Slashdot Mirror


Google Aims To Be Your Universal Translator

mpicpp sends word about Google's latest translate technology. "Google is beaming a bit closer to Star Trek's universal translator with the newest edition of its Translate app. Rolling out over the next few days for iOS and Android users, the latest version of Google Translate offers two key features — the ability to instantly converse with someone speaking in a different language and the capability to translate street signs and other images into your native language. Both features have been available in the Android app to some extent. For example, Google Translate for Android has long offered real-time translation of conversations. But Google's goal behind the latest version of the app is to enhance and simplify the features so they work more quickly and fluidly without any lag time. The latest version of Google Translate aims to change that. To converse with someone speaking in a different language, a user chooses his language and that of the other speaker. He then taps the microphone icon in the app, starts speaking in his native or selected language, and then taps the mic icon again. The app will recognize which of the two languages is being spoken, and then the two speakers can carry on their conversation without having to keep tapping the mic. In a test of the app's instant translation, The New York Times said it did prove to be a step forward; though, it's not science fiction just yet. The app fared best with short sentences that didn't include jargon, and it worked better when the users paused between each translation. Google also has beefed up the app's ability to translate street signs. Previously, you'd have to take a photo of the foreign text to get a translation of it. Now, you simply point your camera at the sign and the translated text appears overlaid on your screen — even if you're not connected to the Internet. This feature is made possible courtesy of Quest Visual's Word Lens app for iOS and Android, which Google acquired when it purchased the company last May. This feature supports English translated to and from French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. Google says it's working to add more languages."

122 comments

  1. Baby Translator by P0ck3tR4wk3t · · Score: 4, Funny

    If only they could translate what my 18 month old is saying!

    1. Re:Baby Translator by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      Simpsons did it!

    2. Re:Baby Translator by MachDelta · · Score: 2

      I'd like a Canine to English translator too.

      I'm pretty sure at least one of my dogs is the equivalent of Anchorman's 'Brick' character.

    3. Re:Baby Translator by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      I'd like a Canine to English translator too.

      I think you might be disappointed... I suspect Gary Larson was spot-on.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Baby Translator by cayenne8 · · Score: 0, Troll
      Hey, I think it would be GREAT to now be able to live in the USA, and not speak spanish.

      Especially when traveling through TX and AZ. More and more it seems that English is becoming the 2nd language there and in other parts of the US.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:Baby Translator by OldSport · · Score: 4, Funny

      How about a wife translator? Give me a program that accurately parses "I'm not mad" into "no sex for you for a month," "it's not important" into "this should be number 1 on your priority list," etc. etc.

    6. Re:Baby Translator by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      Hey, I think it would be GREAT to now be able to live in the USA, and not speak spanish. Especially when traveling through TX and AZ. More and more it seems that English is becoming the 2nd language there and in other parts of the US.

      Goodness, struck a nerve there, but tell me down-modders, what exactly did I say here that isn't really true.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Baby Translator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about a spouse translator for those of us without female spouses?

    8. Re:Baby Translator by OldSport · · Score: 1

      Now why would I want my wife to know that when I say "I'll do it in five minutes" I really mean "not important, get to it when I can, probably quicker to do it yourself"?

    9. Re:Baby Translator by hawkfish · · Score: 2

      If only they could translate what my 18 month old is saying!

      When my younger son was about a year old, I asked his (2 year) older brother what he was saying. I figured that maybe being close in age he could remember or something. Older son looked at me like I was from Mars and said "I don't know!" and went back to his blocks.

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    10. Re: Baby Translator by GaryHayman · · Score: 1

      Unkie Herb did it. Homer's half brother.

  2. English to American by turkeydance · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Fag, for one.

    1. Re:English to American by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sorry, I'm not putting that in my mouth.

    2. Re:English to American by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

      The Westboro Baptist folks were very excited when they heard that millions of fags are burned in the UK every day.*

      *With apologies to Gaiman & Pratchett, who made this joke years ago in Good Omens.

    3. Re:English to American by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Tramp, for another.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    4. Re:English to American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fag, for one.

      Fag, short for faggot, which means a "bundle of sticks".

      Its not an intellectual chasm to see that a pack of cigarettes looks like a bundle of sticks. Hence calling a cigarette a fag. or a pack of cigarettes a pack of fags.

      I dont see the problem here.

    5. Re:English to American by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I'm not putting that in my mouth.

      Universal response to a fag in your mouth: Light the end on fire. The problem will take care of itself no mater what country you are in.

      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    6. Re:English to American by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Some other potentially embarrassing English-to-English translation problems I've encountered:

      "Hi, I'm Randy." Randy = popular male first name in American English, horny in British English.

      "Knock me up in the morning." Knock up = wake up in British English, get pregnant in American English,

      rubber = eraser in British English, condom in American English

      "Blow me" = expression of surprise in British English, insult where a male insinuates requesting a blowjob in American English.

      pissed = annoyed in American English, drunk in British English.

      first floor in British English = second floor to Americans, first floor in American English = ground floor to Brits.

