Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

eDigital MXP100 with Voice Control

Posted by michael on from the speak-your-mind dept.

An anonymous reader writes: "Here is a lengthy review of eDigital's 1GB flash MP3 portable that is as much a review on Lucent's remarkable speech recognition technology VoiceNav as it is on the player. VoiceNav offers speaker-independent recognition, meaning it doesn't have to learn each individual user's particular speech patterns like IBM's ViaVoice. Just say the name of a music track into the player's microphone and VoiceNav pulls up and plays that song. In ideal conditions the reviewer was able to twice run through a list of 14 song titles without fail. This included titles with "non-real word" band names like Sum41 and U2. Neat technology that could make its way into PDAs soon. The player is a pretty good one too, using IBM's Microdrive for storage."

8 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    first post. can you dig it suckas?

    P.S. please fire michael sims.

  2. fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    frost pist!

  3. Nth post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Fuck off trolls!

  4. GABE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Gabe - Thanks for the purchase of the Mtn. Dew. It's been great drinking it, and we all appreciate the fact that you went out of your way to get it. Again, thanks.

    -Mark [your apartment-mate]

  5. MEEPT!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Ho Ho!

    This reminds me of a recent story on the Financial Times, which was picked up by CNN.

    It was about something that nobody cared about.

    Where do dead uninteresting stories go when they die?

    Slapdown!! That's where!

    The meept is all for voice activiation. It reminds meept of "Clap on, clap off". However, it tends to be biased towards those who CAN speak.

    The meept has no mouth , let alone a body. Therefore this media-bias towards mouth-iness is something that won't be addressed until we get a dumb preident.

    MEEPT!!

  6. The Slashdot Drinking Game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    LotCaf: The Slashdot Drinking Game The Slashdot Drinking Game

    Brought to you courtesy of the clearly-a-sarky-observation-piece dept and can't-be-arsed-to-copy-the-colour-scheme-or-layout dept.

    faux instructions

    1. Surround yourself with a handful of Slashdot-aware friends.
    2. Surround yourself with a variety of alcoholic beverages.
    3. Familiarise yourself with things to slur when sufficiently intoxicated. These may include - but are not limited to: "Whaaaassssup!" and "I regret to inform you, ossifer, that my alcohol may contain trace amounts of blood".
    4. Gather friends around a large monitor.
    5. Familiarise yourself with the observations set out below, and decide among yourself which drinks to down, and when.
    6. Load a web-browser, and visit Slashdot. Open up an article on practically any subject; display preferences set to 'flat, threshold 1, oldest first'.
    7. Scroll down the page, slow enough so that even the booziest of observers has enough time to read and comprehend each post. As per the pre-arranged rules, consume a beverage of your choice.
    8. CMP state,#bladdered : BNE stage_7


    real instructions
    1. Read the observations listed below.
    2. Depending on whether you agree with them or not, either nod sagely and concur, "True, true" or scowl angrily and accuse the author of smoking crack.


    the actual observations

    Drink a quantity of alcoholic substance and/or nod solemnly whenever...

    • A poor analogy is constructed, embellished and never refuted, especially when it relates to the politics of MP3s, the feasibility of designing accessible websites, the ramifications of gun laws or the relative advantages/disadvantages of Intellectual Property.
    • A large number of words in an article are unnecessarily hyperlinked, thus causing the hapless (yet curious) reader to place the mouse pointer over each and every one, in the hope that at least one of them might be in any way interesting.
    • Someone says "Ummmm... you did read the article, didn't you?"
      • ...but they probably didn't read it themselves.
    • An informative article is moderated as 'insightful', or vice versa.
    • Someone claims that their post consists solely of the cold harsh facts of truth, while the opponent has to resort to name-calling, FUD or other such beastly tactics.
    • The pre-emptive plea: "I'll probably get moderated down for saying this..." which of course gets moderated up.
      • ...they were posting anonymously to "protect their karma".
    • The 'Slashdot mentality' is described and 'rebelled' against, to the author's karmic advantage.
      • ...they are effectively moderated up simply for voicing an opinion which is (or claims to be...) 'radically different'
      • ...plausible examples of the 'groupthink conformity' are mentioned (e.g. pro-Linux, pro-Open Source, anti-Microsoft, anti-spam, pro-Libertarian, anti-censorship, pro-Napster etc).
      • ...implausible examples are mentioned ("I'll probably get moderated down for voicing this opinion in what is clearly a predominantly anti-taildocking forum")
      • ...the author talks of 'Slashbots', 'Sheepdot' or other such anti-Slashdot rhetoric ("Open Source, Closed Minds... we are Slashdot")
      • ...a clearly inflammatory post is saved from a rightful (Score: -1, Flamebait) with the cautionary "this isn't a troll, I'm just pointing out the facts" or better still, the unconvincing "this isn't a troll - I don't even know what a troll is."
      • ...the score makes it clear that Slashdot moderators are becoming more sympathetic to pro-Microsoft posts than pro-Linux ones.
    • A poster recognizes a troll and comprehends the futility in replying to such, but does so anyway with the resignation, "I know I'm not supposed to reply to trolls, but..."
    • A poster is accused of being a troll despite being not even remotely inflammatory or controversial.
    • After being berated for posting an insensitive, illogical or offensive post, the author caves in and posts, "*sheesh* it was only a joke! Evidentally you have no sense of humour!"
    • Ignoring the numerous replies to a "It's funny. Laugh" article that clearly demonstrate that the posters have indeed found it to be amusing, someone suggests that everyone is taking it "waaaaay too seriously."
    • Something is criticized as being "cool" or "trendy".
    • A posting ends with the author saying, "eh, whatever", "go figure" or "*shrug*".
    • Someone utilises any of the following terms or phrases: zealot, jihadist, sheeple, hysterical, misguided, whine, apologists, "funny, isn't it, how...".
  7. Re:Alan Thicke. DEAD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    ROFLMAO. Good one!

  8. Re:What about Ogg Vorbis support? by pivo · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    idealism is utterly meaningless when it throws money away

    So how much would you charge to kill your best friend?