and subsequent action restored the individual conscience to its primacy. People must not be forced to act contrary to their conscience. Nor must they be prevented from acting according to their conscience, especially in religious matters. All the bluster by dictatorial cardinals, archbishops, bishops, monsignori, priests to invade or weaken a person's most sacred core has been existentially exposed as bluff. Nothing graced Benedict's papacy more than his leaving of it.
Prayer and an examination of conscience certainly seems a more certain path to the truth than following the dubious advice of Curial "politicians." This may indeed be a moment of grace in his papacy. But I have to wonder if he could not have had a greater impact if he had remained in office and made some real changes by dismantling the Curia and removing the medieval trappings and imperial structure from the Vatican in favor of a more collegial, regional patriarchate system, perhaps.
Patricia, The essence of Jesus Christ is Love.
Yes Ronald, a 'Love" so great Jesus established the Catholic Church for the salvation of all men.
This policy may be useful for <a href="http://obatkeputihanonline.com/">obat keputihan gatal</a> and everyone.


text:
6 Baffling Modern-Day Disasters of Biblical Proportions
#3. The Great London Beer Flood
The Old Testament says that God already destroyed the world with a flood once before, but even the Almighty gets bored with the same old techniques. In 1814, part of London was wiped out by a flood of downright biblical proportions, but with a slight twist -- it was drowned under an ocean of beer.
The London Beer Flood of 1814 occurred when a vat of liquid gold at the Meux and Company Brewery ruptured for no apparent reason, causing other nearby vats to burst, ultimately releasing nearly 400,000 gallons of beer in a 15-foot wave onto the streets of London. Patrons at the Tavistock Arms Pub were taken by surprise when the tidal wave smashed through the walls and brought down the building. We like to imagine that this happened in a way that was comically ironic, like immediately after the bartender declared last call.
"This beer sucks. I wouldn't drink this if the room was flooded in it and I had to drink my way out to survive."
The beerpocalypse went on to demolish two more houses before it came to an end, and although it sounds like nobody could have had a bad time here, eight people drowned and many more lost their livelihoods -- although it was pretty convenient for those survivors who decided to resort to drinking. Many retellings of the story mention a ninth fatality, a man who died of alcohol poisoning, and to be honest, that probably is the way we'd go in that situation.
In the end, Meux and Company was taken to court, but the jury placed no fault with them. It was legally ruled to be ... well, an act of God. That's just a legal term, but probably one that was said in hushed whispers.
"Our Father, who art a mean drunk, hallowed be thy booze ..."
#2. The Year Without a Summer
If you're a simple country farmer in 1816, you live by one clockwork schedule: You put seeds in the ground in the spring, wait for them to grow, then eat what grew over the winter. It's worked for thousands of years, because if there's something you can count on, it's the predictability of the seasons. Except, in this particular year, summer just never came. Kind of like if you woke up one morning and the sun didn't come up.
Via Wikipedia
You have to admit, though, Italy looks pretty damn smooth in that shade of blue.
Across the northeastern U.S., Canada and most of Western Europe, temperatures dropped to winter levels in the spring and summer of 1816, creating frost that killed off all the crops that had just been planted. Snow fell and rivers remained frozen well into July and August. What little grain that did grow suddenly became a very expensive commodity -- oats, for example, rose from 12 cents to 92 cents a bushel. Of course, in some places, there simply was no food to buy, no matter what you were willing to pay for it, leading to riots, looting and arson over much of the Western world.
Did God just forget to turn up the thermostat or something? Actually, this was brought on by the eruption of Mount Tambora, the largest volcanic eruption in about 1,300 years. Not that the farmers knew that -- Mount Tambora is in Indonesia. Its April 10 eruption caused a volcanic winter, the ash cloud so thick and widespread that it blanketed much of the Earth and dropped temperatures globally, leading to worldwide crop shortages and famine.
This asshole.
Basically, people must have thought that they were living through an old school biblical apocalypse. Imagine trying to convince those people that their grandkids would have global warming to worry about.
#1. The Snake and Boiling Mud Plague of 1902
Everyone was just chillaxing in Saint-Pierre on the French-owned island of Martinique in 1902, sitting on the beach, sipping frog legs out of coconuts or whatever you'd do if you were a French person in the Caribbean back then. The point is, nobody could have expected that they were about to fall victim to some divine justice until the snake plague came.
Saint-Pierre was known as "Paris of the Caribbean," a booming cultural capital and tourist hotspot built just under the slope of an extinct volcano (remember that, it's important later). One day, with absolutely no warning, hundreds of 6-foot-long snakes slithered into town and just started killing everyone.
Danleo via Wikipedia
Like this, but, you know, more.
Apparently, the venomous snake plague killed around 50 people and a whole bunch of livestock before (according to the story) they were killed by the town's "giant street cats." We're just repeating what our sources say here.
But that wasn't the end of Saint-Pierre's troubles. Before they could recover from the snakes, another wave of death came over the town in the form of an avalanche of boiling mud. Finally, a superheated ash cloud descended upon the city, literally destroying it in an instant. See, it turned out that the volcano they were nestled under wasn't as extinct as everyone thought it was. The city was so thoroughly obliterated by the disaster that, of the estimated 30,000 people living in Saint-Pierre, only two survived.
Seriously, the barren wasteland behind that guy used to be an entire town.
