What's the point of a recovery partition on the drive that has just failed ? The drive is the most likely point of failure.
The EFI on all Macs released since early 2011 will download the recovery partition from the Internet once upgraded to at least OS X Lion, if it can't find one on the disk. OS X versions prior to Lion had optical installation media included with the Macs they shipped with. While this screws people on slow connections and people with data caps, I guess it doesn't affect most of Apple's customers, otherwise they wouldn't have ditched the installation media. Apple used to sell the full version of OS X Lion in a USB stick, but they stopped doing it in Mountain Lion for some reason (probably lack of demand).
The reason the recovery partition is on the drive is cheeeeepness. Not intelligent design.
Imagine if you shipped a USB stick that contained ML with every Mac instead of using the Recovery Partition and EFI boot. Now consider that the USB stick is now lost. You'd then have to buy another USB stick with ML before you could install Mac OS X. At that point I think you'd be happy to have a solution for reinstalling the OS without having to buy a USB stick containing ML from Apple.
As Vaelian states it's a pain if you have a slow connection but you can always take it to an Apple Store or send it in if it's under warranty. If Apple will pay for the shipping and do the installation it seems to me that having to reinstall the OS is not something that warrants including a USB stick that contains ML in 20 million Macs per year.
Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. It's a valid method of both formal and informal argument. If you're going to toss around words like "fallacy", you should at least try to know what you are talking about.
No Macs comes with external media with restore software on them. They have a recovery partition on the drive. You can also create your own recovery boot disc on a USB stick per a a utility you can DL from Apple's site.
When did they start having a recovery partition? I don't see one on my 2011 iMac, even if it's a hidden partition, the partition would have to be less than a gigabyte, but I think that's just space taken by formatting information.
When did they start having a recovery partition? I don't see one on my 2011 iMac, even if it's a hidden partition, the partition would have to be less than a gigabyte.
I think it's like 150MB. It's basically Disk Utility, a simple Safari and a couple other utilities. If you restart and hold down Option you should see the Recovery HD option. If that shows up then you can access it. Perhaps it will show the exact size of that logical drive.
The EFI boot is Option+R, I think. I don't quite recall but I'm sure Apple has an article on it.
edit: You can check via Terminal. It's 650MB. Also note that in Disk Utilitiy all that shows up for my logical drive listed under /disk2 (IOW, no listing of the separate drives under DU) as that is the Fusion Drive I setup using my 80GB SSD + 1TB HDD in my 13" MBP. It works great.
MBP:~ me$ diskutil list
/dev/disk0
#: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER
0: GUID_partition_scheme *80.0 GB disk0
1: EFI 209.7 MB disk0s1
2: Apple_CoreStorage 79.2 GB disk0s2
3: Apple_Boot Recovery HD 650.0 MB disk0s3
/dev/disk1
#: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER
0: GUID_partition_scheme *1.0 TB disk1
1: EFI 209.7 MB disk1s1
2: Apple_CoreStorage 999.9 GB disk1s2
3: Apple_Boot Boot OS X 134.2 MB disk1s3
/dev/disk2
#: TYPE NAME SIZE IDENTIFIER
0: Apple_HFS ML *1.1 TB disk2
When did they start having a recovery partition? I don't see one on my 2011 iMac, even if it's a hidden partition, the partition would have to be less than a gigabyte, but I think that's just space taken by formatting information.
Lion adds one whenever you install it (and Mountain Lion keeps it around, of course). It shows up holding Option at boot.
Points 2 to 4 depend far more on design and process than on thinness and weight. But, as you have repeated before, you know shit about manufacturing ;-)
I know I can always rely on you to throw in some random personal insult.
You've shown yourself to be that kind of person many times now.
The careful reader will realise that I actually never claimed that all of the points I mentioned were completely or even primarily dependant on weight and thin-ness, just that a thinner, lighter product would contribute to those benefits (and they do).
Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. It's a valid method of both formal and informal argument. If you're going to toss around words like "fallacy", you should at least try to know what you are talking about.
You can call it a straw man fallacy, if you like, which actually happened in the case that I quoted, and I mentioned it in the same post... What exactly do you gain there?
