As a follow-up, my experience with echo cancellation with telephony equipment (I write software professionally using them) tells me that there are some definite limitations to echo cancellation algorithms, and that I think that could be broken also at some point. The type of algorithm and the cost in performance would have to considered.
I would assume that most people would call their computer "Computer" and you could still exploit. Just like most people run.exe in their email attachments, etc. Social engineering could still exploit that technique, though I agree using an unknown prefix word would help.
As to the "filtering out of anyting coming in the mic that matches something going out the speaker channel", basically you are talking about echo cancellation. That seems plausible to me, and on modern computers the hit on peformance would be fairly low. Do you know of any packages which incoporate this?
All voice recognition software, no matter what platform, would suffer from this supposed "exploit".
So why this article on Vista specifically? What is the real agenda here?
Also, if the voice recognition software is trained for a specific user's voice, the chances of an exploit are reduced.
So you are saying that Win32, released more than a decade ago, is "not a lot" because NOW (a decade or more later) you can get a 64 bit OS for free? Puhleeeze....
Anyway, Windows 95 provided a pre-emptive multitaking OS that was backwards compatible. Of course, there were other OS at the time that had this too (Unix and OS/2, among others), but this was extremely important to the survival of Windows as an operating system.
The point is that this "article" had a very weak premise and was not-objective. Why stuff like this sees the light of day is beyond me. Oh wait, it is anti-Microsoft.
I guess I was under the mistaken impression that Windows 95 was just more than just a "polished" version of Windows 3.0.
That's what happens when you look at something objectively. I need to reevaulate my view of Windows 95 and Microsoft and add a lot more irrational hatred.:end of sarcasm
No, "creationist pseudoscience" is a statement of fact. It is about the creation of life/world by a deity (usually a particular one) using non-science/anti-science.
What newspeak would you like to use? "Intelligent design" perhaps? It it walks like a duck...
Your time is only worth $50/hour if it prevented you from earning $50/hour. I suspect that most people work on their home computers during non-working hours, and that a lot of the time they are waiting for the computer and/or install program to finish doing some task. So instead of staring blankly into the install screen progress bar with a small amount of droll on their lips, they do something else.
How many things to you own that were made in China? Clothes, toys, etc.
Have you ever shopped at Wal-Mart, Target, Sams, etc?
That is why US companies do business with China. Because US citizens want cheap stuff and don't give a rat's ass where it comes from or what the human rights policies of the country are.
On Vista, if you use the built in search and click on "Search the Internet", it will use the search engine you have chosen in IE 7. In my case, it uses Google. So again, Google's complaint is without merit.
They're complaint is that Microsoft won't give them the API to low level kernel stuff so that they can detect viruses, while at the same time, Microsoft is going to use that same API for their own virus detection.
There is no evidence that this is happening or is going to happen.
Their complaints are without merit, since other AV vendors are running on Vista now with no problems. Further, this code was in the 64bit versions of XP and Windows 2003 server already, and there were no complaints then.
When you first upgrade to IE 7, the first page that appears is a configuration page. The first item is selecting your search engine. You can either take the current one (which defaults to the Microsoft Live Search) or choose a different one. If you select the second option, you are taken to a page with almost every search engine on it to choose from, or you can put your own selection in if it is not listed.
So, you can. Google's complaint is without merit.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, it should, but which one do echo cancellation (if any)?
As a follow-up, my experience with echo cancellation with telephony equipment (I write software professionally using them) tells me that there are some definite limitations to echo cancellation algorithms, and that I think that could be broken also at some point. The type of algorithm and the cost in performance would have to considered.
I would assume that most people would call their computer "Computer" and you could still exploit. Just like most people run .exe in their email attachments, etc. Social engineering could still exploit that technique, though I agree using an unknown prefix word would help.
As to the "filtering out of anyting coming in the mic that matches something going out the speaker channel", basically you are talking about echo cancellation. That seems plausible to me, and on modern computers the hit on peformance would be fairly low. Do you know of any packages which incoporate this?
FWIW, if I remember from my beta testing, you could train the Vista recognizer for better performance.
All voice recognition software, no matter what platform, would suffer from this supposed "exploit". So why this article on Vista specifically? What is the real agenda here? Also, if the voice recognition software is trained for a specific user's voice, the chances of an exploit are reduced.
As long as they keep human clones illegal, they won't have to answer that question...
So you are saying that Win32, released more than a decade ago, is "not a lot" because NOW (a decade or more later) you can get a 64 bit OS for free? Puhleeeze.... Anyway, Windows 95 provided a pre-emptive multitaking OS that was backwards compatible. Of course, there were other OS at the time that had this too (Unix and OS/2, among others), but this was extremely important to the survival of Windows as an operating system. The point is that this "article" had a very weak premise and was not-objective. Why stuff like this sees the light of day is beyond me. Oh wait, it is anti-Microsoft.
I guess I was under the mistaken impression that Windows 95 was just more than just a "polished" version of Windows 3.0. That's what happens when you look at something objectively. I need to reevaulate my view of Windows 95 and Microsoft and add a lot more irrational hatred. :end of sarcasm
No, "creationist pseudoscience" is a statement of fact. It is about the creation of life/world by a deity (usually a particular one) using non-science/anti-science. What newspeak would you like to use? "Intelligent design" perhaps? It it walks like a duck...
Your STATEMENT *is* totally ridiculous.
I agree also, though you must admit that at least the "bill as borg" image was not used on the front page.
In my reality Bill O'Reilly's opinion has no relevance whatsoever.
Your time is only worth $50/hour if it prevented you from earning $50/hour. I suspect that most people work on their home computers during non-working hours, and that a lot of the time they are waiting for the computer and/or install program to finish doing some task. So instead of staring blankly into the install screen progress bar with a small amount of droll on their lips, they do something else.
Exactly how are ALL creationists not christians?
Christians who believe in the literal interpretation of the first 2 chapters of Genesis are, de facto, creationists.
How many things to you own that were made in China? Clothes, toys, etc. Have you ever shopped at Wal-Mart, Target, Sams, etc? That is why US companies do business with China. Because US citizens want cheap stuff and don't give a rat's ass where it comes from or what the human rights policies of the country are.
Troll? Any particular reason why, or this the standard substandard treatment of posts that might be neutral towards Microsoft?
On Vista, if you use the built in search and click on "Search the Internet", it will use the search engine you have chosen in IE 7. In my case, it uses Google. So again, Google's complaint is without merit.
When you first upgrade to IE 7, the first page that appears is a configuration page. The first item is selecting your search engine. You can either take the current one (which defaults to the Microsoft Live Search) or choose a different one. If you select the second option, you are taken to a page with almost every search engine on it to choose from, or you can put your own selection in if it is not listed. So, you can. Google's complaint is without merit.