Clearly, the powers that be had decided that Saint-Pierre had to go. But you have to ask, if you're going to wipe out a whole city with a volcanic eruption, why would you send snakes first? That's just being a dick.
For more ridiculous disasters, check out 6 Natural Disasters That Were Caused by Human Stupidity and 6 Man-Made Natural Disasters Just Waiting to Happen.


text: Close Tweet0 Share0 Comment0 Share0 Share0 Stumble It0 Print0 More Beyond the Baseline 2012 BTB Awards: Favorite pictures by Courtney Nguyen Twitter Email Posted: Fri Nov. 30, 2012 The BTB Awards are our look back at the best — and worst — of the tennis season. Today we open up the scrapbook to present 20 of the most iconic, poignant and downright funny pictures of the year. Everybody say cheese![2012 IN REVIEW: Report Card | Surprises | Meltdowns | Shots | Ranking the Slams | Quotes]Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic, Australian Open: No doubt the most memorable picture from 2012. (Greg Wood/AFP/Getty Images)*****Maria Sharapova, Roland Garros: That's what a career Grand Slam looks like. (Claus Bergmann/Zumapress)*****Serena Williams, Wimbledon: The girl knows how to pose with a trophy. Only Serena. (Glyn Kirk/AFP/Getty Images)*****Andy Murray, Olympics: This is the celebration we wanted to see from Murray, and we finally got it at the Olympics. (Clive Brunskill/Getty Images)*****Andy Roddick, U.S. Open: He may have announced his retirement, but Roddick, as he tells his player's box after beating Fabio Fognini in the third round, wasn't done just yet. (Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)*****Juan Martin del Potro and Andy Roddick, U.S. Open: Until he was. (Mike Stobe/Getty Images)*****Gael Monfils: Obligatory picture of Air Monfils. It's gotta be the shoes. (Getty Images)*****Venus Williams: Don't try to lob Venus. Just don't. (Clive Brunskill/Getty Images)*****Kim Clijsters and Bob Bryan, U.S. Open: One last chest bump for old time's sake. (Chris Trotman/Getty Images)*****Andy Murray and Laura Robson, Olympics: Tennis' resident Big Brother-Little Sister duo are an odd, but playful match. (Landov)*****Maria Sharapova: No picture caused more panic attacks than Sharapova's faux haircut. None. (Maria Sharapova/Facebook)*****Juan Martin del Potro: Madrid's blue clay may have been a bit of a disaster, but it did produce some of the most surreal pictures of the year. (Jasper Juinen/Getty Images)*****David Ferrer, Paris: Finally! (Lionel Bonaventure/AFP/Getty Images)*****Bob Bryan, Mike Bryan, Monte Carlo: This is the year we were introduced to young Micaela Bryan, and our lives are better for it. (Getty Images)*****Stanislas Wawrinka, Australian Open: He was just trying to keep his balance. Yep. Let's go with that. (Landov)*****Roger Federer and Andy Murray, Wimbledon: The Wimbledon final in one picture. (Clive Rose/Getty Images)*****Serena and Venus Williams, Olympics: It was a long road back. (Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images)*****Lucie Safarova (left), Andrea Hlavackova, Fed Cup: Call Me Maybe? (Michal Cizek/AFP/Getty Images)*****Novak Djokovic, China Open: What's a little Gangnam among friends? (Feng Li/Getty Images)*****Maria Sharapova, Stuttgart: See you in 2013, y'all. (Zumapress) More Beyond the Baseline


text:
How can Mac OS X tell what kind of RAM is in the machine? For example I was working on one that had DDR3 RAM @ 1600MHz and I thought it wasn't possible to know the RAM without physically opening the case and looking at it.How can this be done on other systems?
RAM sticks have a small chip on them called the Serial Presence Detect, which contains information such as capacity, preferred timings, manufacturer, and even a serial number.
SPD information is accessible by OSes using the i2c bus (which also includes things like temperature sensors). I think you can directly read the SPDs from Linux using various i2c utilities.
This image from the Wikipedia article has a good picture of it:
On Windows:
Will give you various RAM information you can ask for right from the command prompt.
For example,
Gives you the serial number. You can also use
WMI is the Windows method of querying SMBIOS data. Apple, Linux, Windows and anyone else who wants to run on most hardware made needs to support SMBIOS at some level, for different reasons.
You can use SMBIOS (e.g. through WMI or WMIC in Windows) to also gather hard drive information, network information (is it a 10/100 or 10/100/1000 card?).
To take it one step further, every manufacturer has a code for MAC addresses on NICs. RAM also has a manufacturers code. So all you have to do to get their code, for example my 2 x2GB in this laptop are 830B, is build a database for the manufacturers (830B might be one brand and then resold too!) and also what models mean what. That is how CPUz works I believe—basic queries and a really complete and current database.
The memory speed and type is negotiated with the bios and can be read by the operating system.
There is a very good website giving you a deeper level of understanding about these things at http://www.computermemoryupgrade.net/index1.html
But you can easily figure out which types and speed you have without opening the cover via:
Apple -> About This Mac -> More Info -> System Report
Open Hardware -> Memory
You should see each stick of RAM including Size, Type and Speed (and for fun, Status to make sure it's ok)
On many Linux distributions (e.g. Debian), you can use the lshw hardware lister
I guess that RAM, like all other hardware, reports its description and capabilities to the OS. If Linux can do it, I see no reason why OSX can't.
