With Leopard coming out this week I thought it would be a good time to talk about how OS X is correctly pronounced. There seems to be some confusion, with most people either saying “Oh Es Ex” or “Oh Es Ten“. So which is it?

At the center of this issue is a simple concept that you either accept or you don’t: when an authority for a particular product or movement explicitly states how that thing is pronounced, that pronunciation does in fact become the correct one.

Examples of this include Linus Torvalds clearly stating that Linux is to be pronounced “linicks” ( Video ) and Ubuntu Linux’s creators giving an exact phonetic breakdown of how to pronounce their product [oo-boon-too] ( Ubuntu.com ). The point is that if the creator is still alive (and they offer an opinion on the matter) we can use them as the ultimate authority.

OS X

With OS X many people point to the fact that Steve Jobs clearly says, “Oh Es Ten” when he says the name. That’s fairly convincing, but it turns out there’s an even better illustration: we can ask the operating system itself how to pronounce its own name. OS X comes with a built-in program called say which literally “says” anything you tell it to.

Why debate it when we can go right to the source? The trick is that if you tell it to say the letter “X”, it says “Ex”. But if you tell it to say, “OS X“, it says “Oh Es Ten“. (See Video)

me@computer me $ say “X”

Ex.

me@computer me $ say “OS X”

Oh Es Ten.

gg.

We were just told precisely how to say “OS X” by the best possible source — the operating system itself.:

With Leopard coming out this week I thought it would be a good time to talk about how OS X is correctly pronounced. There seems to be some confusion, with most people either saying “Oh Es Ex” or “Oh Es Ten“. So which is it?

At the center of this issue is a simple concept that you either accept or you don’t: when an authority for a particular product or movement explicitly states how that thing is pronounced, that pronunciation does in fact become the correct one.

Examples of this include Linus Torvalds clearly stating that Linux is to be pronounced “linicks” ( Video ) and Ubuntu Linux’s creators giving an exact phonetic breakdown of how to pronounce their product [oo-boon-too] ( Ubuntu.com ). The point is that if the creator is still alive (and they offer an opinion on the matter) we can use them as the ultimate authority.

OS X

With OS X many people point to the fact that Steve Jobs clearly says, “Oh Es Ten” when he says the name. That’s fairly convincing, but it turns out there’s an even better illustration: we can ask the operating system itself how to pronounce its own name. OS X comes with a built-in program called say which literally “says” anything you tell it to.

Why debate it when we can go right to the source? The trick is that if you tell it to say the letter “X”, it says “Ex”. But if you tell it to say, “OS X“, it says “Oh Es Ten“. (See Video)

me@computer me $ say “X”

Ex.

me@computer me $ say “OS X”

Oh Es Ten.

gg.

We were just told precisely how to say “OS X” by the best possible source — the operating system itself.:

I have a problem. I hate when people mispronounce things. It pains me to hear “line-ix”, “oh-es-ex”, or “you-bun-too”.

Ubuntu is becoming more of an issue these days. As it gets more popular more are getting the opportunity to mangle it. When I first saw the name I proceeded to mess it up myself, but I immediately sought out the right way to say it (weird, I know). I found a video clip of Nelson Mandela pronouncing it. It was most informative and quite clear.

oo-boon-too

Ah, but people still want to argue.

The way you say it doesn’t matter, as long as you know what they meant.

Shure. Kep one beeleeving thate. Just because someone can figure out what you mean doesn’t make it right. If that were the case then what would be the point of syntax at all? Why not just gesture wildly and grunt until the other person gets the idea?

Anyway, for those who aren’t convinced by the whole authentic African pronunciation bit, here’s a screenshot from the official site a few moments ago:

Ooo. Boon. Too.

Saying something else is not a different kind of right; it’s just wrong.:

–
[ Update: Well, thanks for the few positive comments that have been left. A couple of thoughts come to mind given the responses.
1. We're not talking about varying pronunciations of common things. These are names that have explicitly defined ways for pronouncing them as determined by an accepted authority. Linus Torvalds is a Linux authority and he says very clearly that Linux is always pronounced "Lih-nucks". That means something. Apple explicitly says that it's "OS *TEN*". And it's the same with Ubuntu. They told us how they want us to pronounce these things because it matters to them, so it should matter to us as well.

2. I'm not advocating an anal enforcement of static language (that would be stupid). Language changes; it always has and it always will. The point is simply that all pronunciations of well-defined names are not equal. Calling the capital of the U.S. \WAY-Chang-TONE\ (Washington) is not a different type of correct. And the fact that someone could figure out what you meant doesn't make it so.

3. There is a slider between promoting accuracy in communication using syntax and allowing the natural evolution of language. Either extreme is wrong. My simple point here is that when we have an explicit and authoritative example to follow in the case of a name we should embrace it and promote its proper usage.

