Pi to this guy really is “pie”…..

A French software engineer said on Friday he was claiming a world record for calculating Pi, the constant that has fascinated mathematicians for millennia.

Fabrice Bellard told AFP he used an inexpensive desktop computer — and not a supercomputer used in past records — to calculate Pi to nearly 2.7 trillion decimal places.

That is around 123 billion digits more than the previous record set last August by Japanese professor Daisuke Takahashi, he said.

Takahashi, using a T2K Open Supercomputer, took 29 hours to crunch Pi to 2.577 billion digits.

Bellard took 131 days, comprising 103 for the computation in binary digits, 13 days for verification, 12 days to convert the binary digits to a base of 10 and three final days to check the conversion.

The gear cost “a bit less than 2,000 euros” (3,000 dollars), Bellard, who earns a living as a software consultant in digital television in Paris, said in an email exchange.

“It is a completely standard PC. The only unusual thing is that it has five 1.5-teraoctet hard disks. Mainstream PCs generally have only one 1-teraoctet disk.”

Bellard has placed on his website details of the achievement, including the use of a high-powered mathematical engine called the Chudnovsky algorithm that chewed through the computation.

Extracts of the 2,699,999,990,000-digit outcome have been published so that they can be compared to preceding records in order to gain independent verification, Bellard told AFP.

Files containing the digits are also being offered to any outside organism keen on hosting the record, he said.

Pi, the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter, kicks off with 3.14159… in a string whose digits are believed never to repeat or end.

Bellard said he was “not especially interested” in Pi’s digits but more in taking up the gauntlet of writing the software to carry out the arithmetic.

“Optimising these algorithms to get good performance is a difficult programming challenge,” he wrote.

3D Televesion – Great, but with many many flaws.

It’s all about 3D at the Consumer Electronics Show this year, and believe me: there’s no shortage of eye-popping, head-ducking 3D demos on the show floor. It’s all quite impressive, but look a little harder and you start to see the flaws.I’ve spent a good part of my time at CES running from one massive exhibitor booth to another, starting with Panasonic and moving on to such big names as Samsung, Sharp, Toshiba, and Sony.

I’ve tried on more 3D glasses than I care to count (they’re all of the battery-powered “active-shutter” variety, by the way, complete with LCD lenses that rapidly open and shut in sync with the alternating left-and-right images on the HDTV screen), and overall, I’m happy to report that the effect is, indeed, very similar to what you’ll see in a theater.

Yes, the 3D image does seem to stretch behind the screen, with moments that deliver a sublime sense of depth, such as, say, the ballroom floor during the “Alice in Wonderland” trailer or even the foreshortened spinning wheel in “Wheel of Fortune” (yes, someone bothered to shoot an episode in 3D, I kid you not). There were also plenty of “whoa!” sequences, like a CGI dude with a ball and paddle who repeatedly zinged the ball right up to my nose.

That said, I did notice a few key annoyances that could be a problem for anyone who buys one of these new sets for their living room.

Glare
Granted, lighting conditions on the CES show floor aren’t the best … but the same goes for most living rooms, frankly, and I found the glare on glossy HDTV screens (particularly the plasma variety) to be very distracting, putting a serious dent in the 3D effect. Ideally, of course, you’ll want to have your 3D HDTV in a completely darkened room (such as the makeshift theater where Panasonic was showing off its gargantuan, 152-inch 3D plasma set). Barring that, though, you’ll at least want to make sure there aren’t any glare-inducing light sources in the area.

Flicker
The latest generation of 3D HDTVs and their accompanying active-shutter glasses are designed to have refresh rates so fast that you won’t notice any flicker at all; nevertheless, there were still moments when I definitely did notice a slight but distracting flicker, particularly during brightly-lit scenes. The effect was worse on some sets than others (I won’t call anyone out quite yet, given that it’s so tough to judge on the CES show floor), and it’s possible that proper calibration could reduce the problem. Still, it’s worth noting.

Weird-looking 3D
This next issue has more to do with the 3D sources on display here at CES than with the 3D sets themselves, but it could end up being an issue with the upcoming 3D TV networks and programming that are being touted this week. While the 3D trailers of “Avatar” that are prevalent at the show look amazingly realistic, some of the other demos — of, say, skaters on an ice rink, underwater sea urchins, football players bashing heads, and so on — look like the same, cheesy cardboard cut-outs that you might see in a kid’s plastic ViewMaster. The problem, I’m guessing, is that those producing these odd-looking 3D clips are trying to exaggerate the 3D effect to get the most eye-pooping visuals, but the effect looks plain weird — not anything like real life at all, but a strange, fake-looking and oddly flat 3D pseudo world. While accomplished filmmakers like James Cameron seem to be going out of their way to go for a more subtle, realistic 3D effect, my fear is that upcoming 3D programmers might be temped to go with the flashy, phony look instead.