If your distribution doesn't have lshw installed, you can install it using your package manager, e.g.
or download it from the project website.
On Mac OS X run from terminal:
The RAM stick stores its timing, speed, and type on a little chip on the stick. How does your computer know how fast to run the RAM without corrupting its data? Same chip. Apple simply chooses to display this data as well.
To complement ultrasawblade's answer, on Linux, to decode the SPD data, you can use the
Or for the HTML fancy formatted one:
(w3m being a text based browser/pager). Or of course:
Speccy is a Windows software that will tell you many many things about your computer including RAM type/size/total slots/available slots.
You must log in to answer this question.
protected by slhck Mar 29 '13 at 9:51
Thank you for your interest in this question.
Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).
Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?


text:
The old Greek did not consider 1 a number, so it was not a prime. The theorem of unique prime factorization excludes 1 to be a prime number. But in between probably at Euler's and Goldbach's times? Who can determine most precisely (probably by original papers) when 1 first became a prime number and when 1 had been called a prime number for the last time?
closed as no longer relevant by Felipe Voloch, Gerald Edgar, Asaf Karagila, Suvrit, Bill Johnson Apr 28 '12 at 23:05
This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Both Euler and Goldbach counted 1 as a prime in certain situations (variants of Goldbach's conjecture), and did exclude 1 whenever it suited them (arithmetical functions). The question whether 1 is prime or not was not so terribly important before unique factorization was discovered as a fundamental principle by Gauss.
Edit. Here's a nice episode: when Wallis "solved" Fermat's challenge to find a cube whose sum of divisors is a square (Fermat had given the example $\sigma(343) = 20^2$) by claiming that $1$ does it, Fermat was insulted. Wallis then complained that Fermat was not content with this solution and pretended that this was because "some do not admit that $1$ is a number," and remarked that others do.
By the way, in his own solution of the problem $1+p+p^2+p^3 = x^2$ for primes $p$, Fermat showed that the only solutions are $p = 1$ and $p = 7$, so he counted $1$ as a prime number.
My naive understanding is like this: most, but not all, of the ancient Greeks excluded one from the category of numbers ($\alpha\rho\iota\theta\mu o\varsigma$), hence from the primes (others excluded two as well). Speussippus (c.350BC) is a rare exception:
This view held (mostly) until Stevin's argument that one was a number and his development of the reals (late 16th century)
Now we enter a period of confusion. The view of one as a non-number slowly begins to die out, and some (e.g., Brancker + Pell's table 1688) begin to list one as a prime.
The beginning of the end comes with Gauss' Disquisitiones Arithmeticae as the Fundamental theorem of arithmetic, and especially the uniqueness of factorization, becomes central. At about the same time number fields are introduced and the role of units becomes understood. I could give a long list (like the above) of yeses and nos in this period as well. But the choice of excluding one from the primes gains superiority and is now essentially universal among mathematicians.
Was there a time one was almost universally considered a prime? Absolutely not. Was there a time it was almost universally considered a non-prime: yes, much of history.
Edited to add "last time" from comments:
It might be that the last major mathematician "wrote" that one was a prime in print was G. H. Hardy, who lists one as a prime in his "A course of pure mathematics, "3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, 1921:
He does is indirectly later in this text:
By the 9th edition, 1944, Gerry Myerson notes the first reference to 1 as prime is removed (I'd bet it was changed by the 7th edition, 1938, and will try to check). The decimal (surely accidentally) was still present in the 10th edition that I checked.
However, I am not convince Hardy personally thought (defined) that 1 was prime in 1921, I suspect he thought it was still not important enough to bother changing what he had written in the first edition, 1908. His comments in the article "The Theory of Numbers" in Science (New Series, Vol. 56, No. 1450, Oct. 13, 1922, pp. 401-405), appears to imply 1 is not prime. E.g., he repeats that Mersenne listed $2^n-1$ was prime for 2, 3, ... without commenting about $1=2^1-1$ or altering Mersenne's statement to start at 1---which was commonly done. (I admit this is this is weak evidence!)
Wikipedia has lots of information on this topic. For example, "Henri Lebesgue is said to be the last professional mathematician to call 1 prime."
Not a historical answer, but...
Ruminations on the "field with one element" are in a sense including 1 (and powers of 1) in the set of prime powers.
Also, in quantum groups (loosely speaking, one-parameter deformations of groups) the $q=1$ limit recovers the group while $q$ a root of unity is related to phenomena in prime characteristic $p$ > 0.
There is also the Krasner - Kazhdan - Deligne philosophy of "fields of characteristic $p$ as limits of fields of characteristic 0", recently and somewhat speculatively related to the field of one element in arxiv papers of Connes and Consani.
1 is prime by Hardy's Theorem 90 (not Hilbert's!), see


text:
Archbishop Chaput and the 2004 Election
In her recent column in Commonweal, Melinda Henneberger recounts an interestingand disconcertinginterview with Archbishop Charles Chaput from Denver. Apparently, hes quite astonished about the reaction his foray into presidential politics created in 2004. I quote from the column:He insists that all the attention paid to his statements about abortion during the 04 presidential campaign was unexpected. On one level, it was uncomfortable to be called a Republican when Im not and astonishing to receive a more heated and prodigious response than even the clerical sex-abuse scandals had provoked.
