I don't say this often, because this is/., not Wikipedia. But for the same reason I mentioned before: [citation needed].
Everything you say may be true. But it contradicts many things other people have been saying, for a very long time.
So an assertion that "it is called that because" needs some evidence. I didn't make a claim, GP did. I didn't say anybody was lying, I just said other people (for a very long time now) have said other things.
So get off MY butt and produce evidence, or shut up.
OP is wrong anyway. The only thing that "melted down" was the original working group.
The group currently doing the security audit announced their full intent to continue the project. So it hasn't "melted down" any more than MySQL did. Just somebody else taking the reins.
(Just to clarify, I meant MariaDB. I don't count Oracle as "taking the reins". That was more like a stampede over a cliff.)
Who would have thought that destroying an ecosystem would have more than one bad effect?
More to the point, this is hardly a recent revelation.
People in my part of the U.S. were fighting deforestation (this is a logging region), based on studies that said it caused turbidity in streams, causing among other things nutrification and drastically reducing oxygen, which in turn killed the local aquatic life (which is a major sporting industry in this part of the U.S.).
And that was when I was, like, 12 years old. Which was a l-o-n-g time ago.
I'm not saying this paper didn't show something valid. But the suggestion made by OP, that this is all some kind of new revelation, is just a few decades late. Likely there was some fine point in the paper that reinforced what we already knew. But AFAIK, OP says nothing new at all.
Mod this one up. If memory is corrupted, disk can become "corrupted", but only because it's a copy of the actual contents of memory.
Fault-tolerant memory and fault-tolerant file systems may have similarities but they are separate issues. If either one becomes corrupted it can "corrupt" the other, but only because one is a copy of the other.
Mac OS X is Unix -- it's been certified as Unix by the group that holds the copyright to the term. Every version of OS X from 10.5 - 10.9 except for 10.7 has been certified unix.
No. OS X meets the "Open Group" standard called POSIX, which means it is "sufficiently" Unix-like... to meet that standard.
That is all it means. It doesn't mean "OS X is Unix". If anything, it is more like Linux than Unix, but it isn't quite either one.
There are versions of Linux that could also be POSIX-compliant if they wanted to make a minor tweak or two, and pay the certification fees. They don't want to bother. It's that simple.
Unfortunately the etymology of the word is lost in obscurity. Even Linus' own word on the matter is no longer trustworthy.
The fact that around the same time, self-referencing acronyms ("Gnu is Not Unix", for example) were very popular and it is likely you won't convince many people even if you're right, unless you have an unimpeachable source.
When most people ask if it is Unix, they mean would a person familiar with Unix have any problems with tricks and traps or not. That is a much more subtle question, but also a much more important one.
I think a better question would be: can I take my code for X, natively compile it on Y, and expect it to run?
Although it is built on BSD, the majority of C code written for Linux will compile and run in OS X. At least, just about everything I've tried has. I haven't tried to do FPS games or anything. But "work" code, sure. Despite differences here and there, it's a *nix system and works like one. Even X11 stuff runs fine (like Gimp for example), even though OS X has its own proprietary GUI.
Given Linux's intellectual and usage dominance I'd say that the old Open Systems approach clearly no longer works. A standard that excludes Linux is not a standard. So I'm coming down that POSIX / Open Group should not be the definition of UNIX.
Yes, but you should clarify that "Open Groups" is the name of a group, and doesn't come close to representing all of Open Source or Open Software. You know that, I know that, but not everybody knows that.
Having said that, I think we are basically agreed. The existing POSIX should be re-labeled just POS, and we should all just move on. I am all for open technical standards, but if they aren't changing with the times, then the times will move along without them.
No Linux variant has been certified according to the POSIX standards for UNIX, and most variants have subtle ways in which they diverge from the POSIX standards, at least subtly.
Haha. Now you've opened a completely different can of worms. For just one example: why should POSIX matter much these days?
BSD, for example, can essentially (though perhaps not completely technically) be called "Linux with extensions". (They deny it but their own description pretty much gives no technical differences except to say that Linux binaries won't run... and without further explanation that could simply be a compiler dead-man. The only specific difference they point out is licensing.) And the only real reason BSD isn't POSIX-compliant is because they have no interest in paying the fees.
