Does anyone know how many languages Google has real-time voice-to-text transcription for? (I followed the links, read reviews, shit I even googled it, but I can't see any references.)
Real-time automagical transcribing in multiple languages, combined with Google-(text)-Translate, gives you live bi-directional Google-(voice)-Translate on a device that fits in your pocket.
Since that device is fitted with a still+video camera, and OCR is old-tech, capture+OCR+Translate means you could also read any sign/document in any language. (You could do that now, but with some video cleverness, you could overlay the translation onto the live video image.)
Google seems to be developing a lot of tech that would work together in interesting ways.
"As part of a BBC investigation into illegal computer software... We have disabled this illegal mechanism... But we want to let you know what we have discovered so that you can take precautions to minimise the risk of future infections and clean your machine... For more details and advice, visit our website..."
Given those bogus "FREE VIRUS SCAN: Click here to scan your computer for viruses!!!1!" banner-ads, and how effective they apparently are at getting idiot-clicks, I wonder how long it will take for botnet operators to use this tactic to get people to voluntarily hand over even more control/info/money to mal-sites. "Botnet.ru has cleansed your computer as part of our investigation, go to our site for instructions on how to permanently protect your computer for a small one-time fee."
I thought that they might fall under Section 3 as well, but you need to consider if in doing so the intent was:
(a) to impair the operation of any computer;
(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer;
Remember, they not only accessed nearly 22000 computers without permission of the owners, they removed the botnet software. They "impaired", without permission, software operating on another computer, repeated 22000 times.
Oh, I know it's a retarded interpretation. But the 2006 P&J Act contains no "reasonable person" cop-outs. (s36.3.2(b)) "Intent" means "intended to access without authorisation", not "intended to use access for other crimes". It is incorrect to argue, as TFA does, "If this exercise had been done with criminal intent it would be breaking the law," the access was the crime, so too, bizarrely, the removal of botware; acts which they intended.
To Debrain: The point other posters are trying to make is that these illegal-access laws are not being interpreted to allow for good-intent (ie, exposing security flaws), they are being interpreted harshly against individuals, even academics, while softly/not-at-all for companies/organisations. If you did what they did, with exactly the same intent, and were caught, you would likely be punished.
Don't forget, that was his sides contribution to internet censorship. Free government sanctioned (end-user installed) net filters. Hardly anyone wanted it (surprise), but he can't really say "neither did I".
but that argument only holds if 'shadow' actually does evoke these gut reactions. In Australia, its such a standard term for the opposition minister with the same portfolio, that it doesn't have those connotations.
In fact, until TFS, the comicbook-geek second meaning had never occurred to me. So thank you American slashdotters.
To repay you, may I point out that the Shadow Communication Minister is a member of the Shadow Cabinet, ultimately answerable to The Leader of The Opposition, who once led the movement to bring in a Republic and overthrow the foreign empire! (But he failed.)
I'd heard that the Germans had taken over the project - something about creating the perfect solution... or maybe it was final solution? Anyway, now the French are begging the English to help them get it back.
So if they decide to put Firefox on there, do I use that to download Firefox?
Oh... hang on...
Actually, yeah. Have you seen the cripple/demo/custom/old-ware crap most OEMs put on the average computer. What will they do with firefox? The very first thing you'll do is download a clean version, then kill theirs, hoping like hell they haven't pulled a microsoft and tied it to anything important.
That would be the advantage of a radar-freq cloak. It should wrap ambient rf around itself, so no "hole". Judging by the pics, it shouldn't even create that classic sci-fi background distortion.
(Judging by the text, otoh, it can't be used for anything like that. As other posters have pointed out, this will be a cool technical tool that lives inside clever devices, but can't ever become an actual cloak or paint-job.)
Why must people bicker over trivial interpretations? Can't you all accept that you're all wrong? Oh, and the article.
It clearly says, "The cloak that the researchers built works with wavelengths of light ranging from about 1 to 18 gigahertz--a swath as broad as the visible spectrum."
1 - 18GHz RF has a wavelength of ~ 3 - 60 metres (or about 0.82 - 4.4 1967 VW beetles.) A 57 metre/3.6VW range. Visible light is hundreds of nanometres, less than the coat of paint.
But they were only such bullies and emotionally disturbed individuals because of the violent games they played.
There, corrected that for you.
I mean, has anyone done a study of regular outdoor team sport (particularly one with an aggressive culture) like this politician uses to vilify video games? If they had, and got the same result, hands up who thinks said politician would have vilified the study instead? "This is an attack on American values!"
Seriously though, fluff pieces like this shouldn't appear on Slashdot. They're nothing more than attempts to inflate ad revenue. They have absolutely nothing of substance. That "article" didn't tell me a single thing. Complete waste of thee minutes of my life.
Perhaps the ed's need an "articlenotworththeclick" tag? Then/. can get its ad-revenue, but it saves you rewarding the other site. Anyone really keen on reading about the topic must be new^H^H^H will know to ctrl-f "better link" to see anyone suggests one.
