YT geeks will still stand out
on
Tokyo's Geek Ghetto
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Japanese culture is much less anti-intellectual and anti-geek than North American/UK/Australian culture. So it is not just akihabara that is geek friendly. And girls might at least glance in your general direction even if you are invisible elsewhere. Not that they like geeks or anything. But I think they have a somewhat higher geek tolerance level. A great reason to learn Japanese!
However, if you are non-Asian you will still be regarded as a bit of a monkey on display at the zoo. People may avoid sitting next to you on trains unless it is totally packed and you may be followed around while in some small shops with suspicious owners, as if waiting for you to pocket a few items and then make a run for it. So there is a bit of racism over there, but they are generally a nice group of folks.
And why do you need something like this to make a copy of a DVD?
Maybe because not all of us have the skill and time to write the app ourselves. So what's your favorite DVD backup application? DVDFab maybe? If so, that's a good choice since it can back up dual layer discs nicely.
I'm with you. A lot of clever people are going to devote a lot of effort to finding a way to hack OS X for their homemade beige boxes.
Maybe so. We will have to wait and see. But don't forget about Palladium. I am willing to bet that Apple plans on using a TCPA strategy to lock down Leopard. That will change the rules somewhat. Not that I think a cracked version will really hurt their bottom line. Are Mac users really the type of people to download and install an illegal, cracked OS?
Very interesting article. Thanks for the link. Completely blew my mind. Those numbers are less than half of what AMD claims they should be (the TDP). If compared to the Pentium M specs they are about equal in power consumption but quite a bit faster. Amazing.
But remember that they did not test the Pentium M with the same methodology. Perhaps that chip would also end up with half its TDP at full bore, which would be in the 10-15 watt range. Hard to believe though. If the pentium M tested the same as its TDP would indicate, then I would have to agree with you. Apple really did back the wrong horse. Obviously a Pentium M version of these fps/watt tests would be a bit more difficult.
But INTEL? They're hotter, slower and more expensive than AMD.
That's only true for the Pentium IV and remember all of Intel's plans involve a more Pentium M like architecture. Ye have so little faith in Mr. Apple. If you are unimpressed with the Pentium M, you might want to read this. It's good tech and AMD doesn't have it yet. AMD is kicking arse in the pure speed war, but it has barely even fired a shot in the speed/watt war. We don't even know how interested AMD is in competing in that particular battleground. CnQ is good but not as good as a Pentium M when it comes to power usage.
$500 would be no problem. A nice case alone costs nearly $200 and no one can touch Apple when it comes to industrial design. They know how to make things that LOOK GOOD. And lots of people think the Aqua GUI looks way better than Windows, myself included. Considering one of the biggest markets for Apples are artists of various kinds, it would be an easy sell. However I think they are going to ask a lot more than a $500 premium. Probably more like twice that, especially on high end systems. But I have no doubt that they will pull it off. Look at their success with the Ipod. These people are not stupid. The biggest question is whether Leopard will be cracked for use with standard PCs. Although I don't think the Mac crowd are the kind of folks to download an illegal, cracked OS from Emule or whatever. So it's mostly a non-issue anyway. And anyone who even thinks about making a PCI/USB plugin firmware adapter would get sued into the stone age. Interesting move from Jobs. I have to wonder what Gates is thinking about right now. Looks like he could be getting some real competition finally, especially if the new IntelMacs have super-low introductory pricing.
Yes. Being able to dual boot Windows and OSX is super-cool. And if someone can crack the new Apple OS (Leopard?) so that it ignores the firmware motherboard dongle (or whatever), even non-Apple owners can enjoy both operating systems on the same computer. I'd love to be able to dual boot an OS with an Aqua GUI. And speaking of Aqua, wouldn't it be nice running on top of Linux as just a GUI? It will be interesting to see if Apple can come up with a non-crackable hardware lock thingie. They'd have to also guard against PCI or USB cards that emulate their firmware. But that could be handled with lawsuits I guess.
Maybe my link pointed you too far into the article. Try starting at the beginning instead. Sorry about that. Anand does compare workstation performance which in many cases is pretty close to the competition. Only rarely does the G5 seem to win. I looked pretty closely at those Lightwave comparisons, since I actually use that app.
While over there don't miss his article on this very issue. Nice coverage as always from Anand.
Thank you so much for writing this wonderful software. Maybe after all of this passes and the big bad wolf is busy with other targets, you could give the source code to an anonymous friend who can release it on freenet or maybe just Emule. It would be a shame for such great software to just die out. Although we all know the latest release will still be available on mirror sites and/or through Emule etc.