Do I think there are people in the last election who voted for a prochoice candidate and did so sincerely after reflection and prayer? Yes, I do? Did they do wrong? No, they followed their conscience. But that serious reflection and prayer, thats really important, and not just being swayed by party sympathies or thats the way you always vote. It has to be about the issues.I have to say, Im astonished at the Archbishops astonishment. With all due respect, I dont remember him expressing anything at all like the sentiments in the preceding paragraph in 2004. In fact, I remember him expressing very different sentiments indeed.In a column entitled, How to Tell a Duck from a Fox: Thinking with the Church as We Look Toward November, we find the following statement from the Archbishop:
Candidates who claim to be "Catholic" but who publicly ignore Catholic teaching about the sanctity of human life are offering a dishonest public witness. They may try to look Catholic and sound Catholic, but unless they act Catholic in their public service and political choices, they're really a very different kind of creature.
And real Catholics should vote accordingly. In an interview with the New York Times, Archbishop Chaput indicated that it was sin to vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights. He does not distinguish between voting for a candidate foreseeing, but not intending, the support of abortion rights; nor does he distinguish between formal and material cooperation.In an interview in his residence here, Archbishop Chaput said a vote for a candidate like Mr. Kerry who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion.
"If you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?" he asked. "And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes."The Archbishop does mention conscience in a column entitled: Lets Make a Deal: Catholic Conscience and Compromise. He does not entertain the possibility that a Catholic could under any circumstances vote for a pro-choice candidate in good conscience. Indeed, the column suggests quite the opposite: The last two paragraphs.
Next month, October, is Respect Life month. Its a good time to reflect on the meaning of the Kennedy-Cuomo legacy. In brief, its OK to be Catholic in public service as long as youre willing to jettison whats inconveniently Catholic.
Thats not a compromise. Thats a deal with the devil, and it has a balloon payment no nation, no public servant and no voter can afford. According to their plain meaning, Archbishop Chaput's comments in 2004 convey that a real Catholic wouldnt vote for a pro-choice candidate under any circumstances; especially a pro-choice Catholic. Its a sin; a deal with the devil. His statements from that era leave no room for a good faith difference of opinion about whom to vote for as president --they leave no room for the fact that a Catholic might vote for a pro-choice candidate foreseeing, but not intending his or her stance on abortion.But maybe he didn't say everything he meant. Maybe he meant to leave more room for a difference in practical judgment about who would be the best President of the United States. If so, the question remains: If Archbishop Chaput's remarks were so pervasively misinterpreted in 2004, why didnt he make a straightforward statement like the one in Hennebergers column at the time? Why did he wait until years later, when the political and ecclesiastical winds have shifted?
About the Author
Cathleen Kaveny is the Darald and Juliet Libby Professor in the Theology Department and Law School at Boston College.
13 comments
- All
- Editor Featured
Obviously inconsistency is no hobgolin for the Archbishop.
The archbishop and Bishop Sheridan initiated a religious/moral discussion from which he is backtracking. Archbishop Burke responded similarly. That he has been more thoughtful since then, would be good to hear, and why he is now so. What are acceptable positions in this shepherd's opinion, now? Can a Catholic not vote, following the more anarchistic position of "voting only encourages them"? Let's see some sophisticated discussion, rather than prelates speaking with the discipline and sophistication of radio talk show hosts.
Joseph is right -maybe the good bishop finally got around to reading Faithful citizenship
I believe the Archbishop did in fact publish the full interview with the New York Times almost immediately because he felt that crucial points were omitted. For an interpretation of the full interview see Melinda Henneberger's excellent contemporary (October 2004) account at the Newsweek site. Her summary of the full interview: "When Chaput says in the interview that he himself plans to take his absentee ballot into the chapel with him and pray over his choice, he is signaling that it is still up to the individual to weigh all the moral issues involved in light of Catholic teaching. He is communicating the seriousness of the responsibility involved, and saying that it is not a straightforward matter." She points out that in the full interview the Archbishop distinguishes between formal and material cooperation. And Henneberger doesn't read the Archbishops responses in the interview as ignoring the importance of intent. "Now, I dont see the boiled-down version as saying exactly the same thing Chaput said, mostly because the archbishop gets into the whole idea of the intent of the voterand there is no sin without wrong intent." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6291035/site/newsweek/Dave Kopel's contemporary account is also interesting and more sympathetic to the Archbishop than the post above.http://www.davekopel.com/Media/RMN/2004/Archbishop-takes-his%20media-lum...