Take OS X for example... it's built on BSD yet it IS POSIX-compliant. Because they wanted to be and paid the cert fees. Big deal.
If OS X and even Windows can be made POSIX compliant (they can), then just about anything could be made POSIX compliant if the owners wanted to bother. They just don't want to.
So now that the waters are thoroughly muddied, I'll muddy them further by saying: today, if you're not an Enterprise shop... you should ask yourself whether you really have any reason to give a shit.
It is about time that legislative authorities makes it illegal for Apple and other negligent vendors to ship file systems that are essentially faulty by design.
This is exactly like saying "It should be illegal to sell a Toyota Prius without 4-point harnesses, ABS, and a roll cage."
You knew what it was when you bought it. It is inappropriate to try to make the entire world "safe" via legislation. It doesn't work that way and you'd probably hurt more people than you help.
You aren't a little kid who needs to be forced to wear a bicycle helmet. Or for that matter if it's YOUR kid, you shouldn't need a law that forces you to make her wear a helmet. That's your job.
Ultimately, it isn't a "failure" of HFS+ when your files get corrupted. It was (definitely) a hardware failure. It's just that HFS+ didn't catch the error when it happened.
Granted, HFS+ is due for an update. That's something I've said myself many times. But blaming it when something goes wrong is like blaming your Honda Civic for smashing your head in when you roll it. It wasn't designed with a roll cage. You knew that but you bought it anyway, and decided to hotdog.
Checksums also have performance and storage costs. So there are several different ways to look at it. One thing I strongly suggest is keeping records of your drive's S.M.A.R.T. status, and comparing them from time to time. And encourage Apple to update their FS, rather than blaming it for something it didn't cause, or for not doing something it wasn't designed to do.
Those people should have long ago been transferred to a special federal prison such as the recently closed super-max in Illinois that tried very hard to become the site.
They should have been there from the very beginning. Leaving aside the rest of your rant, you don't seem to get it that they're there because of Bush and Obama administration "legal theories" that they can be treated there in ways that would be illegal on U.S. soil. While the whole concept might have started with Bush administration, people in the Obama administration haven't seemed to try to refute the concept, either.
I'm not going to try to argue that Obama didn't at least make some small effort. But my impression was that it was pretty small. And that impression is bolstered by the fact that in so many other matters, Obama really doesn't seem to give a shit what Congress thinks or does.
and in order to do so they must have authorization from the Governor of that region.
It may not have been intentional but you illustrate a big part of the problem with this surveillance: with very few exceptions, the Federal government has no jurisdiction OR other authority to be involved in local/state criminal matters. The only time the Feds are legally allowed to be involved is if it involves interstate or international crime.
If I were someone who was a victim of this illegal surveillance (according to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, as another story mentioned just today, it *IS* a 4th Amendment violation), and I had evidence that the Federal government was involved, I think I'd press charges under 18 USC 242, "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law".
Now that a Federal court (even if it's not my circuit) has ruled that it IS a 4th Amendment violation, there is probably a pretty good chance of making it stick.
Correct. Allowing outsiders to inject themselves as spoilers into an internal race isn't fair. This is why party registration and closed primaries make sense. That's at least ore fair than doing the entire nomination via convention and forgoing primaries all together.
Pretty huge presumption, here. Where did you get the idea that party-centric elections are "fair" in the first place? Where do you imagine any legal or Constitutional authority exists for political parties?
I strongly suggest you read George Washington's Second Farewell Address.
The fundamental problem with these alternative measures, and others like them, is that they are based on the fallacy that just because humans use their intelligence to perform them, they necessarily require intelligence.
This is a great, concise way to state it, and I hope you do not mind if I borrow it. I would be willing to cite the source but I do not know what the source really is.
As for being "correct", Schmidt himself said: "Models are not right or wrong. They are always wrong. They are always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it is skillful."
And this is EXACTLY why the models are bullshit. Because they have not been JUST consistently wrong, but consistently HUGELY wrong.
I actually DO give credit to the models as being "guesses". But if we are to accept them as science, they are terrible guesses. If you have ever read Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong, and actually looked at how weel the models have reflected reality (or, more properly, failed to do so), you could only conclude that we are going back to the Stone Age in our understanding of what is correct.
Wrong may be relative, but when it's that wrong, it's just wrong. Period.