It would be interesting to see some benchmark comparisons though. I mean how sure can you be of something that just feels faster? Try a few cross-platform benchmarks. Although you also have to consider which Pentium M you have. As far as heat goes, that's really hard to judge because it depends so much on your respective cooling systems. From what I've read about the average TDP for both chips, the Pentium M wins on paper, but I've never seen any published benchmarks between a Pentium M and a G4. And those TDP numbers are not maximums. So there's lots of wiggle room for the marketdroids on all sides.
"We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
This is an important point. Now I see their angle. Apple will be just fine. They will not kill their hardware sales. Not even if some crackers manage to release a version of OSX that bypasses their firmware and boots on a regular PC. Most Mac users are not the kind of people to download cracked operating systems from Emule or whatever. Apple may have to reduce their markup for a while: introductory pricing and sales etc. But in the long run they will be able to keep their high margins I think.
Anand's recent benchmarks seem to disagree with you. As well as Steve himself, who characterizes Intel as having better performance per watt. And indeed nothing can touch the Pentium M in that respect.
1. Climatologists accurately accounted for the effect of urban heat islands on temperature data more than a decade ago.
No. They inaccurately accounted for the effect in their favor.
In fact, the urban heat island effect is without a doubt the best-understood phenomenon in climatology.
Argument from Authority. What method is used to alter the raw data to account for an increasing heat island effect over time. How is the ratio of change calculated. I am suspicious of curve fitting. What is the algorithm? I'll take that in C code or psuedo code if you've got it. I've read that it was just by population. Ahem. I hope that is not actually true.
Climate change isn't just evident in increasing temperatures.
Well thank god for that because at some weather stations for some time periods the temperatures actually decreased by quite a bit. I know because as you might have guessed, I browsed through online weather station data for hours. Just for fun. The results are not exactly convincing to a non-believer.
However, record after record from biological, atmospheric, hydrologic, oceonographic, and cryospheric sources show effects consistent with increased temperatures, particularly in the Arctic.
So they were doing these measurements in the 19th century as well? Again, you are not presenting any real falsifiable data. You are just saying that the evidence from all these sources is convincing TO YOU. Forgive me if I am not immediately converted from heretic to believer. How about citing some actual evidence. And not just of Arctic warming. Although that would be a start.
We have vastly more data from both observed and proxy records
Can't disagree with that can I?
as well as much more accurate climate models.
More accurate? How do you test for that exactly? Are the models better at predicting... well something. I guess you would have to recalculate global warming annually from all the available weather station data and see whether the computer model accurately predicts the changes. No matter how accurate the models they still don't prove that human combustion was the cause.
Look, you'd be hard pressed to find a reputable climatologist anywhere in the world who will say that global temperature increases aren't pretty ironclad.
I agree with you. By definition. Any scientist who criticizes the Global Warming religion would be labeled a crank and would soon lose their job. They would no longer be "reputable". It wasn't always that way. Now critics of Global Warming are hard to find. And yet the temperature records have not changed. And there really is no better way to measure temperature changes over hundreds of years. Melting permafrost doesn't prove it anymore than any other local temperature variation would.
While there may be some evidence that is suggestive of a global warming effect in the past century, it is anything but irrefutable. It is anything but ironclad. The debate has been politicized. It isn't even about science anymore. Because most climatologists believe in it does not make it true. Because most people believe in it does not make it true. The case for Global Warming has yet to be proven. The case for Global Warming caused by human combustion and leading to major catastrophy has yet to be proven. And it will never be because it doesn't need to be. Nearly everyone is already convinced of it without evidence. Based merely on a scientific consensus. Why bother gathering more evidence when you can just take a poll?
The average temp in the arctic has risen 1.2 degress per DECADE
Have any references for THAT. Although it still wouldn't prove global warming, just Arctic warming at one weather station. Seriously. Where can I find that data? Do you have an Arctic weather station I can search for data at GISS?
Or maybe some data I can request from CDIAC. Nice chaps. I'm sure they would be willing to help.
In any case, I was talking about GLOBAL average temperatures not arctic ones. Interesting that you didn't respond to that.
Truly ignorance is bliss.
ad hominem attack. You are calling me ignorant. You realize that you are acting just like the stereotypical environmentalist?