I read the whole interview too, Patrick--and I'm afraid I didn't read it as positively as Melinda did. I think the whole interview confirms the excerpt in the TImes. For those interested, here it is: http://www.archden.org/images/nyt_transcript.pdf First, he makes it clear that he wants Catholics to take an absolute stand on the abortion issue. "And I think it is important for Catholics, whether they are Republican or democrats, to get over this compromising, yes, but and just give a very clear, colelctive no! A grand refusal to vote for anyone who is pro-choice, so that we have some political influence on this issue. I don't see how you could get any stronger than his "grand refusal." Second, I don't think he presents the cooperation issue correctly. He doesn't distinguish between formal and material cooperation, in fact, he doesn't use the term "formal" cooperation at all. Instead, he takes pains to emphasizes the suspect nature of all types of cooperation in this case as a form of "responsibility" for abortion. In short, he seems to be taking a stand against all cooperation in abortion--which fits with the prior quote. Here's the bit of transcript: "NYT: Archbishop Burke in St. Louis caught my attention again on Friday [October 1]. He issued a statement basically stating that its a sin if you vote for a pro-choice politician, I believe he was saying even if that wasnt the reason you voted for him, that you voted for a pro-abortion politician that is still something that you ought confess. Is that?AB: I dont believe thats where you should start. The place to start would be, does our voting for someone make us responsible for what that person does as a legislator or as a judge?And the answer is yes, because we are in some ways materially -- we use the word materially -- cooperating in that persons activity because weve given [him or her] the platform to be elected. Now, if the person does something wrong, are we responsible for that? Well, if we didnt know they were going to something wrong, our participation is remote, but if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we approved of it, our responsibility would be really be close, even if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we voted for them for another reason, we would still be responsible in some ways.The standing is that if you know someone is going to do evil and you participate in that in some way, you are responsible. So its notif you vote this way, should you go to confession? The question is, if you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil? Now, if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes. Theres a more sophisticated thing hereits not so crude. The reason I want to stress that is because it is not like bishops are issuing edicts about who should vote for whom. Its issuing statements about how a Catholic forms her conscience, or his conscienceand remote material cooperation or proximate material cooperation is cooperation, and its important for Catholics to know that, to be sophisticated in their judgments."Taking all his remarks together, I don't see him leaving much room--or having much respect --for those who did not take a prophetic stand on abortion.
Cathleen,I remain persuaded that Melinda Hansbergers interpretation of the Archbishops interview was thoughtful, clear-headed and quite helpful. Perhaps we can agree that interested readers should read the full interview transcript and make up their own mind. I do notice at least a slight softening of your position. In your original post you state "Archbishop Chaput's comments in 2004 ... leave no room for the fact that a Catholic might vote for a pro-choice candidate foreseeing, but not intending his or her stance on abortion."Now your view is: "I don't see him leaving much room--or having much respect --for those who did not take a prophetic stand on abortion."
I didn't mean the softening, Patrick. I think the whole thing has to be read in context. I encourage people to read the transcript--that's why I posted it.Further, I think the transcript needs to be read in the context of his other writings--including the op ed in the TIMES after the interview --where he held out no olive brach either. In short, he demonstrated no respect for any "hold your nose and vote for Kerry" stance. The context for the column is Chaput's "astonishment" at the reaction his interventions received. But the widespread antipathy to Chaput was prompted by Chaput's evident scorn for those who disagree with him. How else can you interpret the phrase "real Catholics" won't vote for pro-choice candidates. He had contempt for Catholics who voted for Kerry--and people responded accordingly.He could have clarified his stance--he chose not to. Why? He wanted people to think that voting for a pro-choice candidate was wrong under any circusmtances--he says so in the interview. Let's summarize the evidence:1. He calls voting for pro-choice Catholics a "deal with the devil," something a "real Catholic" wouldn't do. 2. He does not distinguish between formal and material cooperation --the key distinction in that concept. Google formal cooperation in the pdf. In fact, thetterm "formal cooperation" doesn't appear at all. Read the text -- Melinda and I quote much the same text. This is not a mere oversight, or a glitch in the notes from moral thelogy class. His idea is coherent: his goal is to emphasizes the wrongness of ANY material cooepration. The Times quotation is accurate in its summary--Sorry Bob Imbelli!What about counter-evidence? Not much. Well, Melinda makes a point that he didn't formally endorse a candidate. Well, he's prohibited from doing so if he didn't want to jeopardize his tax exempt status--and there were complaints made about what he did say to the IRS.For what it's worth, I don't think this column is going to help him very much. People have grudging respect for prophets. But this makes him look like a politician.
Cathleen,I'm not sure if you're now saying Archbishop Chaput left no room or a little room for Catholics to disagree about voting for pro-choice candidates. It sounds like the former. I continue to find MH's 2004 observation perfectly reasonable:"What seems to have surprised Chaput, though, is that the Times concluded that he was saying that a vote for a candidate like Kerry would thus always be wrong. (The church teaches us that its not wrong only if the individual voter concludes there are sufficiently "proportionate" moral grounds for voting for that candidate in spite of his stand on abortion.) "When Chaput says in the interview that he himself plans to take his absentee ballot into the chapel with him and pray over his choice, he is signaling that it is still up to the individual to weigh all the moral issues involved in light of Catholic teaching. He is communicating the seriousness of the responsibility involved, and saying that it is not a straightforward matter."He may not have mentioned each and every concept you consider crucial but, in all respect, you seem to judge anything less than an elaborate treatise as unacceptable in an interview.I think I've been through a similar episode on this site regarding Robert George's views (see the Jan 6, 2007 entries). I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree. In my initial response I just wanted to point out that your views are not undisputed by contemporary observers of some sophistication.
It may seem I'm trying to start a Melinda Henneberger fan club here. Not so. However (and this is off the topic) she deserves more than a little credit for resurrecting (in the same Newsweek piece I've been citing) a concept from the Catholic olden days - "morose delectation.""On the day Times editor Howell Raines, who presided over coverage of the clerical sex-abuse scandals, resigned as a result of the Jayson Blair plagiarism fiasco, one of my coreligionists dryly remarked, 'One is reminded that morose delectation (thats Catholic for schadenfreude) is a serious sin.'"I hope that all the venerable varieties of morose delectation are still being discussed in Catholic schools. It would be shameful if knowledge of such an enticing sin passed into oblivion.
