SACD's are pressed on DVD media. I would imagine that it wouldn't be too difficult to copy the SACD layer onto a blank DVD-R and then perhaps a mod-chipped SACD player could be used to playback/copy the disc. You should be able to read the disk in any DVD-ROM, of course you probably won't be able to do anything with it...yet. If the format catches on (and I hope it does!) then eventually a method will be developed by someone to copy the discs. SACD's should make for some high quality AAC mp4's...I must say.
I've heard SACD's and personally they might not be a necessary replacement for everyone, but they do sound pretty good if you've got a higher end audio system. Once the players fall in price a bit...or maybe software comes out which will let me play back these things on my DVD-ROM (I wish.) I will start buying them. I've been looking forward to a higher end audio format for a while.
"One Chinese reporter saw a four-year old girl prising copper coils out of shattered components. 'Completely unprotected, without even basic safety goggles, the girls pound away and laugh as bits of metal and plastic fly.'"
Well, it's been proven, my intelligence level is that of a four-year-old girl.
Not to mention, that if you press Command-Q during the Apple registration process, you can just click on "Skip" and cut right to creating user profiles. It may not be an obvious thing to try for new mac users, but surely veterans would find this option. Obviously, Apple doesn't tell you that you can skip the process - they want your info!
Most bulbs last 1000 hours, which is nothing. Thats about a bulb every month and a half if you burn it 24/7. Not very cost effective, although fun for Quake and DVD's =)
Why not get yourself one of the many existing prepay mobile plans, like free up (or whatever it is) from Verizon or whatever att's plan is? It's more reliable, you can recharge the phone whenever you want, and its from a company thats been around for a long time, and probably isn't going anywhere for a long time either. Just by looking at hop-on's website, I get the immediate feeling that they are all talk, and their devices will never surface.
You also must remember that the iPod does not use standard 2.5" HDD's, but rather Toshiba's 1.8" creation; which happens to be *very* expensive. So don't compare those cheap Firewire HDD's to the iPod. The 1.8" keeps the iPod as small as it is..for an HDD player anyway.
I too have a 1600SW, and while it is a nice display, when used under OS X, it is the desktop equivalent of a 15" LCD. Anyone who has used OS X knows that it is has a very heavy visual interface, and displays that seemed gigantic under OS 9 seem cramped under 10. I could hardly afford the 1600SW, and I only paid $1000 for mine, but I could not live with anything less. I am sure the new Cinema HD is going to be beautiful. Can't wait to see one.
I'm inclined to think that they will want companies like Intel and AMD to put a hardware lock of some kind on the chips to prevent copying. Software is just too easy to hack, it takes another few hours to get the hardware right...
...unite. I may not be a hacker myself, but this stuff doesn't concern me anymore. We've managed to hack virtually every other shameful attempt at copy protection keeping us from what is rightfully ours; and we'll do it for this. DeCSS, DirecTV decoders, gnutella (a solution to the napster 'problem')and Playstation mod chips are just a few of the creative solutions that have surfaced over the years, and soon there will be a HDTV ripper too.
The sillies who think they can tell the consumer what to do with their media may never learn, but there will always be a solution.
Aqua is the colorful interface that Mac OS X has. That has nothing to do with Photoshop. I think what you are referring to is Quartz; Apples new display package to replace the aging Quickdraw. Quartz is Apple's most advanced graphics engine ever and I think it should be up to the task. If it and OpenGL can handle Maya, I would think Photoshop would be a breeze.
What is wrong with Apple's mouse handling? It works the same for me in X as it did in 9. Granted after I replaced my Apple mouse with a logitech cordless I lost a little resolution, but it still works fine.
Firewire does not connect to the PCI bus on the latest macs (Digital Audio and up). Firewire is connected directly to Apple's slicing, dicing, chopping, cutting edge Uni-North chip, and therefore leaves the PCI bus free of yet another bottleneck. Actually, I think the only thing that isn't connected directly to Uni-N anymore is the ATA bus, which still uses an external controller...oh well, next revision =)
Personally I would be very scared to be either Microsoft or Intel. One day in the future, maybe not now, or even in 20 years, those companies will likely fall or at least lose their stronghold over the industry. Better things do exist, e.g. Linux and although many of you may not agree, the PowerPC processor (and if not that, something else will come), which will eventually take over and finally put the age-old, highly inefficent x86 chip in its place. I believe Microsoft is digging its own grave with it's control-everything.NET strategy; but then I'm just a crazy mac user, what do I know, right?
Macintosh may not be everybody's favorite platform, and it may not be the best platform (although I'd have to disagree with you on that), but it's my platform of choice and I won't be going back to x86 anytime soon.