So-so looking 2D-to-3D conversion
Both Samsung and Toshiba are promising on-board 2D-to-3D conversion on their sets, and as you might expect … the effect only looks fair, at best. I saw a demo clip showing airborne views of a forest, a soccer match, a gushing creek, and so on, and the visuals looked … well, they had what I’d call “pseudo depth,” conveying the sense that the image was stretching behind the screen but not of a real 3D landscape. It’s not terrible by any stretch, but don’t expect an on-the-fly 2D-to-3D conversion of “The Empire Strikes Back” or Anderson Cooper to look anything like the real 3D thing.

Pricey 3D glasses
I touched on this issue in passing a couple of days ago but it’s worth mentioning again: these “active-shutter” 3D glasses that come with all of the 3D TV sets I’ve seen today won’t be cheap. No one is discussing pricing quite yet, but I’ve heard that these IR-enabled, battery-powered glasses could cost somewhere in the $100 range, and at best, you should only expect to get two pairs of glasses with your new 3D TV. (Sony has committed to two pairs of active-shutter glasses for its top-of-the-line 3D models, while Panasonic will only give you one; Samsung hasn’t announced its policy yet.) So if you were having thoughts of a 3D Super Bowl party with, oh, a dozen friends or so, and let’s say the glasses end up costing only $50 a pop … well, that’s a cool $600 worth of 3D glasses.

Again, it’s really tough to get an accurate grip on the latest 3D TVs in just two hours in a jam-packed convention center, but I have to say … my impressions are decidedly mixed. While this is definitely the year for selling 3D TVs, whether it’s the year for buying one is an open question.

Expect to be surprised by Apple Tablet.

If its engineers hew to recent history, Apple’s tablet computer may look nothing like what the prognosticators foresee.

The speculative madness surrounding Apple’s rumored tablet computer has finally reached its frothy peak.

Tech’s chattering classes are obsessed with the unconfirmed product, which Apple (AAPL) may announce at an event in January, or February, or March, depending on which set of reports you adhere to. Apple, not surprisingly, is mum.

The hunger for information—and misguided speculation—reminds me of the mistaken prognosticating about the iPhone before its introduction three years ago. It may be time to step back and realize that Apple may uncork a product so surprising that the company again leaves the tech industry scrambling to catch up to its products’ smooth operation and sleek design.

Documented facts about the tablet are few. This much we do know: In November 2008, Apple took control of the trademark name TabletMac from a company called Axiotron, which converts MacBook laptops into tablet computers running Apple’s Mac OS X.

Wild Imaginings

In April, BusinessWeek talked with people who had seen prototypes of a device they called a media pad as well as a small iPhone, described as “iPhone lite” by the person who saw it.

Then there’s outside speculation. In November the Taiwanese Web site Digitimes, often regarded as a solid source of information regarding the plans of Taiwan’s electronic manufacturing sector, reported that the Apple tablet had been delayed until the second half of 2010 because of the price to build its display.

On Dec. 24, New York Times blogger Nick Bilton quoted two people—one an unnamed source, the other a former Apple employee—dropping tantalizing clues. Jobs is “very happy” with the machine, and users will be “very surprised at how you interact with the new tablet,” the Times wrote. About the same time, the Financial Times reported that Apple plans to reveal the new device at an event at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts in San Francisco on Jan. 26.

Missing the Mark on the iPhone

It’s important to take reports like these with an appropriate helping of salt. Apple holds numerous trademarks it doesn’t actively use; ever hear of MacTel, Vingle, or Drypod? In addition, Apple’s top-secret labs in Cupertino, Calif., have probably developed numerous tablet prototypes, some of which may be used to show potential partners but that don’t represent a finished product. And leakers have a tendency to exaggerate what they know, or invent from whole cloth.

A similar speculative frenzy surrounded the January 2007 iPhone launch. Looking back at Apple rumor site postings in the months leading up to its debut, I noticed how far off the mark many were about the iPhone’s looks, Apple’s partners, and who the carrier would be who could resell it. For example, enthusiasts’ home-made design drawings that emerged on rumor sites showed a phone that sported a navigation wheel similar to the iPod’s. Others imagined the iPhone would have a slide-out keyboard.

Few saw the potential for a touch-sensitive display, which eventually became the signature design element of the iPhone and iPod touch.

Consider the fevered imaginings endemic to Apple. The company engenders such strong reactions from its customers that users tend to “project the known upon the unknown,” says Michael Gartenberg, an analyst at market researcher Interpret. That’s why so many observers took the well-understood iPod and grafted a phone onto it when imagining Apple’s iPhone plans.

A Larger Screen?

Apple’s tablet may revolve around a larger touch-sensitive screen than the iPhone’s, which could be central to its design and control. I’ve speculated about it myself in a past column. The iPod touch is so useful an Internet device that I keep one handy on my bedside table. It would make a lot of sense for Apple to market a device with a larger screen—say, 7 in. to 10 in. diagonally—that runs applications downloaded from the iTunes app store, wouldn’t it?