Check out this website. The author has made it a duty of his to record the ASTOUNDINGLY MANY injuries to responsible data that have been perpetrated by GISS.
He uses their own data to show how they manipulate the truth. At his own personal cost, on his own time.
In particular, the "adjustments" GISS makes to temperature data is under very serious question.
I know who Schmidt is, and his personal charisma does not responsible science make. TED is an idea workshop, not a science forum. While it is interesting and even sometimes educational (in the sense that new ideas are often presented), nothing that happens at TED can be accepted as authoritative.
The fact that a purported scientist is resorting to TED to make his point is a tribute to "climate change" propaganda.
I would also like to point out again that even if acidification is happening, the RESULTS of that acidification are probably less than alarmists have claimed. Example (2010 article):
By the way: even if you are simply discussing statistics, you are simply wrong.
In the equation y = x^2, we do indeed have not just a correlation, but a perfect correlation. Between x, and y^2.
Nobody said it had to be a linear relationship. You assume far too much that nobody actually said.
It could be y = X^3+35x^2+25. It doesn't matter as long as it is a continuous function. You still have a perfect correlation -- and even causal relationship -- between x and y. And unlike most of the real world, it's a perfect correlation.
So get educated yourself. You are just plain wrong.
Maybe you should educate yourself before discussing a technical topic like statistics, and instead stick to opinions?
Real-world "causality" is a logical concept, not a statistical concept. Statistics can support logical causality, but they do not prove it.
On the other hand, as I stated in a different thread, statistics can be used to DISprove logical (real-world) causality.
So back off a bit before calling me ignorant. In any specific real-world circumstance, causality logically does imply a strict correlation. Although as we know, quite famously, the converse does not hold.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't say this often, because this is /., not Wikipedia. But for the same reason I mentioned before: [citation needed].
Everything you say may be true. But it contradicts many things other people have been saying, for a very long time.
So an assertion that "it is called that because" needs some evidence. I didn't make a claim, GP did. I didn't say anybody was lying, I just said other people (for a very long time now) have said other things.
So get off MY butt and produce evidence, or shut up.
No. Did you read the link? The Open Group certified OS X as meeting all of the requirements to be certified as " Unix".
POSIX compliance is different.
NO, it isn't! POSIX *IS* the "Single Unix Specification"! They are the same things!
POSIX certification does NOT mean the OS "is Unix"!!!
MS has been 'backdooring' people since their agreement with IBM!
Wait... you meant encryption.
Never mind.
OP is wrong anyway. The only thing that "melted down" was the original working group.
The group currently doing the security audit announced their full intent to continue the project. So it hasn't "melted down" any more than MySQL did. Just somebody else taking the reins.
(Just to clarify, I meant MariaDB. I don't count Oracle as "taking the reins". That was more like a stampede over a cliff.)
Who would have thought that destroying an ecosystem would have more than one bad effect?
More to the point, this is hardly a recent revelation.
People in my part of the U.S. were fighting deforestation (this is a logging region), based on studies that said it caused turbidity in streams, causing among other things nutrification and drastically reducing oxygen, which in turn killed the local aquatic life (which is a major sporting industry in this part of the U.S.).
And that was when I was, like, 12 years old. Which was a l-o-n-g time ago.
I'm not saying this paper didn't show something valid. But the suggestion made by OP, that this is all some kind of new revelation, is just a few decades late. Likely there was some fine point in the paper that reinforced what we already knew. But AFAIK, OP says nothing new at all.
Mod this one up. If memory is corrupted, disk can become "corrupted", but only because it's a copy of the actual contents of memory.
Fault-tolerant memory and fault-tolerant file systems may have similarities but they are separate issues. If either one becomes corrupted it can "corrupt" the other, but only because one is a copy of the other.
Mac OS X is Unix -- it's been certified as Unix by the group that holds the copyright to the term. Every version of OS X from 10.5 - 10.9 except for 10.7 has been certified unix.
No. OS X meets the "Open Group" standard called POSIX, which means it is "sufficiently" Unix-like... to meet that standard.
That is all it means. It doesn't mean "OS X is Unix". If anything, it is more like Linux than Unix, but it isn't quite either one.