The careful reader will realise that I actually never claimed that all of the points I mentioned were completely or even primarily dependant on weight and thin-ness, just that a thinner, lighter product would contribute to those benefits (and they do).
The careful reader has long realized that this place is full of trolls. Personally, I only post here for entertainment; it's fun to laugh at the absurd excuses people come up with.
The careful reader will realise that I actually never claimed that all of the points I mentioned were completely or even primarily dependant on weight and thin-ness, just that a thinner, lighter product would contribute to those benefits (and they do).
You would think--or at least hope--that at some point those who appear to disfavor the new design will realize that the only possible reason for offering arguments against reduced weight and thickness is irrational bias. Probably caused by inertia (resistance to change), it's an emotional thing with no tenable reasoning underlying it.
When for about the same price (check them!) you can buy a model of the current generation with a 3TB Fusion drive and USB 3 ports that will outperform a refurbished model from the previous generation with a 256GB SSD by around 10%, there really is nothing to complain about. Though a (very) small minority may have legitimate objections, most of the griping you see constitutes sweating small stuff in the face of more important issues.
You can call it a straw man fallacy, if you like, which actually happened in the case that I quoted, and I mentioned it in the same post... What exactly do you gain there?
They aren't the same thing. By using terms correctly, the gain is that what you say isn't nonsense.
As a follow-up to my previous assertion that too big of speakers in the iMac would cause excess vibration for other components, check out the rubber sleeve around the hard drive.
Cool but I do think the build-in speakers are merely there for 'new mail notifications' and such. Anyone expecting to get some level of decent sound will descent, music-wise. (is that even English?)
They aren't the same thing. By using terms correctly, the gain is that what you say isn't nonsense.
And this is another straw man argument fallacy. I never claimed that they were the same thing; my use of the term was perfectly correct; that reduction to absurdity was used as a fallacy; lastly you forgot to answer exactly what you gain by bringing up this subject.
You would think--or at least hope--that at some point those who appear to disfavor the new design will realize that the only possible reason for offering arguments against reduced weight and thickness is irrational bias. Probably caused by inertia (resistance to change), it's an emotional thing with no tenable reasoning underlying it.
Sure, if we play by your rules and ignore the feature compromises... It is this kind of framing that makes your trolling pretty obvious.
When for about the same price (check them!) you can buy a model of the current generation with a 3TB Fusion drive and USB 3 ports that will outperform a refurbished model from the previous generation with a 256GB SSD by around 10%, there really is nothing to complain about. Though a (very) small minority may have legitimate objections, most of the griping you see constitutes sweating small stuff in the face of more important issues.
Those are incremental upgrades; hardware tends to get cheaper, not more expensive, over time. Apple not lowering their prices doesn't mean anything.
And this is another straw man argument fallacy. I never claimed that they were the same thing; my use of the term was perfectly correct; that reduction to absurdity was used as a fallacy; lastly you forgot to answer exactly what you gain by bringing up this subject.
Admittedly your use of language is so imprecise, with that, Humpty Dumpty, "'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.," quality to it that it's hard to know exactly what you are saying, but, this,
Quote:
You can call it a straw man fallacy, if you like
seems perfectly unintelligible in its original context unless we assume that, by 'it', you mean reductio ad absurdum. So either you were saying they are the same thing, or you were writing nonsense sentences. And again, I'll point out to you that reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy, and since you seem to, above, deny that you believe it's the same as the straw man fallacy (which would be correct), although appearing to say the opposite elsewhere (incorrect), ... well, it all just seems to be nonsense, unless you are committing the fallacy of equivocation, otherwise known as double speak.
Most likely, though, you just don't know what you are talking about.
Admittedly your use of language is so imprecise, with that, Humpty Dumpty, "'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.," quality to it that it's hard to know exactly what you are saying, but, this,
Newsflash: human language is imprecise, which is why everything is so strictly defined in legalese. I still don't see what you aim to achieve with this, though. Are you such a retard that you couldn't possibly understand what I was referring to and need 3 additional posts for clarification?
And again, I'll point out to you that reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy, and since you seem to, above, deny that you believe it's the same as the straw man fallacy (which would be correct), although appearing to say the opposite elsewhere (incorrect), ... well, it all just seems to be nonsense, unless you are committing the fallacy of equivocation, otherwise known as double speak.