I suppose I was conclusive with my comments, and it may be possible, although with the current technology and mindset today I belive it is not, to write code that can become smarter than it's creator. However, I would have to see actual results in order to believe this to be true.
Should that day come, I think I speak on the behalf of many, that will be a very scary day. Few things really hit home and make me uneasy, but the creation of a machine that can improve upon itself in a revolutionary manner as to greaten its own intelligence and logical problem solving ability is certainly one of them.
I can't believe we're still discussing this at all. Apple is never going to port OS X to Intel, it just doesn't fit with their business model. Apple is a hardware company. They make their money selling a good package of reliable, solid hardware and powerful software. Mac OS X sells for about $100 and Apple is happy with its returns, they are not interested in selling it for $279 per license to suck the money out of the consumer. They don't even use software keys on it! Can we please let this issue die?
well, thats fine and all, so why couldn't a group of people develop AI that was smarter than any one individual in the group? i think you're being very close-minded about this.
A group of people can develop an AI that is smarter than one individual in the group. The "creator" is then the group of people. The AI can best one member of the group, but not the group working together to best the AI.
As far as self-modifying code, I believe you are talking about polymorphic viruses and the like. These are not evolving, but rather changing such that a less "intelligent" detector would not recognize it. At heart, it is still the same code, preforming the same task.
If you are referring to something else I am unaware of, please let me know.
An evolving lifeform is a different ballgame. I am talking in the range of programmed artificial intelligence. If we made a monkey-bird or something by combining DNA, yes, it is technically a human creation, but it is life and can evolve naturally. The evolved being would not be a product of the parents intelligence.
The computer can calculate every possible routine faster than its programmer can. Given sufficent time, the programmer would still be able to beat the computer. Also, you must realize that every design team member of the program would need to work together to play against the computer. A 1 on 1 match would not be fair. If thats too far out to understand, then think of it as the programmer sitting down against the computer, only the programmer had all the source code for the program in front of him. He could follow through his code and essentially it would be the same two programs running against each other. Now, lets say while doing so the programmer finds a more efficent, better way to execute the code, he can make that change and then play the new program against the old one. However, the program itself is not capable of improving on its own code.
The old workstation didn't design the new one, the user of the workstation did, what you are saying makes no sense. Furthermore, a workstation isn't an artificial intelligence.
I don't understand why x86 users can't comprehend how Altivec works. I never said that a 2ghz Intel wasn't faster than a 500mhz G4, it is. However, when you start feeding the G4 Altivec optimized code, it will eat the Intel alive. As an example, when I shut off Altivec optimizations for RC5 and do a benchmark, my DP533 G4 returns about 1.2Mkey/sec per processor. However, when I enable Altivec, that score skyrockets to about 4.8Mkey/sec, per processor, four times faster. I'm not sure exactly what a 2ghz Intel can do, I think its around 3.5-4Mkey/sec. Maybe I did exaggerate in my 1/2 as fast remark, but it is still executing faster than the Intel chip at 1/4 the clock speed.
Unfortunately, many usual tasks do not take advantage of Altivec, if they did, then Apple would hands-down be the fastest desktop platform available. Thankfully more and more programs and routines are becoming optimized.
In a perfect world, everyone would be using a G4, even if it wasn't in a Mac.
I wouldn't concern yourself with intelligent robots taking over the world. It is not possible for anything to create something that is smarter than itself. While possible to come very close, even as close as 99.9% of the intelligence of its creator, 100% can never be achieved. It is for this reason, that it is not possible for "smart" robots to outsmart humans.
there are some (as far as i understand) very good macintosh clusters that are very easy to use and very fast. especially if nothing (significant) has been done yet, a macintosh cluster computing G4-optimized code would blow away anything else in its price range. I can't say I have ever used one of these, or any other cluster for that matter, but the genuine power and versatility of the mac tells me its gotta be good.
Actually, its possible to not install the BSD Compatibility layer at all when you install OS X. Anyone whose ever installed it would know that. Crazy PC users who have never had the privilage of using a mac...
OS X is a descendant of NeXTstep from NeXT computer, which Apple bought a few years ago with the hopes of using their software as a foundation for their new OS. On top of that, Apple only bought NeXT because they couldn't cut a deal with BeOS for their system.