There are versions of Linux that could also be POSIX-compliant if they wanted to make a minor tweak or two, and pay the certification fees. They don't want to bother. It's that simple.
Not it doesn't. LINUX stands for "Linus' Minix".
Unfortunately the etymology of the word is lost in obscurity. Even Linus' own word on the matter is no longer trustworthy.
The fact that around the same time, self-referencing acronyms ("Gnu is Not Unix", for example) were very popular and it is likely you won't convince many people even if you're right, unless you have an unimpeachable source.
When most people ask if it is Unix, they mean would a person familiar with Unix have any problems with tricks and traps or not. That is a much more subtle question, but also a much more important one.
I think a better question would be: can I take my code for X, natively compile it on Y, and expect it to run?
Although it is built on BSD, the majority of C code written for Linux will compile and run in OS X. At least, just about everything I've tried has. I haven't tried to do FPS games or anything. But "work" code, sure. Despite differences here and there, it's a *nix system and works like one. Even X11 stuff runs fine (like Gimp for example), even though OS X has its own proprietary GUI.
Given Linux's intellectual and usage dominance I'd say that the old Open Systems approach clearly no longer works. A standard that excludes Linux is not a standard. So I'm coming down that POSIX / Open Group should not be the definition of UNIX.
Yes, but you should clarify that "Open Groups" is the name of a group, and doesn't come close to representing all of Open Source or Open Software. You know that, I know that, but not everybody knows that.
Having said that, I think we are basically agreed. The existing POSIX should be re-labeled just POS, and we should all just move on. I am all for open technical standards, but if they aren't changing with the times, then the times will move along without them.
No Linux variant has been certified according to the POSIX standards for UNIX, and most variants have subtle ways in which they diverge from the POSIX standards, at least subtly.
Haha. Now you've opened a completely different can of worms. For just one example: why should POSIX matter much these days?
BSD, for example, can essentially (though perhaps not completely technically) be called "Linux with extensions". (They deny it but their own description pretty much gives no technical differences except to say that Linux binaries won't run... and without further explanation that could simply be a compiler dead-man. The only specific difference they point out is licensing.) And the only real reason BSD isn't POSIX-compliant is because they have no interest in paying the fees.
Take OS X for example... it's built on BSD yet it IS POSIX-compliant. Because they wanted to be and paid the cert fees. Big deal.
If OS X and even Windows can be made POSIX compliant (they can), then just about anything could be made POSIX compliant if the owners wanted to bother. They just don't want to.
So now that the waters are thoroughly muddied, I'll muddy them further by saying: today, if you're not an Enterprise shop... you should ask yourself whether you really have any reason to give a shit.
It is about time that legislative authorities makes it illegal for Apple and other negligent vendors to ship file systems that are essentially faulty by design.
This is exactly like saying "It should be illegal to sell a Toyota Prius without 4-point harnesses, ABS, and a roll cage."
You knew what it was when you bought it. It is inappropriate to try to make the entire world "safe" via legislation. It doesn't work that way and you'd probably hurt more people than you help.
You aren't a little kid who needs to be forced to wear a bicycle helmet. Or for that matter if it's YOUR kid, you shouldn't need a law that forces you to make her wear a helmet. That's your job.
I agree with istaredi.
Ultimately, it isn't a "failure" of HFS+ when your files get corrupted. It was (definitely) a hardware failure. It's just that HFS+ didn't catch the error when it happened.
Granted, HFS+ is due for an update. That's something I've said myself many times. But blaming it when something goes wrong is like blaming your Honda Civic for smashing your head in when you roll it. It wasn't designed with a roll cage. You knew that but you bought it anyway, and decided to hotdog.
Checksums also have performance and storage costs. So there are several different ways to look at it. One thing I strongly suggest is keeping records of your drive's S.M.A.R.T. status, and comparing them from time to time. And encourage Apple to update their FS, rather than blaming it for something it didn't cause, or for not doing something it wasn't designed to do.
Bush and Obama are politically identical (middle of the road Republican) so you can't really blame people for confusing the two.
A "middle of the road Republican" would not have tried to force the ACA down everybody's throats.
Those people should have long ago been transferred to a special federal prison such as the recently closed super-max in Illinois that tried very hard to become the site.