      And one German-to-English one when the weather is hot:
      "I am hot" literally translated is "Ich bin heiss" or I am horny. Germans say "Es ist heiss", or "it is hot". Either "I am hot" or "it is hot" works in American English, but the former is common enough that it's assumed to refer to the weather first, a brag about how good looking or lucky you are second, and a statement that you are horny a distant third.

    7. Re:English to American by mister_playboy · · Score: 1

      first floor in British English = second floor to Americans, first floor in American English = ground floor to Brits.

      Does this difference also occur in elevator controls?

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
    8. Re:English to American by jamiesan · · Score: 1

      Nice

    9. Re:English to American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well then GOOD NEWS! It's a suppository!

  3. Limited list of languages by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This feature supports English translated to and from French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish. Google says it's working to add more languages.

    It's not really ready until it supports Andorian, Cardassian, Ferengi, Romulan, Vulcan and New York City slang.

    1. Re:Limited list of languages by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      What about jive?

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:Limited list of languages by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Well we know the killer apps will be in translating Gorn and Tamarian.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    3. Re:Limited list of languages by sexconker · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Limited list of languages by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      sadly, Klingon is restricted to Bing

    5. Re:Limited list of languages by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Google has no honour.

  4. Add languages.... by otaku244 · · Score: 1
    • Japanese
    • Farsi
    • Klingon (please)
    --
    Mod me down, I shall become more off-topic than you could possibly imagine.
    1. Re:Add languages.... by narcc · · Score: 1

      orokana otaku Nihongo wa suu

    2. Re:Add languages.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Japanese is already there.

      Farsi is French for Persian, which is there.

      Klingon would be excellent, yes.

    3. Re:Add languages.... by OldSport · · Score: 1

      Japanese? Cue a spin-off app called "Real Time Engrish".

    4. Re:Add languages.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      • Japanese

      Japanese is a bit too complex and contextual for computers just yet. Even just parsing Japanese text with computers at high accuracy is a problem. Then there is information that can be omitted, inferred, or implied based on context in Japanese. If Slashdot supported unicode, I could give examples of Japanese text that can easily be understood by those that know elementary-level Japanese, but are parsed like complete ass by computers (even on the Google Translate site).

      This would compound with spoken Japanese:
      1. A speaker could omit, infer, or imply even more information by context, especially if face-to-face
      2. The myriad of homonyms in the language would become even more of a problem when there is no kanji to help the computer
      3. And since there is no kanji to help, parsing would be even more difficult, making machine translations even more unreliable than they already are

    5. Re:Add languages.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, even when text is properly parsed, many times machine translations will offer the incorrect reading of the kanji.

    6. Re:Add languages.... by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      It seems Google Translate has a hard time translating to/from written Japanese. Google should probably work first on improving their basic translation algorithm.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    7. Re:Add languages.... by visavillem · · Score: 1

      They should first get the ones they have right. My native language is available in google translator, but it can't get even the simpler phrases right. Always a good chuckle, when someone had tried to translate a longer text. There was a wave of phishing messages recently, where you could tell the text was translated using google, and that was the one of the reasons why the attempt failed miserably.

      --
      I'm not really here, it's just more probable that i'm here, than anywhere else.
  5. Temba, at rest by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Uzani, his army with fists closed.

    1. Re:Temba, at rest by gijoel · · Score: 1

      Sokath, his eyes open.

  6. Still useless to Brazilian portuguese by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    A Brazilian like me will have to do a good effort to make sense from what you wrote if you do not know brazilian portuguese and try to use Google translate.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    1. Re:Still useless to Brazilian portuguese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't surprise me. Yesterday I typed in the simplified Chinese for red tea and it translated it to black tea. If their translator fails that badly on easy to translate words, I can only imagine how bad it mangles the sentences that people actually type.

      The only way I can get Google Translate to create decent Chinese is if I give it Chinglish. Then it sometimes gets it right.

    2. Re:Still useless to Brazilian portuguese by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      A Brazilian like me will have to do a good effort to make sense from what you wrote if you do not know brazilian portuguese and try to use Google translate.

      I spent two years in Brazil, and my wife is brasileira. I find that by speaking both English and Brazilian Portuguese I can understand most translation mix-ups between these languages. As an example, the confusion over do and make.

    3. Re:Still useless to Brazilian portuguese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_tea - black tea is what's called "red tea" in Chinese (and many other languages). So you just proved that machine can beat an misinformed human.

    4. Re:Still useless to Brazilian portuguese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but that's wrong. When I was in China and I got red tea, it wasn't black tea. Certainly not what we would call black tea in English.

  7. Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We know Google really isn't into the whole "don't be evil" thing anymore as they have become a giant corporation like all others. And while I like the idea of something like this being freely available, the first thing that came to my mind was that now they will have access to people's actual conversations, not just search queries. I've thought for a long time that 'big brother' will not come from governments, but from corporations. Maybe it comes from watching the original 1975 Roller Ball movie and it's basis around the 'corporate state'.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...now they will have access to people's actual conversations, not just search queries...

      Not just search queries.