I'm not asking for a treatise. I'm asking for a basic distinction. The basic distinction between formal and material cooperation is one that turns on intent to further the wrongful act of the principal agent. If you introduce the doctrine of cooperation, you ought to know how to use it. The plain meaning--not the jargon-- is don't vote for Kerry no matter what.Calling something a "bargain with the devil" isn't exactly technical in my book. Let me ask you a couple of questions: Why do YOU think Arcbhishop Chaput didn't issue a two or three sentence statement like the one at the end of Melinda's 2007 column in 2004? And why do you think he's putting it out there now?'What's the best explanation of all the facts?
It's obvious from the transcript of Archbishop Chaput's interview with TheTimes that he was urging Catholics not to vote for Senator Kerry. TheTimes story reported that: It was news. - 30 -
Cathleen,Once more into the breach.Perhaps our disagreement can be phrased, as I suggested in one of the comments above, this way: A) Did the AB leave any room for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice candidate, or B) did he leave no room and instead, as the Times states, declare that a vote for a candidate like Mr. Kerry who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion.? I think the distinction between A and B is critical. It seems to me that you are claiming the Times is correct in asserting B (The Times quotation is accurate in its summary in your words). If A is true, however, the Times flat statement is incorrect.The following excerpts from the full interview, among other, seem to me to more naturally support interpretation A rather than B. "AB: The reason I want to stress that is because it is not like bishops are issuing edicts about who should vote for whom. Its issuing statements about how a Catholic forms her conscience, or his conscience""AB: So you have to weigh foundational issues against non-foundational issues perhaps. The calculus on who you are going to vote for is important and you have to take it very seriously. I have to pray about who I am going to vote for, I cant presume anything until I get into the voting booth and Im going to vote early by the way so Im not going into a voting booth, but it wont be a casual thing and Ill probably go to chapel with my ballot."Those excerpts, by the way, sound not so different from the excerpt you quoted (from the current MH column) in your original post and which you thought to be a suspiciously new sentiment on the part of the AB: "But that serious reflection and prayer, thats really important, and not just being swayed by party sympathies or thats the way you always vote. It has to be about the issues. In my view the AB is telling Catholics, then and now, that it's wrong to casually vote for someone nominally identified as a Catholic who nevertheless heartily endorses abortion. I stress the word casually in that sentence. That is, one should not thoughtlessly vote for a Catholic because he claims to be a Catholic. Instead one should seriously examine his views on abortion and other foundational issues and make a reflective, considered judgment. The AB did not, repeat not, make statement B, that all Catholics voting for Kerry are sinning and must go to confession. Again these are not eccentric views invented by me. To cite the MH report once more about another distortion in the Times article:The Times report also says, Liberal Catholics contend that the church has traditionally left weighing the issues to the individual conscience. But no one disputes that thats still the case. Chaput himself states this plainly in the interview.My own generalization about NYT coverage is that any prominent Catholic who is not an identified political liberal is in for a hard time when the grey lady calls. Even with the best of intentions secular reporters find it hard to take seriously religious claims unless they can be linked to the current pieties of liberal orthodoxy. If the subject can make that connection, the subject is granted a strange new respect. If not, his position is likely to be treated unsympathetically. A similar process even occurs on some blogs.As to your questions, I have no idea why Archbishop Chaput did or did not issue the kind of statement you would like. For all I know he did, but I havent examined all his columns or other statements. I do believe that it's often foolish and frequently presumptuous to discuss another's motivation. Moreover, I would certainly want to see specific evidence before I would endorse the suggestion that the AB is issuing new statements because, as you put it, "political and ecclesiastical winds have shifted." As far as possible I want to avoid that kind of armchair psychologizing. I would be appalled if you or anyone else took seriously any musings about the ABs motivations that I might offer. Heres a not so novel idea. Why not directly ask the Bishop your questions about his motivation? Hes obviously the best source to satisfy your curiosity. If asked, he might even offer comments on the distinctions you wish he had explicitly addressed. It might be a productive exchange.Since its such a glorious weekend here Im resolving to avoid any more polemics for now. I dont put a lot of credence in the Times reporters when they attempt to articulate subtle points of Catholic moral theology but I pay close attention to their weather report. When they say the weather will be splendid I accept that as divine revelation and as a clear sign that I've spoken enough and its time to leave the keyboard.
Okay Patrick. My final comment. I have to finish an article today, so no beautiful weather for me.1. I disagree with the read of the full interview in the Times. I think the reading Melinda and you propose is strained beyond plausibility. She herself acknowledge that the vast majority of people wouldn't see any difference. 2. I am not interested in exegesis of the NYT--or in Times bashing or defending, for that matter. I'm interested in the change in Chaput's stance from 2004 as reflected in ALL of his comments. Your focus has been the Times, not mine.3. Why does this matter now? There are two possible ways to explain the change.a. He was tragically misunderstood at the time, due to hostile secular forces incorrectly presenting his views. b. He is reinterpreting his past stance in light of changed political and ecclesiastical circumstances.Whether one believes a. or b. significantly affects how one assess the Archbishop's atttempts to intervene in the public square now, and one's predictions of how he will respond when the circumstances change again. It affects one's assessment of his role as a potential leader of the American church.Since he has repeatedly intervened on the national scene, not wishing to confine himself to Denver, this is a question of interest to all American Catholics, not merely to those who live in Denver


text:
I've tried using Matt Harris' Twitter OAUTH library (https://github.com/themattharris/tmhOAuth) replacing default data with my keys and tokens, but for some reason I can't get a valid response code.