That's because in your limited view of logic you are yet to realize that fallacies are not confined to the known (and named) patterns of informal logic, and not all cases where the known patterns apply are, in fact, fallacious. If reduction to absurdity is used as a form of informal logic (to attempt to disprove a statistical syllogism, for example, or to make a straw man argument, in the case of this thread), then it's a fallacy.
Most likely, though, you just don't know what you are talking about.
Most likely, though, you're trolling, because you are yet to state your actual point, or how bringing this up invalidates anything I said. It seems like the only reason why you keep on posting is to provoke me into an off-topic argument.
... Most likely, though, you're trolling, because you are yet to state your actual point, or how bringing this up invalidates anything I said. It seems like the only reason why you keep on posting is to provoke me into an off-topic argument.
I keep posting, because you keep writing nonsense like this:
Quote:
If reduction to absurdity is used as a form of informal logic [...] then it's a fallacy.
I keep posting, because you keep writing nonsense like this:
I can understand your cognitive challenges, but that doesn't mean you should derail a thread. Why is it nonsense? What exactly are you trying to point out? Even if I was wrong, which I am not, what would you accomplish with that? Even if I didn't know what I was talking about, how would that invalidate the argument that you attacked? And if it didn't, then what's the point of attacking me if not for trolling?
I can understand your cognitive challenges, but that doesn't mean you should derail a thread. Why is it nonsense? What exactly are you trying to point out? Even if I was wrong, which I am not, what would you accomplish with that? Even if I didn't know what I was talking about, how would that invalidate the argument that you attacked? And if it didn't, then what's the point of attacking me if not for trolling?
Fair enough, then I want to see you prove it.
Derail a thread? By pointing out that you are writing nonsense? Derail it for you, perhaps, but, otherwise, I hardly think so.
The point is, quite simply, and as already stated, to inform that reductio ad absurdum is not in any way a fallacy but an entirely valid method of argument.
As for proving it, you can very easily educate yourself with a search for "logical fallacies" or "reductio ad absurdum", and a little reading. Your time would be much better spent on that than insisting that you are right when you are not.
The point is, quite simply, and as already stated, to inform that reductio ad absurdum is not in any way a fallacy but an entirely valid method of argument.
First you'll have to prove that, especially after I have demonstrated otherwise. Secondly you are still yet to explain exactly what you achieve by pointing that out, since even if I was wrong, pointing that out wouldn't be invalidating the argument that you attacked.
As for proving it, you can very easily educate yourself with a search for "logical fallacies" or "reductio ad absurdum", and a little reading. Your time would be much better spent on that than insisting that you are right when you are not.
That's special pleading, dude. You're effectively claiming that I'm ignorant in order to attempt to subvert the discussion. You actually DO have to prove things when you have burden of proof; claiming that I'm ignorant or failing to explain the relevance of any evidence you bring to the discussion is irrational.
EDIT
Elaborating on the special plead. The reason why bringing the evidence to the thread is twofold: 1 - so that the claimer's interpretation of that evidence can be scrutinized, and 2 - so that the validity of the evidence itself can be debated. By denying me these options, you are being irrational. For example: I mentioned earlier that fallacies were not confined to the set of most common patterns of informal logic, and your "proof" ignores that completely.
I'm just posting this so that people won't just assume that I'm being unreasonable when I am, in fact, pushing for a perfectly logical and reasonable debate where all the parties involved have a chance to debate the merits of each other's arguments without bullshit.
Comments
The EFI on all Macs released since early 2011 will download the recovery partition from the Internet once upgraded to at least OS X Lion, if it can't find one on the disk. OS X versions prior to Lion had optical installation media included with the Macs they shipped with. While this screws people on slow connections and people with data caps, I guess it doesn't affect most of Apple's customers, otherwise they wouldn't have ditched the installation media. Apple used to sell the full version of OS X Lion in a USB stick, but they stopped doing it in Mountain Lion for some reason (probably lack of demand).
Imagine if you shipped a USB stick that contained ML with every Mac instead of using the Recovery Partition and EFI boot. Now consider that the USB stick is now lost. You'd then have to buy another USB stick with ML before you could install Mac OS X. At that point I think you'd be happy to have a solution for reinstalling the OS without having to buy a USB stick containing ML from Apple.