      You forgot that google has collected info about all the contents of your emails (to, cc, subject, and body), your entire contact list (names, phone numbers, addresses, notes), your calendar (birthdays, ages, appointments), all contents of anything you put on gdrive (images, files), and all phone calls and sms activity. There is sure to be more.

      They *are* evil.

    2. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, with location tracking, they collect where you are currently and where you have been. They just know too much already.

    3. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know Google really isn't into the whole "don't be evil" thing anymore as they have become a giant corporation like all others. And while I like the idea of something like this being freely available, the first thing that came to my mind was that now they will have access to people's actual conversations, not just search queries. I've thought for a long time that 'big brother' will not come from governments, but from corporations. Maybe it comes from watching the original 1975 Roller Ball movie and it's basis around the 'corporate state'.

      From my recollection, I could remember wrong, the concept of "don't be evil" referred to not passing laws that cripple competitors, and not actively attacking competitors to prevent competition. Compared to any other company around, their level of evil is much better IMO. I can accept that level of evil. Not ideal, but better than the Microsoft and Apple versions of evil.

    4. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't accept that level of evil. Just because they are 'better' does not mean they aren't bad. I'm not going to put up with Microsoft's or Apple's evil, and I won't put up with Google's evil.

    5. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by the+gnat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've thought for a long time that 'big brother' will not come from governments, but from corporations.

      A few of the many important differences:

      1) Consent. No one is forcing me to use Google products. (Well, except my employer, which contracts with Google for email and various other services, but anything that they have access to is my employer's property anyway and I have no expectation of privacy to begin with.) I could completely banish Google from my personal life without severely impacting anything I do. It's a little more difficult to escape the reach of governments.

      2) Competition. Microsoft and Yahoo would be happy to handle my email instead. I can't switch governments without physically moving to another country. (Voting doesn't count, and I don't vote anyway.) Conversely, it would not be a huge burden for me to jettison all Apple or Microsoft products, although it would be problematic for my music collection.

      3) Force. Google does not have the ability to dispatch a SWAT team to break down my door, shoot my dog, and haul me out in handcuffs. And why would they, anyway? They don't care what activities I'm engaging in offline except for the purpose of targeting advertisements.

      There are certainly all sorts of things that corporations can do to make our lives unpleasant, but it seems rather perverse to worry about creeping corporate dictatorship because of Google's ad targeting, especially given the track record of governments.

    6. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      1) Consent. No one is forcing me to use Google products. (Well, except my employer, which contracts with Google for email and various other services, but anything that they have access to is my employer's property anyway and I have no expectation of privacy to begin with.) I could completely banish Google from my personal life without severely impacting anything I do. It's a little more difficult to escape the reach of governments.

      I'd like to see you try.

      Because in the end, Google gets your information anyways because I'm certain a significant number of people you email use Gmail. And on analysis, that can easily be 50% or more emails now archived by Google about you. (I think someone analyzed their email - and realized if they included work email, Google had about 50% of the entire collection. Among personal emails only, it was over 75%. That's right, Google ends up with a copy in most cases).

    7. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None of that matters when you forget the obvious: Accountability and incentives.

      Ultimately, the government is accountable to the people since the people grant the government the power to do what it does. The government thus has an incentive to please the people since those exercising that power usually wish to get re-elected. And if a government does something horrible enough, the people rise up and topple it and replace it.

      A corporation on the other hand is only accountable to the shareholders and its ultimate obligation is just to maximize shareholder wealth. Furthermore, a corporation is much less transparent. Libertarians are incredibly naive in the sense that they believe it when corporations make claims about the importance of things such as society, customers, the environment and so on even though opening any business strategy textbook would make it clear that it's just lip service.

      Of course the reality is that there are a lot of problems with a government but the basic idea has been the prerequisite for survival for every society that has ever existed. So if you are one of those libertarians that don't at least begrudgingly admit that some form of government is necessary because human beings are human beings, there's nothing I can say that will change your mind because you're already ignoring all human history and everything we know about human behavior.

    8. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by SigmundFloyd · · Score: 1

      2) Competition. Microsoft and Yahoo would be happy to handle my email instead.

      And you'd get no privacy with either, as well. So competition does not make a real difference to you, the user.

      --
      Knowledge is power; knowledge shared is power lost.
    9. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by scottbomb · · Score: 1

      Only if you use gmail, or communicate by email with someone else who does.

    10. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So competition does not make a real difference to you, the user.

      FTFY: So competition does not make a real difference to you, the loser.

    11. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      I've thought for a long time that 'big brother' will not come from governments, but from corporations.

      What convinced you? The massive developments at the NSA?

    12. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      Because in the end, Google gets your information anyways because I'm certain a significant number of people you email use Gmail. And on analysis, that can easily be 50% or more emails now archived by Google about you.

      Which still doesn't negate points (2) and (3). What could they possibly do with partial email conversations? I don't put anything important and/or sensitive in email anyway - I mean, that's like the very first thing I learned about email ("don't send anything over email you aren't willing to have your worst enemies read", from my father who barely knows how to use anything beyond a word processor and web browser) and it is good practice regardless of who's running the servers.