Writers and tech pundits think so. But we’re not Apple engineers and designers. What seems from the outside to be a logical progression may seem merely simplistic to the folks at Apple’s 1 Infinite Loop headquarters. Their job isn’t so much to think about the next logical step on a path as to set a divergent course for what people are likely to want for years to come.

Apple may throw everyone a curve ball here. Imagine an Apple tablet about the size of a 11-in. spiral notebook with an iPhone-like touch screen. How about the ability for the machine to recognize voice commands and dictation of text? A built-in video camera and maybe a mini-projector for meetings would be nice. And if the reports of Apple’s discussion to land print media content in the iTunes store are true, how about an easy-on-the-eyes display for reading electronic magazines and books?

Embracing Two Worlds

A more fundamental question is whether Apple’s tablet will more closely resemble an iPhone or a Mac. It will be fascinating to see how whatever emerges straddles those two worlds.

We use PCs and laptops to get things done when we’re stationary; we use mobile devices to stay informed and complete small tasks when we’re out and about. This device, it seems, will either have to incorporate both paradigms or have to create one of its own.

My bet? There will be a product from Apple reasonably described as a tablet, and Apple will reveal it during the first quarter of 2010. That’s not going too far out on a limb. As the iPhone enters its third year, Apple needs something new to sell to keep delighting its customers, inspiring envy among its competitors, and increasing its sales.

Check your expectations about this product at the door, though. We’re probably all in for a very big surprise.

Apple Rejects Google Latitude App

MacRumors believe that the new patent Apple has submitted is similar to Google Latitude, therefore Apple has denied it from the app store.

The patent’s function is similar to that of Latitude: it takes your location information, sends it via SMS, and then the receiver plots it in Maps so you can see where you are.

Google branches out (courtesy of CNET.com)

All rights go to CNET.com; (paraphrased)

****

Google continued to lap the competition in 2009, but found itself jousting with a formidable foe: the U.S. government.

Scrutiny from federal regulators played a role in almost every major story that involved Google this year, from its continued domination of the search and search advertising markets, to its battle with authors and publishers over the effects of the Google Book Search settlement, to CEO Eric Schmidt’s role overseeing both Google and Apple as a director. At year’s end, no major federal action had been taken against the company, and Google showed no signs of slowing down its innovative engineers with plans to move into operating systems and possibly consumer electronics.

Google’s settlement with groups representing authors and publishers technically took place in 2008, but the battle over its propriety raged throughout 2009. And the year will end without a clear decision regarding how Google will be allowed to display portions of out-of-print yet copyright-protected books that it has scanned. However, a second final settlement drafted in consultation with the Department of Justice was approved in November.

Opponents accused Google of trying to corner the market on digital books, while the company insisted it was doing the world a favor by improving access to books. A final hearing on whether to approve the revised settlement is scheduled for February 2010, meaning this story isn’t done just yet.

Google will end the year about where it began when it comes to search market share: around 65 percent of the U.S. market, according to ComScore. Microsoft’s launch of Bing, a revamped version of Live Search, was definitely noticed in Mountain View, but Bing seemed to take more share from Yahoo than it did from Google as the year progressed.

Not all was rosy for the Google economic engine: the company was forced to lay off employees for the first time due to the prolonged economic slump in the advertising market. Still, Google appeared to weather the storm far better than its competitors, and once the dust had cleared opened up its checkbook for strategic purchases such as On2 Technologies and AdMob.

It was a banner year for one of Google’s most important side projects. Android, its mobile operating system, started to gain traction among the phone makers of the world, and led to a landmark deal between Google and Verizon to develop “a family of devices” based on Android.

However, late in the year, Google was reported to be planning to sell consumers a phone of its own: the $199 Nexus One, given out to Google employees at a holiday party. The company has not yet commented on whether the Nexus One will be its first consumer electronics product, or just another developer phone sold to a limited audience.

Android began setting itself up as a main contender to Apple’s iPhone, which is probably why the government raised an eyebrow at Schmidt’s role as a director at both Apple and Google. For a while, Schmidt shrugged off the controversy, but eventually stepped down from Apple’s board after acknowledging that the overlap between the two companies had become too great.

That decision came after Google decided to shake up the computer market with plans for its own operating system–Chrome OS–based on its Chrome browser. Chrome OS is not expected to arrive on Netbooks until late next year, but the company showed off its novel approach to operating system development late in the year during an event for the media. Chrome OS is designed as a lightweight, fast operating system that runs nothing but Web applications; that might appeal to some, but it’s still not clear if the masses are ready for such a product.

And while cloud computing through products like Chrome OS may be the future, the current cloud situation can be stormy from time to time. Google suffered a prolonged outage in May that knocked out traffic to just about all of its services, and sporadic Gmail outages frustrated users on several occasions.