As Vaelian states it's a pain if you have a slow connection but you can always take it to an Apple Store or send it in if it's under warranty. If Apple will pay for the shipping and do the installation it seems to me that having to reinstall the OS is not something that warrants including a USB stick that contains ML in 20 million Macs per year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
Reduction to absurdity fallacy.
Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy. It's a valid method of both formal and informal argument. If you're going to toss around words like "fallacy", you should at least try to know what you are talking about.
When did they start having a recovery partition? I don't see one on my 2011 iMac, even if it's a hidden partition, the partition would have to be less than a gigabyte, but I think that's just space taken by formatting information.
I think it's like 150MB. It's basically Disk Utility, a simple Safari and a couple other utilities. If you restart and hold down Option you should see the Recovery HD option. If that shows up then you can access it. Perhaps it will show the exact size of that logical drive.
The EFI boot is Option+R, I think. I don't quite recall but I'm sure Apple has an article on it.
edit: You can check via Terminal. It's 650MB. Also note that in Disk Utilitiy all that shows up for my logical drive listed under /disk2 (IOW, no listing of the separate drives under DU) as that is the Fusion Drive I setup using my 80GB SSD + 1TB HDD in my 13" MBP. It works great.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
When did they start having a recovery partition? I don't see one on my 2011 iMac, even if it's a hidden partition, the partition would have to be less than a gigabyte, but I think that's just space taken by formatting information.
Lion adds one whenever you install it (and Mountain Lion keeps it around, of course). It shows up holding Option at boot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Points 2 to 4 depend far more on design and process than on thinness and weight. But, as you have repeated before, you know shit about manufacturing ;-)
I know I can always rely on you to throw in some random personal insult.
You've shown yourself to be that kind of person many times now.
The careful reader will realise that I actually never claimed that all of the points I mentioned were completely or even primarily dependant on weight and thin-ness, just that a thinner, lighter product would contribute to those benefits (and they do).
You can call it a straw man fallacy, if you like, which actually happened in the case that I quoted, and I mentioned it in the same post... What exactly do you gain there?
The careful reader has long realized that this place is full of trolls. Personally, I only post here for entertainment; it's fun to laugh at the absurd excuses people come up with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
The careful reader will realise that I actually never claimed that all of the points I mentioned were completely or even primarily dependant on weight and thin-ness, just that a thinner, lighter product would contribute to those benefits (and they do).
You would think--or at least hope--that at some point those who appear to disfavor the new design will realize that the only possible reason for offering arguments against reduced weight and thickness is irrational bias. Probably caused by inertia (resistance to change), it's an emotional thing with no tenable reasoning underlying it.
When for about the same price (check them!) you can buy a model of the current generation with a 3TB Fusion drive and USB 3 ports that will outperform a refurbished model from the previous generation with a 256GB SSD by around 10%, there really is nothing to complain about. Though a (very) small minority may have legitimate objections, most of the griping you see constitutes sweating small stuff in the face of more important issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
You can call it a straw man fallacy, if you like, which actually happened in the case that I quoted, and I mentioned it in the same post... What exactly do you gain there?
They aren't the same thing. By using terms correctly, the gain is that what you say isn't nonsense.
As a follow-up to my previous assertion that too big of speakers in the iMac would cause excess vibration for other components, check out the rubber sleeve around the hard drive.
And this is another straw man argument fallacy. I never claimed that they were the same thing; my use of the term was perfectly correct; that reduction to absurdity was used as a fallacy; lastly you forgot to answer exactly what you gain by bringing up this subject.
Sure, if we play by your rules and ignore the feature compromises... It is this kind of framing that makes your trolling pretty obvious.
Those are incremental upgrades; hardware tends to get cheaper, not more expensive, over time. Apple not lowering their prices doesn't mean anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
And this is another straw man argument fallacy. I never claimed that they were the same thing; my use of the term was perfectly correct; that reduction to absurdity was used as a fallacy; lastly you forgot to answer exactly what you gain by bringing up this subject.