So, ultimately, is this as important as our next elections in the U.S. or solving the energy crisis? Of course not. But it's just a website talking about language and geek stuff. Relax. :) ]

I’ve been watching the Republican presidential debates with increasing unease. Why am I uneasy? Because these people are going to get us killed. It’s amazing how ignorant they are about security.

All we hear from these fools is, “Grow the military.” “More weapons.” “Better weapons.” They want to let Russian and China and Iran know that we can’t be messed with. Can you really be that stupid? Do you not realize that the security model has changed? It’s not about giant armies anymore.

The reason we are in such grave danger now relative to 20 years ago is very simple, and it’s NOT based on the size of our army or the quality of our weapons.

1. What kept us safe for all these years hasn’t been the robustness of our security, it’s been our LACK of numerous, well-funded enemies.
2. We’re currently MASSIVELY multiplying our threats while doing relatively nothing to defend against them. The later simply isn’t possible in an open society.

In other words, the ONLY way to increase our safety is to stop creating people that want to hurt us.

Our current security strategy essentially boils down to going around the neighborhood kicking in peoples’ doors, smashing the windows on their cars, and spray-painting our name on their lawns. Then, to become “secure”, we run home to our gun collections and shout through an open window with a bullhorn:

Don’t mess with us! We’re dangerous and invincible!

This. Model. Won’t. Work. Here’s how the neighborhood responds:

How long do you think you can stay locked up in there? I tell you what, smart guy, you better lock every door and check it twice because the entire neighborhood now wants you dead — even Ms. Williams who used to make you cookies when you were a kid. Oh, and by the way, don’t you have family up the street?

There are simply too many ways to cause us harm. The only way to keep people from doing so is to stop them from wanting to. The sooner someone gets elected that realizes this the better.:

Here’s my basic list of software that I use in OS X.

System

• Apple Developer Tools
• Apple X Server
• VMWare Fusion
  • Ubuntu Linux (Gutsy Gibbon)
  • Windows Server 2003
• Quicksilver (productivity)
• MenuMeters (monitoring utility)
• MacPorts (package management)
  • Nmap
  • Nemesis
  • Hping
• The Unarchiver

Applications

• TextMate (programming)
• CS3 (design)
• Office for Mac 2008 (upon release)
• QuickTime Pro
• Nessus 3 (security)
• John the Ripper Pro (security)
• SnapZPro (screencasting)
• iLife
• Colloquy (IRC)

The thing that strikes me the most about OS X is how little you need to mess with it. I add the relatively few applications above, put my dock on the left, and change my background every once in a while.

That’s it.

From there I start doing things.:

Everyone loves Google. They want to be everything to everyone, and they’re getting pretty damn good at it. Once you start using their services it gets easier and easier to migrate more of your life to them. But there’s a slight problem.

Google, like most other similar services, encrypts login traffic but not your content. So the moment you’re signed in they switch to plain text communications and send everything to you in the open.

This means your mail, the news sources you read, your calendar events — are all able to be read by someone with access to any part of the network between you and Google. This could be your employer at work, the wireless network at your local coffee shop, whatever. This isn’t good.

Here’s an email I just sent myself over the default (unencrypted) connection:

And here’s what I captured via tcpdump.

That’s the whole email there for anyone to see. Luckily it’s easy to fix…

1. Use Bookmarks for Your Google Services Create bookmarks (or modify them if you already have them) for Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Reader, and iGoogle (your Google homepage) using https instead of http, like so: https://mail.google.com/mail/. Do this for every service that you use at Google.
2. Don’t Click on Links Within Google to Take You to Your Services If you use their links Google will often take you to the unencrypted version because it’s easier on their servers. Use your links instead to ensure that your sessions are encrypted

The more we depend on Google (or any other monolithic service) the more we need to safeguard the information they have of ours. One way we can help is by demanding (via secure bookmarks and other methods) that they send us our mail, news feeds, calendars, and other information over a secure connection.:

[ Note: This is not a Google-specific problem. Most other services work in exactly the same way. The difference is that Google is so prolific and is becoming very successfully at getting people to use not only their email service but also their calendaring, news reader, instant messaging, their search (with history), etc. It's the all-in-one dynamic that makes it especially important to protect Google traffic. ]

I’ve been thinking about memories for as long as I can remember. What I’m most interested in is the mixing phenomenon: the functionality that makes you feel sad when you hear a song, or makes you remember your childhood when you smell a certain food.

We know the basics. The song is associated with other memories that were happening when you first were impacted by that song. And same with that smell. The question is how that happens.

