And so must the perfect chocolate ice cream cone, unless "must exist" is a property only of a God conceived of as being perfect in everything, and other "perfect" things don't have to be "perfect" in all their properties and thus aren't obliged to be be perfect with regards to the "existence" property. Of course, in that case, God must be, among other things, a perfect cup of espresso, in which case I'd really like to know God....

(Another question that might be raised is "is "existence" a property in the same way that "wisdom" and "having just enough of the crema on top" and "being able to make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it" are?")

So how many seats would they get if the UK adopted proportional representation? (Yeah, I know, that depends on what percentage of the legislature is determined by proportional representation rather than by votes in a particular district.)

Depends on how you define "Unix".

If you define it the way The Open Group does, i.e. "a trademark that we license to organizations that prove, using our validation suite, that their OS conforms to the Single UNIX Specification", then OS X is, in fact, Unix, but iOS or Android aren't.

If you define it the way TFA does, i.e. "a big enterprise server OS in the UN*X family from those traditional makers of UN\*X big iron that remain", none of them are Unix. That's the definition that's relevant here, so, as you note, the discussion isn't comical in that regard.

Not in the enterprise server market, which is what TFA was talking about.

OS X client is irrelevant to the Network World article, as it's talking about servers, and OS X server is pretty much irrelevant to the server market they're talking about, so "The Steady Decline of Unix Server License Sales" or "The Steady Decline of Unix Servers" more clearly states what's happening than does "The Steady Decline of Unix".

No. To quote the article:

Unix, the core server operating system in enterprise networks for decades, now finds itself in a slow, inexorable decline. IDC predicts that Unix server revenue will slide from $10.2 billion in 2012 to $8.7 billion in 2017, and Gartner sees Unix market share slipping from 16% in 2012 to 9% in 2017.

I rather suspect OS X's share in the Unix server market is pretty small, making its share of the server market even smaller. Unix desktop market, pretty large, but that's a different matter.

Well, "POSIX-compliant" can be split into "POSIX-compliant and the POSIX APIs are the core system APIs and the APIs on which a lot of the other system APIs are built" (UN\*Xes, including Linux and OS X) and "POSIX-compliant but the POSIX APIs are somewhat of an add-on and the core system APIs you're expected to use for most programming are different" (Windows with the Subsystem for UNIX or whatever it's called, z/OS's UNIX System Services, and the like).

But what people often mean by "Unix" when it's being contrasted with "Linux" is "commercial UNIXes in server rooms", which is closest to "something based on BSD/AT&T code", except that OS X doesn't count (not much in the way of computer-room systems runs it).

(There's also "OSes that have passed the Single UNIX Specification validation suite", which is closest to "POSIX-compliant OSes", and identical to it if you're talking about "POSIX" as meaning "Single UNIX Specification" and "compliant" as meaning "passed the validation suite" and not just "we sure intend this to match the SUS, but we haven't tested it" - Linux is more-or-less in the latter camp, although I'm not sure that they haven't picked some relatively minor places in the SUS to ignore).

Well, technically speaking, it costs Oracle money to use the name Unix, but they presumably pass that cost on to the customer. However, I suspect that cost is a small fraction of the total cost of the system, even if all you're running on it is Solaris, free-as-in-beer applications, and stuff you developed in-house.

Actually, trademark reasons. Oh, and nothing can be a "DUCK®", it can only be a "DUCK® waterfowl". Can't use a trademark as a noun, after all....

(Unfortunately, commenting on this - which I figured I'd do at some point - leaves me unable to moderate your article +10^100 Funny.)

Actually, it was a Brazilian who happens to be the (same-sex) partner (as far as I know, they're not married) of a white, male, American journalist who happens to write for, among other news sources, a British newspaper. But carry on....

I would certainly want the right to wear hats covered with fruit protected.

The people in the country where the detention took place don't have that choice. They do have the choice of voting either Conservative or Labour or Liberal Democrat to, I suspect, maintain the status quo, or voting for various minor parties.

I've seen nothing to believe the Bible is correct on that point.

How much autonomy did the Radioplane Company's RP-5A / OQ-2A / TDD-1 have? (And, yes, the middle "D" in "TDD" stands for "Drone".)

Presumably you're not referring to

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.

because the only evidence (in the sense of "something connected with the real world as observed through the senses and extensions thereof") is that "is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead" (there are certainly enough people preaching that, so it's hard to deny that it is so preached). Presumably "you" in "some of you" refers to Christians, so "because we're not Christians and don't believe Christ has been raised from the dead" is not an answer.

Now, "Christ was raised, but he's a special case" is, in the context of that translation, a valid answer; it doesn't say "it is preached that we shall all be raised from the dead", it just says "Christ has been raised from the dead".

As for the rest of the if-then statements, well, perhaps the "then" statements he makes are true; maybe the people to whom he wrote those letters wouldn't have wanted to hear that, but that just leaves them with a choice - if you hear "if A, then B", and don't like hearing "B", you can either grit your teeth and accept "B" or abandon "A".

As for verses 35 on, I see no evidence, I just see a bunch of assumptions, such as "If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."

"His math looks good" just means "if the axioms are held true, then the conclusions are also true". Another if-then there, and be very careful about saying "the axioms must be true, they're self-evident". Some might think the parallel postulate self-evident, but we don't live on a flat sheet, so it's not true for the geometry of the surface on which we live.