      And, frankly, while I'm reliant on email (i.e. GMail) for my professional activities, I have zero expectation of privacy there anyway. It would not kill me to do away with personal email altogether - I'd rather not do it, but again it's vastly easier to do than escaping the reach of the US government (or any other). But I find email convenient, and I am happy to trade away some privacy in exchange for the free email account and other nifty services. So Google knows I spend a lot of money on musical equipment, my mom doesn't like the GOP, and I'm incapable of making financial decisions without consulting my dad. So fucking what?

    13. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      And you'd get no privacy with either, as well. So competition does not make a real difference to you

      I hate to parrot the free-market fundamentalists, but seriously: if the privacy you speak of was really that valuable, there would be a market for it, and I could find a competitor who wasn't mining my emails for information. (And there probably is, I'm just too busy to look right now, and frankly I'd rather have the free service.) Or, hell, I could just buy a domain and set up my own email server, or do other fancy shit to hide from the eyes of Google, which is still perfectly legal, unlike (for instance) hiding from the IRS or setting up my own government.

    14. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by the+gnat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ultimately, the government is accountable to the people since the people grant the government the power to do what it does. The government thus has an incentive to please the people since those exercising that power usually wish to get re-elected. And if a government does something horrible enough, the people rise up and topple it and replace it.

      I'd argue that most of recorded history indicates that citizens are willing to put up with a huge amount of government misbehavior as long as it's not directed towards them personally, and are also far too willing to let bygones be bygones in cases where draconian punishment is called for. The CIA's torture is only the most recent example. Again, we're talking about matters of life and death, which is far beyond the powers of mere corporations.

      A corporation on the other hand is only accountable to the shareholders and its ultimate obligation is just to maximize shareholder wealth.

      True, but a corporation is also obliged to follow the laws of the countries in which it operates, which includes the pretty much universal understanding that the government has a monopoly on force. The government can also invade my privacy at will, including interfering with my personal contracts with telecoms and Internet companies, but Google cannot simply decide to listen in on my cell phone conversations.

      (And I'm not a libertarian, so I have no idea what your screed about libertarians has to do with anything.)

    15. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess I jumped to conclusions when I read your post and the way you referred to "force". Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you like that.

      However, you misunderstood my reference to human history - it was regarding having a government vs. the libertarian nonsense about not having one being feasible. Obviously many governments have done bad things - as you say. The fact that people tolerate it is unfortunate but not an argument in favor of trusting corporations. We've already seen that corporations have far worse ethics and the only thing which keeps them from behaving even worse than a government is that they have less power. They do their utmost to exploit anything and everything if they can get away with it and - as already stated - have less transparency and less accountability to society. Think of e.g. the Bhopal disaster or Slaughter-House cases.

    16. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      2) Competition. Microsoft and Yahoo would be happy to handle my email instead.

      And you'd get no privacy with either, as well. So competition does not make a real difference to you, the user.

      Who exactly do you think you'd get privacy with?

    17. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      While I agree largely about governments, I don't think you're suspicious enough about corporations.

      Corporations do not necessarily have to follow the laws of the countries where they operate. They have to follow some, but they typically get away with a lot of illegal activities. In some cases, these actions are simply overlooked, while in others the penalties imposed are far smaller than the profits from the activity. In still other cases, the illegal acts are performed by a spin-off corporation designed to be milked dry by the parent company and left to go bankrupt without significant assets when the legal bill comes due. (One example would be mining operations that leached gold out of ore with large quantities of cyanide, going bankrupt when sued about the large amount of cyanide left lying around.) And, of course, corporations can often buy the laws they like.

      Nor are they unable to kill people. They usually do not do so retail in developed countries (try to organize a union against a multinational in a third-world country), but they can attack people using the legal system and generally make opposing them not worthwhile. They also don't necessarily follow safety laws, and can simply pressure their employees for results hard enough to get them to disregard unenforced corporate policy on safety procedures.

      Particularly in the US, they can mine their customers' actions for data. The US Government didn't have to pressure most telecoms to get access to their data. Presumably Google can purchase similar access.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    18. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      One problem with privacy is the lack of real information. I can read privacy policies. I can't be sure companies are following them. It's one of those cases where, at best, I can pay real money for something I can't be assured of getting.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    19. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      The fact that people tolerate it is unfortunate but not an argument in favor of trusting corporations. We've already seen that corporations have far worse ethics and the only thing which keeps them from behaving even worse than a government is that they have less power. They do their utmost to exploit anything and everything if they can get away with it and - as already stated - have less transparency and less accountability to society. Think of e.g. the Bhopal disaster or Slaughter-House cases.

      I don't think we're in disagreement here. But the kind of death and misery that results from corporate misdeeds is miniscule compared to what governments both democratic and authoritarian have inflicted over the same timeframe. I would certainly not argue that we should trust corporations; I think sensible regulation and enforcement of existing laws is a good thing. My objection is to the characterization of Google as "evil" based on suspicions alone. There are legitimate privacy issues involved but in an era where the past two US presidents believe they have the authority to torture and/or assassinate without due process, Saudi Arabia is flogging a man for trivial Facebook comments, China exerts stifling control over all social media and civil society in general, and so on, it's absolutely insane to assert that companies like Google are the real danger to human freedom.