I have a few rudimentary thoughts:

1. A major experience happens and is about to be stored in memory.
2. Gather input to be associated with that memory:
   • Have you been depressed for the last weeks, months?
   • How do you feel about yourself in general? Confident? Positive? Pessimistic?
   • What sorts of sounds and smells have you been hearing recently?
3. Store all of this into this memory matrix.

I use the word matrix because it’s a series of associations more than just a single item. Here are some thoughts on that point.

• When a 16-year-old’s dog dies the album he’s been listening to recently gets tied into the emotion (depression) associated with his dog dying. So it’s song –> emotion, meaning that from now on when the song is heard, the associated emotion will be as well.
• But in addition to the song, the kid also just started working at a pizza restaruant. And now, for the next several weeks — while he’s getting over the loss — the smell of this pizza is being strongly associated with the loss as well.
• Associations made at a young age are stronger.
• Strong associations are made from overall accumulation of impact, so large single events can be overridden by many smaller conflicting events. Example: you associate apple pie with your grandma’s house, which is a major association, but after working in a bakery for 3 years while in college you have now mostly overridden that association.

So a single event captures the sensory inputs and overall personal feelings of a person at the time, and this grouping becomes the set of memory references. If there were 5 sets of sensory input captured, those 5 things will now have associations back to the event. So when either pizza or this song is heard from now on (unless overridden) the boy will recall that time in his life, including:

1. How he felt about himself then. Confident? Shy?
2. The pain of losing his dog.

Anyway, just something I was thinking about. I understand this phenomenon is covered quite a bit in psychology in something called schemas. I’m going to check into it a bit to see how much of this is talked about.

In the meantime, do you guys see where I’m going with this model? What should be added to it, or taken away?

This is what dmiessler.com looks like after being put through hugeurl.com.

[ Hugeurl.com ]

I just read an excellent piece on who started this apparent second Cold War we’re witnessing the start of. The interesting bit is that it was written by Pat Buchanan.

Being raised in the Bay Area as a strong liberal I’ve always had a strong aversion to Buchanan. But after reading his recent book about immigration, and now this article, I have to say I’m seeing him in a different light. I didn’t agree with everything he said in his book, but I did with most of it.

I’m liking his apparent allegiance only to his own opinions rather than to one particular camp or another. He’s openly separated himself from the Republican party and many conservatives on numerous issues. This at least tells me that he is worth listening to.

Anyway, definitely check out his analysis of why Putin is acting so “crazy”.

[ Buchanan on Who Started the New Cold War ]

So we all know how planes fly, right? The top of the wing is rounded and the bottom of the wing is more straight. Air takes longer to travel over the top of the wing than the bottom, which results in more pressure on the bottom, hence the lift. Right?

As it turns out, no.

This is what I was taught, and it’s what I’ve always believed (it’s even in most lower-level text books), but it’s simply not true. The concept is called the Bernoulli Principle, and it accounts for very little of the lift that makes flight possible.

The main reason planes fly is far simpler: wings force air downward, which in turn pushes the wings upward.

The primary actor here is the the Coanda Effect, with the Bernoulli Principle taking a supporting role. It all starts with the air wrapping downward along the back of the wing (Coanda).

Try this: go to the sink and get a clear drinking glass. Start the water running so that it’s a very thin but steady trickle and bring an outer, rounded part of the glass slowly towards the stream. Watch what happens when you touch it. The glass grabs the stream and forcibly wraps it around itself!

On a plane this equates to grabbing the air going over the top of the wing and pulling it snug to the downward sloping wing surface. This redirects massive amounts of air toward the ground, which results in an upward force, i.e. lift.

The concept is the same as an engine that forces gas backward, which propels the plane forward. This is simply using the wings to do the same thing: forcing air downward, which propels the wings (and plane) upward.

In other words, it all really boils down to Newton’s third law of equal and opposite reactions: *air goes down, wing goes up*.

It’s astounding to me that the truth is so much simpler than accepted wisdom (Beroulli). Anyway, definitely check out this most excellent presentation below; it goes into all the detail and shows the math behind it. And as always, feel free to correct me in the comments or via email.:

References and Notes

• [ Understanding Flight, by David. F. Anderson ]

• Ask yourself why planes can hang tons of massive crap (engines, bombs, etc.) off of the bottom of their wings if the bottom of the wing is so important for flight. The answer is that the bottom of the wing isn’t doing much at all. It’s the top of the wing that’s doing the “heavy lifting” (sorry) because it’s the Coanda Effect and resulting downward push of air that allows modern flight.

• In addition to the Coanda Effect we also have the very tangible “angle of attack” issue. As a kid you no doubt put your hand out the car window in the shape of a wing. You noticed that if you angled it straight on you could hold it steady, but if you angled the front edge upward you created massive lift. The same works for kites, and planes.

• This also explains how planes can fly upside down.