The url I'm testing with ends with a port (8888), but I'm not sure if that is to do with it. I'm tailing the PHP log and there are no errors.
$tweet_text = 'Hello world!';
print "Posting...\n";
$result = post_tweet($tweet_text);
print "Response code: " . $result . "\n";
function post_tweet($tweet_text) {
$connection = new tmhOAuth(array(
'consumer_key' => '(hidden)',
'consumer_secret' => '(hidden)',
'user_token' => '(hidden)',
'user_secret' => '(hidden)',
array('status' => $tweet_text));
return $connection->response['code'];
Does anybody have any ideas?
Many thanks.


text:
1957 Chevy 150 Two-Door Sedan - Black WidowWritten by Brian Brennan on September 1, 2012 Contributors: Randy Lorentzen George Poteet's '57 Chevy reminds us of the early days of "iron on the sand" factory performance
Chevrolet's '57 purpose-built race car, known as the "Black Widow," is as iconic as it is rare. As for production numbers, there aren't any as the car never came off the production line and no known credible numbers exist. The first competitive appearance of the black and white fuel-injected 150 two-door sedan was at NASCAR's National Speedweeks in Daytona in February 1957.
George Poteet's Black Widow isn't an original, nor is it intended to be a faithful recreation but rather a tribute to the car and the idea of Chevrolet Performance. The modern attributes make this Black Widow the one with the most venomous bite! The '57 Chevy 150 "post car" that was turned into the vaunted Black Widow is truly a special car. On behalf of George, Chris Sondles, of Woody's Hot Rodz in Bright, Indiana, ram-rodded the two-year project, gaining inspiration from the artwork of Eric Brockmeyer. Before we get into this four-wheel arachnid a brief history lesson is in order.
In 1956, Vince Piggins, with the blessings of Ed Cole, then GM vice president and general manager, moved to Atlanta and established Southern Engineering and Development Company (SEDCO), which gave birth to the Black Widow and its distinctive black and white paint scheme. While these cars ran the innovative mechanical fuel injection (FI) on top of the 283ci/283hp V-8 the reality was the FI cars suffered from an underhood malady where the FI experienced false pressure readings and subsequent power loss above 80 mph. A partial solution was achieved once the inner fenders were cut out. It's been reported the FI-equipped cars ran only one top division NASCAR race and from then on were converted to a single 380-cfm four-barrel, although the cars continued to race with the "Fuel Injection" badges. (It was on April 23, 1957, that NASCAR rewrote the rules, making the single four-barrel mandatory, thereby rendering FI illegal.)
Another distinctive Black Widow attribute was the use of six-lug hubs and wheels. The cars themselves came from Detroit and not the Atlanta plant as the one-piece frame was thought to be stronger and only available from the Detroit facility. It's been reported that the six-lug feature was added to the cars once at SEDCO. The six-slug axle had larger, commercial-equipped brakes ('57 Chevy 1/2-ton pickup), making this an ideal, for the time, race accessory.
The trunk area of the factory Black Widows had the license plate on the decklid along with the key lock and the "V" logo, while the crossed flags and FI nameplates resided on the rear quarter-panels. On George's Black Widow the license plate is moved to the bumper (i.e. station wagon) and the "V" logo on the decklid and crossed flags on the rear quarter-panels were removed. On the front of the factory Black Widow there was the "V" logo on the hood along with the twin hood "rockets." On George's version, the OEM "V" logo was removed, as were the twin hood rockets.
The builders at Woody's performed these and the numerous other body modifications. The top was "pancaked" 1-7/8 inches by Woody's Adam Beck while the front fenders were extended 1-1/2 inches and the rear fins pulled back 2 inches at the peak. Because of the mods to the front and rear fenders both the headlights and taillights required modified bezels and custom fitting. The front and rear bumper/pan areas were extensively modified by Woody's Matt Baldwin.
The iconic twin rockets that reside on a '57 hood were removed and replaced with new ones crafted by Clay Cook of C. Cook Enterprises (CCE) in Erlanger, Kentucky. Woody's staff lowered these new rockets 3/4 inch from stock. These openings are decorative; functioning air intakes are built into the radiator core support.
To give the appearance of a "wider" grille opening every other vertical bar on the insert was removed. After the bodywork was handled, the PPG black and Ford Custard (a subdued white) paint was applied by Sondles and Joe Shinliver of Woody's. The exterior is devoid of such things as mirrors, emblems, and the like but there's still plenty of brightwork that was handled by Sherm's Custom Plating of Sacramento, California. Danchuk supplied items such as the door handles and other trim pieces.
