Jeff Geerling's blog

Replacing the hard drive in a (non-unibody) MacBook Pro

A friend of mine had an older 2008 MacBook Pro (the kind that does not have the modern 'unibody' construction), and he noticed it was getting slower. He upgraded the RAM to max it out at 4 GB (I think it might be able to go to 6 or 8 GB if needed). But a lot of things took a long time to do, even though the Mac had a 1.86 Ghz Core 2 Duo processor (not a slouch by any means).

He asked me to replace the hard drive with an SSD, so I did. I followed this iFixIt guide, and put in a new OCZ Agility 256GB SSD, which is way faster (especially for random access, like when you boot the computer or launch an app) than the old disk drive that I removed from the MacBook Pro.

I recorded the entire process (about 23 minutes) using my Nikon D7000 along with a Audio Technica PRO88W wireless microphone, and posted it on YouTube:

The Importance of All Souls

Yesterday, at a Mass celebrating the Solemnity of All Saints, the priest's homily was about how All Saints was like Thanksgiving; we're all gathered around a table for a feast—our chatty aunt, our boisterous grandpa, our crazy grandma who drinks a little too much. And all those relatives who have died—our aunts and uncles, our grandmas and grandpas, some of our siblings, and maybe children—are saints. The feast is to celebrate all of them, not 'big name' saints like Augustine, Aquinas, and Clare.

I was willing to give the priest the benefit of the doubt when he said this, because he could mean that all those who have passed away and are now in Heaven are saints... but then he said further: "We're all more good than bad," and proceeded to talk about how he loves eulogies in funeral liturgies (which he says became a norm after Vatican II) because they show all the good things people did in life. He also said he's glad priests don't wear black for funerals anymore (they can, of course, but very few do), because black is so depressing. Priests wear white because they celebrate the resurrection of the dead!

Get out of Hell Free card
This is not how faith works.

What an incredible thing to hear! I might as well stop going to Mass, then, because I generally try to do good things, and worship of God is just one of many good things I could be doing, right? Wrong. Oh, so wrong.

You see, the priest has fallen prey to the belief in the fundamental option and the false outcome of its conclusion: We generally choose to either try to do good and follow God, or not. If we try to choose the good, it doesn't really matter what we do, because God will be all smiles and hugs when we die and visit him at the pearly gates.

Here's the problem: There are most certainly things that can cause us to not get to Heaven, even if we generally (or almost always) do good things. We call those things mortal sins: murder, adultery, masturbation, gluttony, not making holy the Lord's day, etc. When a person commits a mortal sin, that person must go to confession or the person risks losing Heaven!

And another problem: most people don't go straight to Heaven after dying. There's a saying, "there are two people lying at a Funeral—one in the coffin, and one at the pulpit." One good reason for not having a eulogy in the actual Funeral liturgy is that it tends to sanctify the person. Most people, believe it or not, are not perfect, and are not going to Heaven straightaway. They're going to need to spend some time in purgatory purifying themselves of all the effects of their sins before they can make it to Heaven. Imagine a child playing in mud and dirt for an afternoon—before coming to dinner with the rest of his family, he'll need to wash up; the more dirt, the longer the washing. Purgatory's like that.

Also, if one believes that all people who die end up in Heaven, what's the point of today's feast, All Souls? Why would we celebrate All Saints one day and All Souls the next? We're not celebrating our own souls—we're celebrating and praying for the souls of the faithful departed; the souls of our aunts and uncles, grandmas and grandpas, brothers and sisters who have passed away before us. These souls are in need of our prayer, for many are not yet in Heaven!

We can't be sure of anyone's sanctity, so we default to praying for all those who have passed away and are not canonized—even those who we feel lived the holiest of holy lives here on earth! Yes, including your saintly grandmother who prayed the rosary (all the mysteries) every day. Yes, including your uncle who ministered to the poor every week. Yes, including the priest or nun who seemed to be on his or her knees praying more than anyone else you know.