    20. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      The US Government didn't have to pressure most telecoms to get access to their data.

      They're the US government - the pressure is implicit. (And, I suspect, far more explicit than we've been told about, since some of the tech executives involved have made it clear that they can't really go into details about what happened behind the scenes.)

      Presumably Google can purchase similar access.

      Sure, but again, why is this necessarily more frightening than the government having access? If Google tries to blackmail or murder me, it's still against the law, but government employees have done exactly this with impunity, probably for as long as governments have existed. Again, this isn't an argument that we should trust corporations over governments - I'm simply trying to put our fears of companies like Google in the proper context. (Seriously, what's the creepiest thing that a tech company has done? Facebook's emotional manipulation is the best example I can think of, and while that's pretty creepy, it's still penny-ante stuff. And it's easy to avoid Facebook - I still don't have an account.)

    21. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      One problem with privacy is the lack of real information. I can read privacy policies. I can't be sure companies are following them.

      Sure, but how can you be certain that the government is following the published laws? We've seen time and again that they'll simply ignore the law if it's inconvenient (my favorite example is China's state media whining about "constitutionalism", as if rule of law was some radical Western concept), and the US government has repeatedly used the justification of "we can't tell you why we're doing this because it's a matter of national security". If Google were to say "we can't show you our privacy policy because it's a trade secret", then you might have a legitimate comparison to make.

    22. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't think you're getting my point.

      I'm not at all happy with government surveillance, but there are differences in what companies do (until they're deprived of government contracts and their CEO thoroughly investigated, anyway). Companies will do different things with other companies. There's no reason that company A might not take my privacy much more seriously than company B, and if I'm willing to pay for privacy they could theoretically make money off me.

      Unfortunately, I have no way of enforcing privacy policies, preventing them from changing, or knowing if they're followed or not, so company A can't really prove it's that much better than company B.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re:Big Brother Is Expanding His Reach by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      One organization. How many businesses are doing the same thing, but because there is no oversight we don't see it. My guess is, as many as can get away with it. All the ad sense and analytics make what the NSA is doing look like a plastic kiddy pool compared to Lake Superior. Sure they're doing stuff we don't like. Businesses are doing it too. The one thing I will say on Google's side is we can see some of it.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  8. casual use only by swell · · Score: 2

    Fine for ordering in a restaurant or asking directions. Not appropriate for business, medical or government communication, contracts, etc.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:casual use only by Russ1642 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like everything new it isn't fully developed. But you'll be wrong about business, medical, and government use much sooner than you think.

    2. Re:casual use only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Reliable translation of critical information requires strong AI. And to be honest, we don't even know where to start in developing that.

    3. Re:casual use only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree and I'm bilingual (i.e. perfectly native in two) and fluent in three more languages. Critical information is expressed precisely in every language and nothing is left as insinuations. Hence it is much easier to translate and in the case of ambiguities, professionals in whatever the field in question is, will know when to ask for clarifications. In casual settings on the other hand, people do a lot of guessing and waiters always make a trade-off between bothering customers with too many questions and not bringing precisely what the customers wanted.

    4. Re:casual use only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as a medical interpreter, allow me to suggest that you don't know what you're talking about. what i can tell you from 20 years of experience is that people rarely communicate precisely, and less frequently still in crisis-type situations/under a lot of pressure. and that isn't even going into cultural specificity. machine translation is fine where you need something quick and error-tolerant. if you want reliable precision, you'll hire a qualified person or keep wishing for real, robust AI.

    5. Re:casual use only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean patient-2-doctor or doctor-2-doctor? I was referring to communication between professionals and not patients to doctors since I don't expect patients to be precise at all with what they say. Arguably, the need for translation within any specialized field is small because practically everything is in English no matter where you go.

  9. But does it swim? by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's less creepy than having this damned fish in my ear all the time.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:But does it swim? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So long and thanks for all the fish!"

    2. Re:But does it swim? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really want your hovercraft filled with eels?

  10. Babelfish are go. by MRe_nl · · Score: 2

    Now, it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some have chosen to see it as the final proof of the NON-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
    "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

    "But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED".

    "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that." and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  11. I love living in the future! by sootman · · Score: 1

    Looking forward to the day when I can watch old European softcore movies on Youtube and actually understand what's going on. (Besides the obvious.)

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:I love living in the future! by jandrese · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oooh! So he was a pizza delivery guy... Now the plot makes sense!

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  12. How much of this is the cloud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google makes self-contained, no-cloud translator, great.

    As soon as they start sending what I'm saying back to home base, it's a big problem.

    1. Re:How much of this is the cloud? by mbone · · Score: 1

      I would assume both that 100% of it is in the cloud, and that to Google, that is a feature, not a bug.

  13. Baby Names are pure comedy gold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Machine translation has gotten better but people are always going to be the weak point.