Inside there were plenty of sheetmetal mods to the dash. In 1957, Chevy went away from the double-dash "hump" that the '55-56 had. However, at Woody's they thought it would be cool to bring it back. Not only was the hump added but so was the Corvette "grab bar" ("oh sh*t bar", or "panic bar," or any number of other exclamations many a hot order has expressed while riding in those early Vettes.) Both of the humps were leaned forward into the cabin ever so slightly (3/4 inch) while the remainder of the dash was smoothed over; note the absence of a glovebox or radio or any dash-mounted switches. The traditional, but modified, dash pods are filled with Classic Instruments gauges with the "SEDCO" acronym on the 220-mph speedo along with the "Black Widow" logo that also appears on the 10,000-rpm tach. Heninger of Woody's crafted the Sherm's chromed pedals, pedal levers, and the shift handle and then sanded them to give a "machined" look. Bud Kocher of Specialty Automotive handled the wiring chores throughout, basing the project on a kit from American Autowire. The steering column is a '57 that was "warmed over" by Flaming River of Berea, Ohio, that attaches to a cut-down (15-inch) Dennis Crooks Quality Restorations (Poway, California) steering wheel with a custom horn button that features the Chevrolet logo and "One Fifty" script.
Since the Black Widows were basic 150 Utility sedans they never had a rear bench seat or moveable rear quarter windows, hence no bench seat, no window cranks. Woody's Heninger did much of the dash work and the rear seat area that also has a modern-day NASCAR feel to it. Note the wheel tubs and the use of DynaDeck from DynaMat on the flooring. DynaDeck makes an excellent floor covering as it serves to fight off heat and sound through it's built in thermal and acoustic properties. Where carpeting is used it comes from Auto Custom Carpets (Anniston, Alabama) in a black Daytona weave. The combination of cloth and vinyl in black and silver cobblestone is used to cover the '57 four-door sedan bench seat that's used along with custom door panels upholstered by Baldwin of Woody's Custom Upholstery. The seatbelts are vintage aircraft while the steel rollbar (painted in a black satin finish) comes from Hilltop Performance in Harrison, Ohio.
The original Black Widow featured the latest innovation from Chevrolet Performance in the Rochester mechanical FI. Today EFI is commonplace but back in the day when the carburetor was "King of the Performance Hill" FI was something special. On George's '57 a limited-edition (No. 137 of 427 built) all-aluminum 427-inch big-block (510 hp and 502 lb-ft of torque) was built at Bischoof Engine Service in Guilford, Indiana, sporting twin Holley carbs; the "thirsty" V-8 receives its fuel from a 25-gallon Danchuk gas tank. The big-block all-aluminum V-8 looks like an "as cast" but its focal point of color rests squarely on the bright orange painted valve covers coming from the CNC machinery at CCE. Another BES "eye-popping" feature built at Sondles' request is the very cool staggered cross-ram intake that houses the twin Holly 450-cfm four-barrels.
The air cleaner package was built by Dane Heninger of Woody's with the air coming via a pair of snorkels that gather in their O2 through intakes crafted into the radiator core support. (Heninger is Sondles brother-in-law, guess that's what they mean by keeping it in the family! Speaking of family, it was Sondles' dad, Fred, who was instrumental in handing down the lifelong passion for Tri-Fives, stemming from his own passion for these cars.) The ignition comes from PerTronix in its Flame-Thrower distributor and coil system with custom headers by Baldwin of Woody's while the exhaust system that uses Flowmaster Hush Power mufflers was welded up by Heninger. More Heninger handiwork can be seen in the custom shifter for the Tremec TKO-600 (five-speed). It's bolted to the potent big-block via a McLeod Racing dual-disc flywheel/clutch package that transfers the power to the Strange Engineering (Morton Grove, Illinois) 9-inch rearend via a Cincinnati Driveline aluminum driveshaft.
The Art Morrison Enterprises (AME) (Fife, Washington) Tri-Five chassis comes with a Strange Engineering (SE) 9-inch rearend fitted with 3.70 gears and a limited-slip differential, 31-spline axles, SE coilover shocks, Wilwood 12-1/2-inch rotors and calipers, and a sway bar. The front suspension is based on an AME IFS with SE coilover shocks, and matching Wilwood rotors and calipers. The Wilwood master cylinder (7/8-inch bore) features a custom top by CCE with a Jeg's adjustable proportioning valve. The spindles and sway bar are AME while the rack-and-pinion is Ford.
Keeping the Black Widow theme moving, CCE machined a set of four billet aluminum wheels (painted to look steel) with six lugs, 5-1/4-inch backspace in front and 4-1/2-inch backspace in the rear. The wheels measured 18x8 and 18x10 all wrapped with BFGoodrich g-Force T/A KDW rubber, measuring 245/40ZR18 and 275/40ZR18.
In 1957 congressional hearings were conducted about stock car racing. They claimed the automakers' racing advertisements were contributing to racing and reckless driving on the road. During February 1957 the Automobile Manufacturers Association prepared a resolution suggesting all manufacturers stop auto racing activities, and that type of advertising, including the support of private racers. This "killed" the Black Widow project and many that would have followed. It didn't work then and it hasn't worked today, with all of the government regulations performance is alive and well from the factories down to those of us who bear the title "hot rodder." The Black Widow was only one car from one manufacturer but it represents the spirit that has made hot rodders and hot rodding so fantastic.
More Photos From This Article View Slideshow
The limited-edition aluminum 427 was screwed together by Bischoof Engine Service (BES). Ignition is a PerTronix Flame Thrower system and custom headers by Woody's own Matt Baldwin. The custom twin-snorkel intake begins at the radiator core support and runs back to the fabricated intake. A Be Cool aluminum radiator and mechanical fan handle the cooling chores.The twin 450-cfm Holleys rest on the custom staggered cross-ram intake made by BES, while the custom air intake was fabricated by Heninger (Woody's).