This anecdote (from an article on eulogies in Catholic funeral liturgies) about Mother Teresa illustrates the point that the holiest people are most acutely aware of the fact that they are not holy enough to enter Heaven (yet):

Another joke tells of the man who died at the same time as Mother Teresa of Calcutta and found himself a few places behind her at the Pearly Gates. He is complacent that he will be admitted until he hears Saint Peter exclaim sternly, "But Teresa, you could have done a lot more."

Mother Teresa herself would have insisted that she could have done a lot more. It is one of the characteristics of saints that they are acutely aware of their sins, of how completely they depend on God's mercy, of how little they "deserve" at God's hands. But modern sensibilities have subtly changed hope—that a merciful God will grant me salvation—into arrogant certainty.

We are not certain that our deceased relatives are in Heaven, so we pray for them on this great feast, the feast of All Souls. We celebrate the lives of the saints on November 1st, and hope for the sanctification of others in the communion of the faithful on November 2nd.

Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon them. May the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Windows 8 - A Long Way to Go [Updated]

[Update: I've been playing around with Windows 8 Pro for a few hours since receiving it from Amazon (Win 8 Pro is only $66 on Amazon!), and I have a few more observations:

  • For an IT staffer or someone doing normal Windows configuration—adding printers, changing TCP/IP settings, etc., Windows 8 is almost exactly the same as Windows 7, with some typical version-to-version text and icon arrangement changes.
  • Using gestures with a mouse in a virtualized environment is a pain. Keyboard shortcuts are easier, but require more learning. I'll probably install a start button app.
  • Metro is mostly out of the way, but certain things have to be done through the metro interface, and on a computer with a keyboard and mouse, those things are not immediately intuitive (see notes below).
  • Interface animations and transitions are pretty smooth; still not as unintrusive as iOS, but better than anything else I've seen (including Android).]

I've been playing around with all the Windows 8 preview releases, and reading a bunch of early preview reviews, and current reviews. This review from Ars Technica highlights the highs and lows of Windows 8, but almost all the most annoying aspects of the new version of Windows have to do with the 'desktop' vs 'Metro' ('modern ui') divide. This paragraph summarizes my thoughts exactly:

There is a hard and dividing line between the two worlds. Far from allowing seamless switching between the two environments, they barely even acknowledge the other's existence. It's extremely limited, and it means that as a person who has to use the desktop for some things, I find myself avoiding Metro apps for all things. Bridging the gap is just too painful and annoying.

At this point, I'm still of the opinion that Apple has it right: Full-featured desktop OS optimized for keyboards, mice, and trackpads called Mac OS X, and Full-featured tablet/phone OS optimized for touch called iOS.

I had hoped Windows 8 would be a desktop OS on the desktop (or when you have a mouse/keyboard attached to your Windows tablet), and Metro/modern ui when you're using a tablet. Trying to have both worlds on both platforms feels terrible, especially on the desktop. Instead of feeling like a 'modern' ui, Metro feels like a thorn in Windows' side because of how annoying it can be. Even with all the (hard-to-learn) keyboard shortcuts.

Hopefully Windows 8 will improve it's desktop experience dramatically, or I fear it will be another Windows Vista (maybe worse) in terms of early user acceptance/perception.

Year of Faith - Resources

Tomorrow begins the Year of Faith, when, as Pope Benedict points out, "we must rediscover a taste for feeding ourselves on the word of God, faithfully handed down by the Church, and on the bread of life, offered as sustenance for his disciples."

Stained Glass - Jesus the High Priest

Here are a few resources I'd like to highlight for making the Year of Faith personal:

  • Read the Catechism in a Year - Flocknote (disclaimer: I work there) is offering an email-a-day with one reading from the Catechism. In a year's time, you'll be able to read through the entirety of the Catholic faith (in summary form). Readings are provided through @CatechismAPI
  • The Catholicism Series - A very well-done video series highlighting the Catholic faith, narrated by Fr. Robert Barron and produced by Word on Fire.
  • The Nicene Creed - Try memorizing this creed. You may recite it every Sunday, but have you ever tried repeating it to yourself outside of Mass? This is the summation of all our faith, and it's good to know. If anyone asks you what you believe, start off, "I believe in One God, the Father Almighty..."
  • Get a Plenary Indulgence - Indulgences are real, and they're definitely a helpful tool for your spiritual life. Not quite a 'get into Heaven for free' card, but about as close as you can get, short of martyrdom! :)
  • Vatican Website for the Year of Faith - Lots of resources, news and videos. Well done site, to boot! (Just a little distracting on the home page, imo.)