Admittedly your use of language is so imprecise, with that, Humpty Dumpty, "'When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.," quality to it that it's hard to know exactly what you are saying, but, this,
Quote:
You can call it a straw man fallacy, if you like
seems perfectly unintelligible in its original context unless we assume that, by 'it', you mean reductio ad absurdum. So either you were saying they are the same thing, or you were writing nonsense sentences. And again, I'll point out to you that reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy, and since you seem to, above, deny that you believe it's the same as the straw man fallacy (which would be correct), although appearing to say the opposite elsewhere (incorrect), ... well, it all just seems to be nonsense, unless you are committing the fallacy of equivocation, otherwise known as double speak.
Most likely, though, you just don't know what you are talking about.
Newsflash: human language is imprecise, which is why everything is so strictly defined in legalese. I still don't see what you aim to achieve with this, though. Are you such a retard that you couldn't possibly understand what I was referring to and need 3 additional posts for clarification?
Only if you ignore the fact that reduction to absurdity is most commonly used in straw man arguments.
I think I've already explained what I was saying, and it's not covered by your deduction. How about re-reading my posts?
That's because in your limited view of logic you are yet to realize that fallacies are not confined to the known (and named) patterns of informal logic, and not all cases where the known patterns apply are, in fact, fallacious. If reduction to absurdity is used as a form of informal logic (to attempt to disprove a statistical syllogism, for example, or to make a straw man argument, in the case of this thread), then it's a fallacy.
Most likely, though, you're trolling, because you are yet to state your actual point, or how bringing this up invalidates anything I said. It seems like the only reason why you keep on posting is to provoke me into an off-topic argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
... Most likely, though, you're trolling, because you are yet to state your actual point, or how bringing this up invalidates anything I said. It seems like the only reason why you keep on posting is to provoke me into an off-topic argument.
I keep posting, because you keep writing nonsense like this:
Quote:
If reduction to absurdity is used as a form of informal logic [...] then it's a fallacy.
which is entirely false.
I can understand your cognitive challenges, but that doesn't mean you should derail a thread. Why is it nonsense? What exactly are you trying to point out? Even if I was wrong, which I am not, what would you accomplish with that? Even if I didn't know what I was talking about, how would that invalidate the argument that you attacked? And if it didn't, then what's the point of attacking me if not for trolling?
Fair enough, then I want to see you prove it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
I can understand your cognitive challenges, but that doesn't mean you should derail a thread. Why is it nonsense? What exactly are you trying to point out? Even if I was wrong, which I am not, what would you accomplish with that? Even if I didn't know what I was talking about, how would that invalidate the argument that you attacked? And if it didn't, then what's the point of attacking me if not for trolling?
Fair enough, then I want to see you prove it.
Derail a thread? By pointing out that you are writing nonsense? Derail it for you, perhaps, but, otherwise, I hardly think so.
The point is, quite simply, and as already stated, to inform that reductio ad absurdum is not in any way a fallacy but an entirely valid method of argument.
As for proving it, you can very easily educate yourself with a search for "logical fallacies" or "reductio ad absurdum", and a little reading. Your time would be much better spent on that than insisting that you are right when you are not.
So, how are you addressing the thread's subject? And what is it that I'm writing that you can not understand?
First you'll have to prove that, especially after I have demonstrated otherwise. Secondly you are still yet to explain exactly what you achieve by pointing that out, since even if I was wrong, pointing that out wouldn't be invalidating the argument that you attacked.
That's special pleading, dude. You're effectively claiming that I'm ignorant in order to attempt to subvert the discussion. You actually DO have to prove things when you have burden of proof; claiming that I'm ignorant or failing to explain the relevance of any evidence you bring to the discussion is irrational.
EDIT
Elaborating on the special plead. The reason why bringing the evidence to the thread is twofold: 1 - so that the claimer's interpretation of that evidence can be scrutinized, and 2 - so that the validity of the evidence itself can be debated. By denying me these options, you are being irrational. For example: I mentioned earlier that fallacies were not confined to the set of most common patterns of informal logic, and your "proof" ignores that completely.
I'm just posting this so that people won't just assume that I'm being unreasonable when I am, in fact, pushing for a perfectly logical and reasonable debate where all the parties involved have a chance to debate the merits of each other's arguments without bullshit.