    The chief problem I see with the automatic translators, including Google, is not metaphors and creative writing but how people name their kids. You have people named for verbs, various states of mind, abstract concepts and things like 'the rock' or 'trees.'

    When trying to parse a page that starts off about how the sky went to the park with love to be walk with young hope, machine translation just falls over. Other times you get a sentence that is just verbs, articles and prepositions. What's an algorithm to do?

    But at least it keeps those of us with international families who blog about their children in stitches.

    1. Re:Baby Names are pure comedy gold by njnnja · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Proper nouns that are regular words can definitely provide some laughs for machine translation, but it's not as bad as it seems. Even to a native English speaker, a kid named North West is kind of funny.

      Understanding a foreign language will always require some knowledge of the culture and society from which you are translating from, and so if you know the culture has kids named for "Sky" and "Hope" then to see those words pop up in sentences where it doesn't really fit you aren't surprised.

      The best example of this is in Hofstader's GEB, where he talks about translating Dostoevsky to English. The translator has a choice to make when copying the name of the main street. It is an actual Russian word, that has an English translation. So maybe you translate the street name to it's English equivalent. But the Russian street name is a common Russian street name, whereas in English it's not a common name for a street at all. So maybe instead of simply directly translating the Russian name, you change it to a nice, comfortable English street name, like "Elm Street." He ends up humorously suggesting the best choice in translation might be to just read a Dickens novel!

    2. Re:Baby Names are pure comedy gold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the Russian street name is a common Russian street name, whereas in English it's not a common name for a street at all. So maybe instead of simply directly translating the Russian name, you change it to a nice, comfortable English street name, like "Elm Street." He ends up humorously suggesting the best choice in translation might be to just read a Dickens novel!

      Also consider that sometimes the choice of something seemingly-minor like that will have additional meaning in the source language through wordplay that will be entirely lost if rendered purely for effect of familiarity in the target. A lot of folks already use translation memory/machine-assisted translation suites, but the amount of time you have to spend to render something of quality remains considerable.

      I don't think machine translation will at any point in the near future be of such quality that it would be reasonable to use for actually translating literature or replacing a real-time professional interpreter in the medical or legal setting. the level of error tolerance required for that would not pass any legal definition of understanding.

    3. Re:Baby Names are pure comedy gold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the thought process Siri uses when it gives me a f#$*&g answer.

  14. Windows Phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I thought that this was already available on Windows Phone?

    1. Re:Windows Phone? by unixisc · · Score: 2

      Supports only 15 languages - Arabic, Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Norweigian, Farsi, Polish, Portugese, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish and Vietnamese.

    2. Re:Windows Phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the google blog, the google one currently only handles 6 for the instant translation.

      (from http://googletranslate.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/hallo-hola-ola-to-new-more-powerful_14.html)
      This instant translation currently works for translation from English to and from French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish, and we’re working to expand to more languages.

      Nothing wrong with that, in this case, competition is good for everyone.

  15. That would be backwards by ciaran2014 · · Score: 1

    I think your expected to teach your kid to speak your language.

    --
    Help build the anti-software-patent wiki
    1. Re:That would be backwards by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I think your expected to teach your kid to speak your language.

      You're parent's oviously didnt?

  16. To translate it must first understand by goruka · · Score: 1

    Google only has /relatively/ good voice recognition for english, it absolutely sucks in other languages. It just doesn't work, simple as that.

    1. Re:To translate it must first understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the translations, last I checked, were pretty flaky at best.

      One fun thing is translating a language back and fourth several times until it reaches a point where it can go no more.
      Google should think of integrating that in to the app, because it usually works better.
      But sometimes it fails hilariously.

      It makes me wonder why translation is so damn bad.
      I mean, we understand how sentences work in languages.
      We know what words are. We know the words order they are commonly used in, and abused in.
      Surely machines should be far superior at languages than people who are multilingual?
      It's not like it is a case with abstract concept not translating very well, very simple sentences often go pear-shaped.
      Why is it so difficult?
      I've made some sentence generators in my time, which are closely related, since I also bastardize sentences based on common abuse rules (like a good portion of my post, probably.).
      My generator didn't need to know or care what words meant, but if I were to have added that, I'd have simply made a tree-matching algorithm that would link certain sentence structures with others. So if you opened a sentence with "Let's go surf", it would be matched with things like "the internet", "at the beach", "at Hawaii", "at Australia" and so on. Surely the reverse is easier? (unless you are deliberately talking gibberish, like car surfing, an unlikely but still possible scenario)
      Surely all it needs is an algorithm that iterates through every standard and non-standard sentence structure and puts every word in them and weeds out unlikely and most-likely relations through a large relational database of some type. (not your typical relational mind you)
      I dunno, I never went down that route, maybe there is some obtuse problem I can't immediately notice.
      Hey Google, hire me if you haven't thought of this. I'm a poor S/E cripple with a mind that needs picking.

    2. Re:To translate it must first understand by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      My hovercraft is full of eels.

    3. Re:To translate it must first understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Absolutely sucks in two seconds time might be better than you spending two years learning the language to be better, though.