They should have been there from the very beginning. Leaving aside the rest of your rant, you don't seem to get it that they're there because of Bush and Obama administration "legal theories" that they can be treated there in ways that would be illegal on U.S. soil. While the whole concept might have started with Bush administration, people in the Obama administration haven't seemed to try to refute the concept, either.
I'm not going to try to argue that Obama didn't at least make some small effort. But my impression was that it was pretty small. And that impression is bolstered by the fact that in so many other matters, Obama really doesn't seem to give a shit what Congress thinks or does.
and in order to do so they must have authorization from the Governor of that region.
It may not have been intentional but you illustrate a big part of the problem with this surveillance: with very few exceptions, the Federal government has no jurisdiction OR other authority to be involved in local/state criminal matters. The only time the Feds are legally allowed to be involved is if it involves interstate or international crime.
If I were someone who was a victim of this illegal surveillance (according to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, as another story mentioned just today, it *IS* a 4th Amendment violation), and I had evidence that the Federal government was involved, I think I'd press charges under 18 USC 242, "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law".
Now that a Federal court (even if it's not my circuit) has ruled that it IS a 4th Amendment violation, there is probably a pretty good chance of making it stick.
Correct. Allowing outsiders to inject themselves as spoilers into an internal race isn't fair. This is why party registration and closed primaries make sense. That's at least ore fair than doing the entire nomination via convention and forgoing primaries all together.
Pretty huge presumption, here. Where did you get the idea that party-centric elections are "fair" in the first place? Where do you imagine any legal or Constitutional authority exists for political parties?
I strongly suggest you read George Washington's Second Farewell Address.
I get it. But that doesn't mean I've given up on Firefox yet.
It is still salvageable, if we can get funding.
The fundamental problem with these alternative measures, and others like them, is that they are based on the fallacy that just because humans use their intelligence to perform them, they necessarily require intelligence.
This is a great, concise way to state it, and I hope you do not mind if I borrow it. I would be willing to cite the source but I do not know what the source really is.
I am not baiting. Just sayin'
As for being "correct", Schmidt himself said: "Models are not right or wrong. They are always wrong. They are always approximations. The question you have to ask is whether a model tells more information than you would have had otherwise. If it does, it is skillful."
And this is EXACTLY why the models are bullshit. Because they have not been JUST consistently wrong, but consistently HUGELY wrong.
I actually DO give credit to the models as being "guesses". But if we are to accept them as science, they are terrible guesses. If you have ever read Asimov's The Relativity of Wrong, and actually looked at how weel the models have reflected reality (or, more properly, failed to do so), you could only conclude that we are going back to the Stone Age in our understanding of what is correct.
Wrong may be relative, but when it's that wrong, it's just wrong. Period.
Check out this website. The author has made it a duty of his to record the ASTOUNDINGLY MANY injuries to responsible data that have been perpetrated by GISS.
He uses their own data to show how they manipulate the truth. At his own personal cost, on his own time.
In particular, the "adjustments" GISS makes to temperature data is under very serious question.
I know who Schmidt is, and his personal charisma does not responsible science make. TED is an idea workshop, not a science forum. While it is interesting and even sometimes educational (in the sense that new ideas are often presented), nothing that happens at TED can be accepted as authoritative.
The fact that a purported scientist is resorting to TED to make his point is a tribute to "climate change" propaganda.
http://www.rationaloptimist.co...
By the way: even if you are simply discussing statistics, you are simply wrong.
In the equation y = x^2, we do indeed have not just a correlation, but a perfect correlation. Between x, and y^2.
Nobody said it had to be a linear relationship. You assume far too much that nobody actually said.
It could be y = X^3+35x^2+25. It doesn't matter as long as it is a continuous function. You still have a perfect correlation -- and even causal relationship -- between x and y. And unlike most of the real world, it's a perfect correlation.
So get educated yourself. You are just plain wrong.
Maybe you should educate yourself before discussing a technical topic like statistics, and instead stick to opinions?
Real-world "causality" is a logical concept, not a statistical concept. Statistics can support logical causality, but they do not prove it.
On the other hand, as I stated in a different thread, statistics can be used to DISprove logical (real-world) causality.
So back off a bit before calling me ignorant. In any specific real-world circumstance, causality logically does imply a strict correlation. Although as we know, quite famously, the converse does not hold.