NeXTstep was one of the most advanced operating systems for its time. Unfortunately, like most Steve Jobs products, NeXT computers were overpriced and ahead of their time. Yet, 10 years later, it has resurfaced as OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
SACD's are pressed on DVD media. I would imagine that it wouldn't be too difficult to copy the SACD layer onto a blank DVD-R and then perhaps a mod-chipped SACD player could be used to playback/copy the disc. You should be able to read the disk in any DVD-ROM, of course you probably won't be able to do anything with it...yet. If the format catches on (and I hope it does!) then eventually a method will be developed by someone to copy the discs. SACD's should make for some high quality AAC mp4's...I must say.
I've heard SACD's and personally they might not be a necessary replacement for everyone, but they do sound pretty good if you've got a higher end audio system. Once the players fall in price a bit...or maybe software comes out which will let me play back these things on my DVD-ROM (I wish.) I will start buying them. I've been looking forward to a higher end audio format for a while.
"One Chinese reporter saw a four-year old girl prising copper coils out of shattered components. 'Completely unprotected, without even basic safety goggles, the girls pound away and laugh as bits of metal and plastic fly.'" Well, it's been proven, my intelligence level is that of a four-year-old girl.
Not to mention, that if you press Command-Q during the Apple registration process, you can just click on "Skip" and cut right to creating user profiles. It may not be an obvious thing to try for new mac users, but surely veterans would find this option. Obviously, Apple doesn't tell you that you can skip the process - they want your info!
Most bulbs last 1000 hours, which is nothing. Thats about a bulb every month and a half if you burn it 24/7. Not very cost effective, although fun for Quake and DVD's =)
Why not get yourself one of the many existing prepay mobile plans, like free up (or whatever it is) from Verizon or whatever att's plan is? It's more reliable, you can recharge the phone whenever you want, and its from a company thats been around for a long time, and probably isn't going anywhere for a long time either. Just by looking at hop-on's website, I get the immediate feeling that they are all talk, and their devices will never surface.
You also must remember that the iPod does not use standard 2.5" HDD's, but rather Toshiba's 1.8" creation; which happens to be *very* expensive. So don't compare those cheap Firewire HDD's to the iPod. The 1.8" keeps the iPod as small as it is..for an HDD player anyway.
I too have a 1600SW, and while it is a nice display, when used under OS X, it is the desktop equivalent of a 15" LCD. Anyone who has used OS X knows that it is has a very heavy visual interface, and displays that seemed gigantic under OS 9 seem cramped under 10. I could hardly afford the 1600SW, and I only paid $1000 for mine, but I could not live with anything less. I am sure the new Cinema HD is going to be beautiful. Can't wait to see one.
Just open source it...but then again open source and security software aren't best used in the same sentence.
I'm inclined to think that they will want companies like Intel and AMD to put a hardware lock of some kind on the chips to prevent copying. Software is just too easy to hack, it takes another few hours to get the hardware right...
...unite. I may not be a hacker myself, but this stuff doesn't concern me anymore. We've managed to hack virtually every other shameful attempt at copy protection keeping us from what is rightfully ours; and we'll do it for this. DeCSS, DirecTV decoders, gnutella (a solution to the napster 'problem')and Playstation mod chips are just a few of the creative solutions that have surfaced over the years, and soon there will be a HDTV ripper too.
The sillies who think they can tell the consumer what to do with their media may never learn, but there will always be a solution.
Aqua is the colorful interface that Mac OS X has. That has nothing to do with Photoshop. I think what you are referring to is Quartz; Apples new display package to replace the aging Quickdraw. Quartz is Apple's most advanced graphics engine ever and I think it should be up to the task. If it and OpenGL can handle Maya, I would think Photoshop would be a breeze.
What is wrong with Apple's mouse handling? It works the same for me in X as it did in 9. Granted after I replaced my Apple mouse with a logitech cordless I lost a little resolution, but it still works fine.
Firewire does not connect to the PCI bus on the latest macs (Digital Audio and up). Firewire is connected directly to Apple's slicing, dicing, chopping, cutting edge Uni-North chip, and therefore leaves the PCI bus free of yet another bottleneck. Actually, I think the only thing that isn't connected directly to Uni-N anymore is the ATA bus, which still uses an external controller...oh well, next revision =)
Personally I would be very scared to be either Microsoft or Intel. One day in the future, maybe not now, or even in 20 years, those companies will likely fall or at least lose their stronghold over the industry. Better things do exist, e.g. Linux and although many of you may not agree, the PowerPC processor (and if not that, something else will come), which will eventually take over and finally put the age-old, highly inefficent x86 chip in its place. I believe Microsoft is digging its own grave with it's control-everything .NET strategy; but then I'm just a crazy mac user, what do I know, right?
Macintosh may not be everybody's favorite platform, and it may not be the best platform (although I'd have to disagree with you on that), but it's my platform of choice and I won't be going back to x86 anytime soon.