      (As an expat, who moved without knowledge of the local language, I'd say that Google Translate is surpassed after about the one year mark.)

  17. Damn, No Arabic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was hoping I could finally tell the wonderful chaps at ISIS and their pedophile prophet what they could go do with themselves...

    1. Re:Damn, No Arabic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please stop attributing modern western marriage cultural values to mid-first-millenia (Common Era) Middle-Eastern cultural values.

      In that culture, it wasn't "bad" to marry someone under-age as long as you didn't take her to bed until she was old enough to conceive.

      FYI, it's entirely likely that Mary the Mother of Jesus was 14 give or take a year when she gave birth to Jesus, and it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for that culture if Joseph was 20 or even older when they did tie the knot. By today's standards a 20 year old can't legally marry a 13 year old and if they go to bed without being married, the 20 year old goes to jail. Even if Mary was 15 or older and Mary and Joseph were close in age, it wasn't considered criminal or immoral for a young-adolescent woman to marry a man in his 20s in that culture.

      Even in the United States, it was legal for a 12 year old girl to get married to a much-older man in some US states as late as the 1960s, as long as the girl wasn't a virgin (think "shotgun wedding").

      Today, we expect both male and female adolescents to stay in school until they graduate from high school. This means NOT spending time or money raising children or earning money to do the same. To encourage education, we have wisely raised the age of marriage to close to that of the age of legal adulthood, and we've wisely outlawed sex between adults and people under about 14-18 (in most countries) unless the couple is either legally married or in some countries, if they are close in age ("Romeo and Juliet" laws).

    2. Re:Damn, No Arabic by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Arabic is there in the Bing translator, which you could use for not just ISIS, but also Hizbullah, Hamas, Ikhwan and a whole host of other Islamic beauties

    3. Re:Damn, No Arabic by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

      > In that culture, it wasn't "bad" to marry someone under-age

      I'm reading A Distant Mirror (and you should too, it's amazing!). The Duke of something-or-other has just married a 12 year old. Much chiding ensued. But other than that, both commonplace and well admired. Hey, you have a 50% chance of not making it to 20, so you had to get married early to lock down that dowry.

      Best line from the book... A knight and Lady are having a conversation, and she implies he'd be bad in the sack because his beard has less hair that certain parts of the female anatomy. He asks if this is true in her case, and she states that it's not, she's completely bald in this region. Thinking for a moment, he replies that he'll take her word for it, because "grass doesn't grow on the well-trodden path".

      Burn!

    4. Re:Damn, No Arabic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To encourage education, we have wisely raised the age of marriage to close to that of the age of legal adulthood, and we've wisely outlawed sex between adults and people under about 14-18 (in most countries) unless the couple is either legally married or in some countries, if they are close in age ("Romeo and Juliet" laws).

      None of that is "wise"; it's anti-freedom. It's funny to see people who say they want you to be able to control your own body (which I do) but then turn around and say this sort of control is okay. Land of the free, home of the brave.

      It's due to our nonsensical puritan culture that any of this is perceived as "wise."

    5. Re:Damn, No Arabic by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Arabic is there in the Bing translator, which you could use for not just ISIS, but also Hizbullah, Hamas, Ikhwan and a whole host of other Islamic beauties

      And the resulting insult would be something along the lines of "Stain sheep, devout cleric!" when translated back....

      English is a language that's much easier to translate to than Arabic. Sure, it's lossy, but going the other way, you end up saying lots of things you didn't actually mean, due to the weighted multiple meanings assigned to each character or phoneme. Once you get past the basics like al and ibn, you'd better know the cultural context.

    6. Re:Damn, No Arabic by swissmonkey · · Score: 1

      If it's not available you can always use simple English to send your love words to Bush, Cheney and all other American assholes who led to the illegal invasion of an Arab country, leading to 100'000s deaths and the total destruction of its social construct.

    7. Re:Damn, No Arabic by unixisc · · Score: 1

      So English is like IPv6 and Arabic like IPv4?

    8. Re:Damn, No Arabic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naah, Bush, Cheney, Obama, Kerry, Hillary, et al are all in the pockets of the various sheikhs in Riyadh, Doha, Dubai, Bahrein and so on. All sucking up to Islam

    9. Re:Damn, No Arabic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of the difference between the Middle Eastern social "norms" at the time and modern conservative western standards, there is a huge physical difference between a child of 9 and adolescent of 12-18. Yes, I am also aware that there is a lot of conflicting opinions even in Islamic circles about the age of Mohammed's "favorite" bride...

    10. Re:Damn, No Arabic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, there is plenty of mud to throw around on both sides. With that said, the current mud slinging is simply a continuation of the mess that started 1500 years ago when Mohammed started hallucinating...

  18. Nowhere close to Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google translator: each new language needs to be added manually and the initial version is often junk.

    Star Trek translator: learns a new language in minutes even though you've never met anyone from that planet previously.

    Even if Google translator spoke every language in the world flawlessly, including the fictional ones (Klingon, Tolkien's Elvish, etc.), it wouldn't be anywhere close to the Star Trek translator. When it can learn a new language on its own, then we can compare the two.