How are you going to kick off the Year of Faith?

This Changes Nothing (Contraception and Abortion) [Updated]

[Update: An enlightening look at the viability of the study mentioned in this post.]

A recent study supports the popular opinion (used to justify the HHS birth control mandate, among other things) that providing free contraceptives to women reduces the rate of abortion:

Free birth control led to greatly lower rates of abortions and births to teenagers, a large study concludes, offering strong evidence for how a bitterly contested Obama administration policy could benefit women’s health. The two-year project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured, who were given their choice of a range of free contraceptives.

– Quote from NYT, based on findings in this study.

People infer that the Catholic Church is 'wrong about contraception' and should accept contraception because free contraceptives are proven to reduce abortions and unwanted pregnancies.

But this view of the Church is wrong. Oh so wrong.

Reality Hits

This may come as a surprise, but Catholics don't actually care whether free contraceptives reduce abortion rates and unwanted pregnancies. Sure, it's interesting to know this fact, but this has no bearing on whether or not we belive artificial contraceptives are morally acceptable.

Catholics believe humans are sexual beings—male and female. We belive that God made us to be united to one another, in loving and sexual relationships. These relationships have two essential characteristics: they must be unitive, and they must be procreative.

"They are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate." (Matthew 19:6)

For every sexual act in a loving, sexual relationship, both characteristics must be present. If one is not, the sexual act is the opposite of love—it is devoid of love. The sin of rape is when someone forces another into a sexual act. The sin of adultery is when a sexual act is committed outside of a loving relationship (marriage), or is committed in a way that divides the love of the couple (as in masturbation). These are sins against the unitive aspect of a sexual relationship.

But the other aspect, that of procreation, is quite simple: don't mess with nature (basically).

When you place a barrier between the male and the female, or make one or the other infertile intentionally, you are destroying the procreative characteristic of sexual love. Therefore, the act is sinful.

Other people can explain this teaching more in depth.

There is no way the Church can ever approve of forms of birth control that destroy human relationships. It is irrational to allow something into a relationship that you know will destroy it.

Family Planning

So, is the Church against family planning? No.

Catholics practice methods of family planning that (a) unite couples, and (b) don't interfere with God's plan for loving sexual relationships. The Catholic Church supports and recommends Natural Family Planning methods (which are more effective, when used correctly, than any form of birth control).

Natural Family Planning uses natural signs of fertility to determine when a couple would likely conceive or not conceive a child as a result of sexual intercourse. Then, the couple chooses whether they will abstain from intercourse (if they wish to not conceive) during times of fertility.

It's an extremely simple method of family planning. It works, it doesn't require any taxpayer funding, or extra materials, or hormone-altering drugs, or possible-side-effect-inducing devices. And it builds character and relationship in two distinct ways:

  1. NFP increases communication. Communication, as Dr. Phil would say, is key to any relationship—especially one so intimate as a married relationship.
  2. Abstinence builds self-control, and makes the relationship more 'we', and less 'me'. Anyone who can't commit to not having sexual intercourse for a week or two is doing no better than a lion in a field. We're not animals on the Discovery Channel.

Most important, and the reason the Church recommends it, is this: NFP is aligned with the Catholic view of wholesome sexual relationships—which are essentially unitive and procreative.

There are other benefits as well, like teaching a woman more about her body, and giving her indications about other potential health and fertility issues, but I'll leave it to the reader to discover them.

So, No Artificial Contraception?

Nope. Not now, not ever. This won't change unless the Church backtracks on its entire understanding of human existence. And that's not gonna happen.

Even if artificial contraception lowers the number of abortions and unwanted pregnancies, it is not allowed in the Catholic worldview. The ends don't justify the means.

Sources and further reading:

Pages

Subscribe to Reviews Subscribe to Articles Subscribe to All Content Subscribe to Blog Subscribe to RSS - Jeff Geerling's blog