Its people like yourself who make excuses like, you don't understand climate change and you think the instruments scientists are using aren't accurate
Here's yet another semi ad hominem attack. In a roundabout way you are trying to make the whole idea of instrument accuracy as far back as the 19th century seem ludicrous. It is not. Go find me a thermometer that I can buy even in 2005 that is designed for measuring air temperature. You will see that most of them are only accurate to +/- 0.5 deg celsius at best and then only within a narrow temperature range (if you read the fine print). This is not accurate enough to detect temperature changes of only 1 degree. Remember we are talking about 2005 here. Not 1865. What were the temperature gathering devices like in 1865? Do you have to research it first? Who's the ignorant one?
While it is true that Moore's Law suggests we will soon have the processing power of the human brain
I thought Moore's Law was dead and buried at this point, that everyone was predicting it only has a few years left at most. The clock speed race has been brought to a halt.
I on the other hand hope this program makes some major progress
We all hope that, Steve. I think the people who don't want to see intelligent machines are a minority. However, the aims for this project if accurately described by the article are far too ambitious based on our current knowledge of brain structure. We don't know much, but we do know enough to know how much we dont know. And it's a lot.
I think the point is to learn more about mouse brain physiology and not to actually simulate one. I think their research has been exaggerated. These researchers could not be so arrogant as to think they are going to discover, in the next decade, how even a mouse brain really works. I am willing to believe that the structure of our brains is so complicated that we may never be certain of how it really works.
That is not all they need. It's like seeing an incredibly complex and amazing program which you want to reverse engineer but you have neither a decompiler nor a disassembler. In fact, you don't even have a hex editor. So you are mostly guessing about how it does what it does. I wish these guys luck. I think they are at least a few decades and probably a century too early to be succesful.
I don't think he was talking about some kind of "basic" understanding. I don't believe that we understand enough about how the brain is wired to do this. I mean, unless these swiss researchers have made unpublished advances in the field of neurophysiology, which would be bigger news than the project itself. Last I checked we were making lots of guesses. If we finally understood all of the mechanics of how the brain works, that would be great.
If you have any links or references to this wiring at birth that you are talking about please post them.
Slashdot Mirror
Japanese culture is much less anti-intellectual and anti-geek than North American/UK/Australian culture. So it is not just akihabara that is geek friendly. And girls might at least glance in your general direction even if you are invisible elsewhere. Not that they like geeks or anything. But I think they have a somewhat higher geek tolerance level. A great reason to learn Japanese!
However, if you are non-Asian you will still be regarded as a bit of a monkey on display at the zoo. People may avoid sitting next to you on trains unless it is totally packed and you may be followed around while in some small shops with suspicious owners, as if waiting for you to pocket a few items and then make a run for it. So there is a bit of racism over there, but they are generally a nice group of folks.
And why do you need something like this to make a copy of a DVD?
Maybe because not all of us have the skill and time to write the app ourselves. So what's your favorite DVD backup application? DVDFab maybe? If so, that's a good choice since it can back up dual layer discs nicely.
I'm with you. A lot of clever people are going to devote a lot of effort to finding a way to hack OS X for their homemade beige boxes.
Maybe so. We will have to wait and see. But don't forget about Palladium. I am willing to bet that Apple plans on using a TCPA strategy to lock down Leopard. That will change the rules somewhat. Not that I think a cracked version will really hurt their bottom line. Are Mac users really the type of people to download and install an illegal, cracked OS?
There is no reason to write platform-specific code in this day and age.
OTOH, x86 assembly just became a lot more portable.
Intel drove into a dead end and hit the wall!
You mean with the Pentium4?
Very interesting article. Thanks for the link. Completely blew my mind. Those numbers are less than half of what AMD claims they should be (the TDP). If compared to the Pentium M specs they are about equal in power consumption but quite a bit faster. Amazing.
But remember that they did not test the Pentium M with the same methodology. Perhaps that chip would also end up with half its TDP at full bore, which would be in the 10-15 watt range. Hard to believe though. If the pentium M tested the same as its TDP would indicate, then I would have to agree with you. Apple really did back the wrong horse. Obviously a Pentium M version of these fps/watt tests would be a bit more difficult.
But INTEL? They're hotter, slower and more expensive than AMD.
That's only true for the Pentium IV and remember all of Intel's plans involve a more Pentium M like architecture. Ye have so little faith in Mr. Apple. If you are unimpressed with the Pentium M, you might want to read this. It's good tech and AMD doesn't have it yet. AMD is kicking arse in the pure speed war, but it has barely even fired a shot in the speed/watt war. We don't even know how interested AMD is in competing in that particular battleground. CnQ is good but not as good as a Pentium M when it comes to power usage.
