Would an Animatronic President have a birth certificate?

Well, you've heard of it now.

Beware Poe's law.

It's both the descendants of the 36-bit Univac 1108 and the 48-bit-plus-tags Burroughs 6500 (very much like, but not compatible with, the B5000).

And many of them recognize this as well.

If Mach is "the Mach kernel", I don't think it offers UNIX APIs, but at least two OSes based on Mach have passed the Single UNIX Specification test suite (which NT 4.0 hasn't, and which even Interix^Wthe Subsystem for Unix-based Applications hasn't).

Microsoft haven't. I guess they realized that software actually used alternate data streams, so they had to add them back to ReFS, although only "up to 128K for both Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2", so they're more like "big extended attributes" than full alternate data streams.

Are you certain? The ln command, when run without -s, would return an error if you used it under Tiger or earlier?

Or are you referring to hardlinking to directories, which was something UNIX traditionally supported, but which required root permissions (as it was used by the mkdir command to create the . and .. directories), and which was removed at one point (4.2BSD, as that added the mkdir() system call, making the ability of link() to link to a directory unnecessary?), and added back in 10.5 with the introduction of Time Machine, so that it could be used in backup trees as a very hacky form of de-duplication (each backup tree is a complete copy of the file system being backed up, but if there's an older copy of an unchanged file or a directory everything under which is unchanged, the "copy" is done by making a hard link rather than by copying the file to the backup disk).

That's what happens with any backup scheme that does incremental backups - if a file hasn't changed, a copy isn't made.

$ otool -L /Applications/Google\ Earth.app//Contents//MacOS//Google\ Earth
/Applications/Google Earth.app//Contents//MacOS//Google Earth:
@rpath/libgoogleearth_free.dylib (compatibility version 0.0.0, current version 0.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/Cocoa.framework/Versions/A/Cocoa (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 19.0.0)
/System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/A/Carbon (compatibility version 2.0.0, current version 155.0.0)
@rpath/QtCore.framework/Versions/4/QtCore (compatibility version 4.7.0, current version 4.7.4)
@rpath/QtGui.framework/Versions/4/QtGui (compatibility version 4.7.0, current version 4.7.4)
@rpath/QtWebKit.framework/Versions/4/QtWebKit (compatibility version 4.7.0, current version 4.7.4)
@rpath/QtNetwork.framework/Versions/4/QtNetwork (compatibility version 4.7.0, current version 4.7.4)

...

Do you have to use Xcode, the IDE, to develop OS X apps? Or by "Xcode" do you mean "Xcode the IDE, plus the command-line tools"?

Or is there really nothing other than CO2 levels which correlates strongly with the use of portable classrooms and with absenteeism? Perhaps low socioeconomic status has nothing to do with which school districts have more trouble affording permanent buildings? Perhaps higher numbers of children per family are unrelated to which schools are overcrowded?

It's hard to tell, when the bibliography consists of "studies show".

What's sad is that this is still better-than-average science and science reporting. We got an actual transcript, and the correlation seems to be at least a step above the "people who wear parachutes are more likely to die in skydiving accidents!" level which is so good at grabbing headlines.

Well before that, and, yes, the PPC 620 was used in some systems shipped by Groupe Bull. IBM's first systems using 64-bit PPC processors came out in 1997.

2 years before 2002, yes.

But was the project started before, or after, AMD published the first AMD64 spec? My guess is "after", unless Intel either 1) somehow managed to come up with the same extensions as AMD or 2) discarded their extensions and went with AMD's after AMD announced them.

Who, other than you, uses that definition of ISA? Intel doesn't, as per my previous post. IBM doesn't, either, and neither does ARM, nor does AMD, nor does Sun^WOracle, for example; they're all using "instruction set architecture" as "instruction set", with "architecture" perhaps given to signify that the instruction set is not just a characteristic of a particular processor, it's something that's specified separately from particular implementations of the instruction set.

So what does the "encode" stage of a CPU do? Take various internal chip signals and write out instructions to memory?

If you mean "in the very early days of computers, the connection between the instruction set and the design of the CPU was straightforward", that might be true, but, dating at least back to the IBM System/360, the same instruction set was implemented by extremely different internal processor designs in many families of computers.

It would only help if it were true. What are your definitions of "instruction set" and "instruction set architecture", and what citations can you give that would make those definitions worth taking seriously, as opposed to, for example, Intel's use of "instruction set" and Intel's use of "instruction set architecture"?

They're not "over" to compiler writers and assembler-language programmers.

So? They (and the latest z/Architecture chips) might translate native instructions into microops and schedule and execute those microops, but the only way in which those microops - or other implementation details of the processor - are visible to code and people or software that generate code is that they may affect the performance of particular sequences of instructions, so that, for example, a compiler might optimize differently for different processors.