I suppose I was conclusive with my comments, and it may be possible, although with the current technology and mindset today I belive it is not, to write code that can become smarter than it's creator. However, I would have to see actual results in order to believe this to be true.
Should that day come, I think I speak on the behalf of many, that will be a very scary day. Few things really hit home and make me uneasy, but the creation of a machine that can improve upon itself in a revolutionary manner as to greaten its own intelligence and logical problem solving ability is certainly one of them.
I can't believe we're still discussing this at all. Apple is never going to port OS X to Intel, it just doesn't fit with their business model. Apple is a hardware company. They make their money selling a good package of reliable, solid hardware and powerful software. Mac OS X sells for about $100 and Apple is happy with its returns, they are not interested in selling it for $279 per license to suck the money out of the consumer. They don't even use software keys on it! Can we please let this issue die?
I will have to give that one a read. Thanks for the recommendation.
well, thats fine and all, so why couldn't a group of people develop AI that was smarter than any one individual in the group? i think you're being very close-minded about this.
A group of people can develop an AI that is smarter than one individual in the group. The "creator" is then the group of people. The AI can best one member of the group, but not the group working together to best the AI.
As far as self-modifying code, I believe you are talking about polymorphic viruses and the like. These are not evolving, but rather changing such that a less "intelligent" detector would not recognize it. At heart, it is still the same code, preforming the same task.
If you are referring to something else I am unaware of, please let me know.
An evolving lifeform is a different ballgame. I am talking in the range of programmed artificial intelligence. If we made a monkey-bird or something by combining DNA, yes, it is technically a human creation, but it is life and can evolve naturally. The evolved being would not be a product of the parents intelligence.
The computer can calculate every possible routine faster than its programmer can. Given sufficent time, the programmer would still be able to beat the computer. Also, you must realize that every design team member of the program would need to work together to play against the computer. A 1 on 1 match would not be fair. If thats too far out to understand, then think of it as the programmer sitting down against the computer, only the programmer had all the source code for the program in front of him. He could follow through his code and essentially it would be the same two programs running against each other. Now, lets say while doing so the programmer finds a more efficent, better way to execute the code, he can make that change and then play the new program against the old one. However, the program itself is not capable of improving on its own code.
The old workstation didn't design the new one, the user of the workstation did, what you are saying makes no sense. Furthermore, a workstation isn't an artificial intelligence.
I don't understand why x86 users can't comprehend how Altivec works. I never said that a 2ghz Intel wasn't faster than a 500mhz G4, it is. However, when you start feeding the G4 Altivec optimized code, it will eat the Intel alive. As an example, when I shut off Altivec optimizations for RC5 and do a benchmark, my DP533 G4 returns about 1.2Mkey/sec per processor. However, when I enable Altivec, that score skyrockets to about 4.8Mkey/sec, per processor, four times faster. I'm not sure exactly what a 2ghz Intel can do, I think its around 3.5-4Mkey/sec. Maybe I did exaggerate in my 1/2 as fast remark, but it is still executing faster than the Intel chip at 1/4 the clock speed.
Unfortunately, many usual tasks do not take advantage of Altivec, if they did, then Apple would hands-down be the fastest desktop platform available. Thankfully more and more programs and routines are becoming optimized.
In a perfect world, everyone would be using a G4, even if it wasn't in a Mac.
I wouldn't concern yourself with intelligent robots taking over the world. It is not possible for anything to create something that is smarter than itself. While possible to come very close, even as close as 99.9% of the intelligence of its creator, 100% can never be achieved. It is for this reason, that it is not possible for "smart" robots to outsmart humans.
there are some (as far as i understand) very good macintosh clusters that are very easy to use and very fast. especially if nothing (significant) has been done yet, a macintosh cluster computing G4-optimized code would blow away anything else in its price range. I can't say I have ever used one of these, or any other cluster for that matter, but the genuine power and versatility of the mac tells me its gotta be good.
Actually, its possible to not install the BSD Compatibility layer at all when you install OS X. Anyone whose ever installed it would know that. Crazy PC users who have never had the privilage of using a mac...
OS X is a descendant of NeXTstep from NeXT computer, which Apple bought a few years ago with the hopes of using their software as a foundation for their new OS. On top of that, Apple only bought NeXT because they couldn't cut a deal with BeOS for their system.
NeXTstep was one of the most advanced operating systems for its time. Unfortunately, like most Steve Jobs products, NeXT computers were overpriced and ahead of their time. Yet, 10 years later, it has resurfaced as OS X.
Hey only another 5 until I can get a Newton!