WHAT REASONS are there to spend the extra $500?
$500 would be no problem. A nice case alone costs nearly $200 and no one can touch Apple when it comes to industrial design. They know how to make things that LOOK GOOD. And lots of people think the Aqua GUI looks way better than Windows, myself included. Considering one of the biggest markets for Apples are artists of various kinds, it would be an easy sell. However I think they are going to ask a lot more than a $500 premium. Probably more like twice that, especially on high end systems. But I have no doubt that they will pull it off. Look at their success with the Ipod. These people are not stupid. The biggest question is whether Leopard will be cracked for use with standard PCs. Although I don't think the Mac crowd are the kind of folks to download an illegal, cracked OS from Emule or whatever. So it's mostly a non-issue anyway. And anyone who even thinks about making a PCI/USB plugin firmware adapter would get sued into the stone age. Interesting move from Jobs. I have to wonder what Gates is thinking about right now. Looks like he could be getting some real competition finally, especially if the new IntelMacs have super-low introductory pricing.
Yes. Being able to dual boot Windows and OSX is super-cool. And if someone can crack the new Apple OS (Leopard?) so that it ignores the firmware motherboard dongle (or whatever), even non-Apple owners can enjoy both operating systems on the same computer. I'd love to be able to dual boot an OS with an Aqua GUI. And speaking of Aqua, wouldn't it be nice running on top of Linux as just a GUI? It will be interesting to see if Apple can come up with a non-crackable hardware lock thingie. They'd have to also guard against PCI or USB cards that emulate their firmware. But that could be handled with lawsuits I guess.
Maybe my link pointed you too far into the article. Try starting at the beginning instead. Sorry about that. Anand does compare workstation performance which in many cases is pretty close to the competition. Only rarely does the G5 seem to win. I looked pretty closely at those Lightwave comparisons, since I actually use that app.
While over there don't miss his article on this very issue. Nice coverage as always from Anand.
Luckily that check box seems to be unchecked by default.
Thank you so much for writing this wonderful software. Maybe after all of this passes and the big bad wolf is busy with other targets, you could give the source code to an anonymous friend who can release it on freenet or maybe just Emule. It would be a shame for such great software to just die out. Although we all know the latest release will still be available on mirror sites and/or through Emule etc.
It would be interesting to see some benchmark comparisons though. I mean how sure can you be of something that just feels faster? Try a few cross-platform benchmarks. Although you also have to consider which Pentium M you have. As far as heat goes, that's really hard to judge because it depends so much on your respective cooling systems. From what I've read about the average TDP for both chips, the Pentium M wins on paper, but I've never seen any published benchmarks between a Pentium M and a G4. And those TDP numbers are not maximums. So there's lots of wiggle room for the marketdroids on all sides.
"We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
This is an important point. Now I see their angle. Apple will be just fine. They will not kill their hardware sales. Not even if some crackers manage to release a version of OSX that bypasses their firmware and boots on a regular PC. Most Mac users are not the kind of people to download cracked operating systems from Emule or whatever. Apple may have to reduce their markup for a while: introductory pricing and sales etc. But in the long run they will be able to keep their high margins I think.
I guess you would have to use real world benchmarks for a given clock speed and voltage.
Anand's recent benchmarks seem to disagree with you. As well as Steve himself, who characterizes Intel as having better performance per watt. And indeed nothing can touch the Pentium M in that respect.
1. Climatologists accurately accounted for the effect of urban heat islands on temperature data more than a decade ago.
No. They inaccurately accounted for the effect in their favor.
In fact, the urban heat island effect is without a doubt the best-understood phenomenon in climatology.
Argument from Authority. What method is used to alter the raw data to account for an increasing heat island effect over time. How is the ratio of change calculated. I am suspicious of curve fitting. What is the algorithm? I'll take that in C code or psuedo code if you've got it. I've read that it was just by population. Ahem. I hope that is not actually true.
Climate change isn't just evident in increasing temperatures.
Well thank god for that because at some weather stations for some time periods the temperatures actually decreased by quite a bit. I know because as you might have guessed, I browsed through online weather station data for hours. Just for fun. The results are not exactly convincing to a non-believer.
However, record after record from biological, atmospheric, hydrologic, oceonographic, and cryospheric sources show effects consistent with increased temperatures, particularly in the Arctic.
So they were doing these measurements in the 19th century as well? Again, you are not presenting any real falsifiable data. You are just saying that the evidence from all these sources is convincing TO YOU. Forgive me if I am not immediately converted from heretic to believer. How about citing some actual evidence. And not just of Arctic warming. Although that would be a start.