    1. Re:Nowhere close to Star Trek by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      ISTR that in the original star trek series the only creature who spoke but needed a translation device were the Gorn. Everyone else spoke english. And with less of an accent than Chekov.

      Now what I want to see is what they translate Arnold Schwarzenagger going "Ah blah agggh da da bah Ha!" to.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  19. So then... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    "But Google's goal behind the latest version of the app is to enhance and simplify the features so they work more quickly and fluidly without any lag time. The latest version of Google Translate aims to change that."

    So... slower and laggier in the new version then?

    Maybe the story author needs Google Translate.

  20. how about dictionary first? by Nephrite · · Score: 1

    It can't become a translator any time soon. It's not even an adequate dictionary yet.

  21. Value Subtracting by mbone · · Score: 1

    Unless and until Google starts to hire actual translators and pay them actual money, this is value subtracting and will suck income out of the very translators it depends on. If we are really unlucky, it will be an unsustainable parasitism, driving translators out of work and actually reducing the ability of the world to deal with multiple languages.

    1. Re:Value Subtracting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wut

    2. Re:Value Subtracting by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      Unless and until Google starts to hire actual translators and pay them actual money, this is value subtracting and will suck income out of the very translators it depends on. If we are really unlucky, it will be an unsustainable parasitism, driving translators out of work and actually reducing the ability of the world to deal with multiple languages.

      I tend to think that Google Translate provides professional translators with a neverending supply of work, while they try to extract their client from whatever mess Google Translate got them into.

      Seriously... GT does the sort of work that nobody ever hired a professional translator for. This frees them up to do the real work. And if a professional translator can't do better than GT, then that's a job that's becoming more specialized... kind of like the farrier and the haberdasher.

  22. It works where I don't need it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The place where this would be most useful is out of the country. Where my CDMA phone won't work. Great.

  23. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our destroying-privacy-by-speaking-another-language-translating overlords!

    Having to learn another language is prima facia evidence of state failure, anyway.

  24. nothing like Star Trek by belmolis · · Score: 1

    Google's current effort is nothing like the Star Trek Universal Translator, and it is exceedingly unlikely that anything ever will be. The STUT is supposed to be able to translate languages that it has not been programmed to translate and has never been exposed to before. Existing translators, including Google's, can only work with languages that they already know.

  25. Not quite by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 1

    "For Google is a bit close beaming of iOS and Android users to the latest version and Star Trek universal translator of the translation application, translate rolling, the latest version of Google is two to offer an important function over the next few days - . Conversely both features to instantly fart the ability to some extent in another language and the native language that is used in Android apps and someone who speaks to the ability to convert the road signs and other images. for example, for Google's Android conversation has been offering translation long-term real-time translation. However, as Google's goal behind the latest version of this app is to strengthen, they without deviation of all time, to work more quickly and fluidly and is to simplify the function. the latest version of Google, convert intended to change it. language to conversation and speak in someone different users to select their own language, it is another of the speaker. he then started to speak in his native or the selected language was tap the microphone icon in the app, and then, again tap the microphone icon. app to recognize whether the two are talking about language, then 2 speakers will be able to continue the conversation without having to maintain tap the microphone. in the test of instant translation app, with the New York Times, did prove that it is a step forward, but it only in it is not yet a science fiction. app, terminology is the best of the good fight and in a short statement that did not contain, when the user is a pause in between each of the translation, it worked better. Google or , we are strengthening the capacity of the application to convert the road signs. So far, you will need to take a picture of foreign language text in order to get it translated. Well, in you simply sign text that has been translated and turn your camera will be overlay displayed on the screen -. you have this feature even if you are not connected to the Internet, when you have purchased the company in may last year, Google is is a possibility courtesy of the acquired of iOS and quest of Visual Word of lens app for for Android. this feature, to English is, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, from Spanish translated support to have. Google is said to have worked in order to add more languages. "

  26. expect you know, useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem is that you can't use it where it's most needed. When you're in the middle of bumfuck nowhere with no internet.

  27. they do a poor job of it now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, try using google translate sentences in other languages. Many of the voices are of poor quality. Even the English voice doesn't quite sound right. I seriously doubt that google can offer anything particularly useful to important areas of translation, like healthcare, business, and literature. The google translate presents itself like many google projects with blasé approaches, tools, and interfaces that leave much to be desired. Google is a member of the too big to fail club, so expect more of this silliness.

  28. Old News for Bing Translator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Bing Translator has done this on Windows Phone for over a year. If you have an internet connection you have over 60 languages to choose from and you can download individual language packs for when you're not. Of course since only Bill, Steve and I have Windows Phones, it's impact isn't quite as spectacular but at least they got there first for once.

  29. an empty niche to fill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wish i could have an offline universal translator for linux that would work on https firefox pages, for banking and stuff that can't be passed to google. i'd even pay for it. i have searched and the strange part is i havent found an app anywhere on the net to do it.

  30. ASL? by vandamme · · Score: 1

    Interpreters get paid $100 and up to do the job now. A few million people could use a translator for that. Difficulty: it's a visual language.