We have vastly more data from both observed and proxy records
Can't disagree with that can I?
as well as much more accurate climate models.
More accurate? How do you test for that exactly? Are the models better at predicting... well something. I guess you would have to recalculate global warming annually from all the available weather station data and see whether the computer model accurately predicts the changes. No matter how accurate the models they still don't prove that human combustion was the cause.
Look, you'd be hard pressed to find a reputable climatologist anywhere in the world who will say that global temperature increases aren't pretty ironclad.
I agree with you. By definition. Any scientist who criticizes the Global Warming religion would be labeled a crank and would soon lose their job. They would no longer be "reputable". It wasn't always that way. Now critics of Global Warming are hard to find. And yet the temperature records have not changed. And there really is no better way to measure temperature changes over hundreds of years. Melting permafrost doesn't prove it anymore than any other local temperature variation would.
While there may be some evidence that is suggestive of a global warming effect in the past century, it is anything but irrefutable. It is anything but ironclad. The debate has been politicized. It isn't even about science anymore. Because most climatologists believe in it does not make it true. Because most people believe in it does not make it true. The case for Global Warming has yet to be proven. The case for Global Warming caused by human combustion and leading to major catastrophy has yet to be proven. And it will never be because it doesn't need to be. Nearly everyone is already convinced of it without evidence. Based merely on a scientific consensus. Why bother gathering more evidence when you can just take a poll?
The average temp in the arctic has risen 1.2 degress per DECADE
Have any references for THAT. Although it still wouldn't prove global warming, just Arctic warming at one weather station. Seriously. Where can I find that data? Do you have an Arctic weather station I can search for data at GISS?
Or maybe some data I can request from CDIAC. Nice chaps. I'm sure they would be willing to help.
In any case, I was talking about GLOBAL average temperatures not arctic ones. Interesting that you didn't respond to that.
Truly ignorance is bliss.
ad hominem attack. You are calling me ignorant. You realize that you are acting just like the stereotypical environmentalist?
Its people like yourself who make excuses like, you don't understand climate change and you think the instruments scientists are using aren't accurate
Here's yet another semi ad hominem attack. In a roundabout way you are trying to make the whole idea of instrument accuracy as far back as the 19th century seem ludicrous. It is not. Go find me a thermometer that I can buy even in 2005 that is designed for measuring air temperature. You will see that most of them are only accurate to +/- 0.5 deg celsius at best and then only within a narrow temperature range (if you read the fine print). This is not accurate enough to detect temperature changes of only 1 degree. Remember we are talking about 2005 here. Not 1865. What were the temperature gathering devices like in 1865? Do you have to research it first? Who's the ignorant one?
Burry your head in the sand like most people do
Ad hominem. Why are you all so predictable?
I'd say much of the worry or concern about global cooling was because of the Nuclear Winter [rutgers.edu].
No. It wasn't.
While it is true that Moore's Law suggests we will soon have the processing power of the human brain
I thought Moore's Law was dead and buried at this point, that everyone was predicting it only has a few years left at most. The clock speed race has been brought to a halt.
I on the other hand hope this program makes some major progress
We all hope that, Steve. I think the people who don't want to see intelligent machines are a minority. However, the aims for this project if accurately described by the article are far too ambitious based on our current knowledge of brain structure. We don't know much, but we do know enough to know how much we dont know. And it's a lot.
I think the point is to learn more about mouse brain physiology and not to actually simulate one. I think their research has been exaggerated. These researchers could not be so arrogant as to think they are going to discover, in the next decade, how even a mouse brain really works. I am willing to believe that the structure of our brains is so complicated that we may never be certain of how it really works.
I'm pretty sure that eventually we'll understand how the brain works,
Why? What makes you so certain?
That is not all they need. It's like seeing an incredibly complex and amazing program which you want to reverse engineer but you have neither a decompiler nor a disassembler. In fact, you don't even have a hex editor. So you are mostly guessing about how it does what it does. I wish these guys luck. I think they are at least a few decades and probably a century too early to be succesful.
The basic connectivity and structure is known
I don't think he was talking about some kind of "basic" understanding. I don't believe that we understand enough about how the brain is wired to do this. I mean, unless these swiss researchers have made unpublished advances in the field of neurophysiology, which would be bigger news than the project itself. Last I checked we were making lots of guesses. If we finally understood all of the mechanics of how the brain works, that would be great.
If you have any links or references to this wiring at birth that you are talking about please post them.