Not to mention someone else hitting you. The car won't be able to detect someone running a red light and T-boning you. Fatalities don't come from head-on collisions of you rear ending someone. Cars are designed to handle those rather well.
Sure it will. A centrally mounted emergency thruster will quickly lift you 20 or 30 feet into the air, hovering while the offending vehicle passes safely underneath you, afterwhich you'll return to your previous altitude.
Next thing you know...they'll put govenors on all the cars to limit how fast you can go if you want to...nothing over 70mph.
Actually, it'll get worse than that. I saw a review of a Japanese sports car (might have been Nissan, might have been Top Gear); on the road, it was speed-limited by the manufacturer to double or triple the highway speed-limit, but once the reviewer turned onto a racetrack, the GPS system picked up that fact and switched the speed-limiter off.
That means it is technically possible, today, to speed-limit every new gps-fitted car to the local speed limits, changing to match the road you're on. You know it will happen. At first they'll be 20 [local-speed-units] above the highest highway limit, then 10. Then 10 above each lower limit, then 5, then right on the local-limit, with some manufacturers preventing users disengaging it. Then legislation to prevent it being [legally] disengaged on any vehicle.
It will come. Your whinging about ABS will pale against how you will feel in ten years.
"Monkey" was on the list because of what some see as its rampant use as a suffix. "Especially on the Internet, many people seem to think they can make any boring name sound more attractive just by adding the word 'monkey' to it," wrote Rogier Landman of Sommerville, Mass.
Read the actual page the GP was quoting (here). That was a real quote, not made-up text: "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."
Ummm... Are you sure you want me to read the actual page? Coz...
{Quoth} America Serves
"When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream."
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation's challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
{Endquoth} http://change.gov/americaserves/
(Emphasis mine)
Either you and the GP lied, or it's an evolving site, run by volunteers, responding to feedback/criticism; or it's randomly displaying different text just to fuck with people. Do let me know which.
It's a false dichotomy to compare google and "five nines". Google promises only three, has delivered two, and will give you 15 days credit(*) if they fall to one and a half.
The question is, can you do better than 95% uptime for about $48 per user-account? If you can, you are a 'tard for going with google.
Personally, I wonder how exactly people think photography was used by terrorists in the 9/11 incident. Did one of them photograph the World Trade Center so that they could find it from a plane?
Apparently they used simple GPS systems to work out the coords of the NY towers + DC targets. (They weren't comfortable with the autopilot.)
Now a reasonable number of people have it built into their phones. In fact, if They really needed street level images, They could presumably just walk around with route-mapping turned on, phone/GPS in pocket, then, when They got home, download the appropriate images via Google streetview.
(Sudden image of hundreds of security guards running down the street after a google-van screaming "No photography!")
is contact lenses with built in nanoscale light sources that can project microtext and images directly onto my retinae.
The image wouldn't move. Your brain will filter it out fairly quickly.
There was a research project that did this awhile back, a camera watching your pupils moves the screen to exactly match their twitching. To you, the image disappears.
The problem is that very few of the talented pilots want to do this stuff....said that if they were forced to do UAV flying, they'd have to find some way out of flying all together. For most of them, they signed up to be fighter pilots, so even flying a bomber would be a let down.
But that's only because they're using pilots as UAV controllers. Which is because UAV's are just glorified RC-planes. As more functionality is shifted to the UAV's autopilot, the role of the "pilot" becomes more engineer/nav/overseer(*), then finally just strategic oversight and the most basic human-in-the-loop for kill/no-kill decisions.
This may come from army/usmc ground-support UAV's more than airforce though. Perhaps DARPA can do another annual robot challenge to push the tech?(***)
Eventually "pilots" may be limited the guys with rotors above their heads.(**)
* and I for one... ** on their helicopters not their hats *** is there a mod -1 Skynet?
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone know how many languages Google has real-time voice-to-text transcription for? (I followed the links, read reviews, shit I even googled it, but I can't see any references.)
Real-time automagical transcribing in multiple languages, combined with Google-(text)-Translate, gives you live bi-directional Google-(voice)-Translate on a device that fits in your pocket.
Since that device is fitted with a still+video camera, and OCR is old-tech, capture+OCR+Translate means you could also read any sign/document in any language. (You could do that now, but with some video cleverness, you could overlay the translation onto the live video image.)
Google seems to be developing a lot of tech that would work together in interesting ways.
"As part of a BBC investigation into illegal computer software... We have disabled this illegal mechanism... But we want to let you know what we have discovered so that you can take precautions to minimise the risk of future infections and clean your machine... For more details and advice, visit our website..."
Given those bogus "FREE VIRUS SCAN: Click here to scan your computer for viruses!!!1!" banner-ads, and how effective they apparently are at getting idiot-clicks, I wonder how long it will take for botnet operators to use this tactic to get people to voluntarily hand over even more control/info/money to mal-sites. "Botnet.ru has cleansed your computer as part of our investigation, go to our site for instructions on how to permanently protect your computer for a small one-time fee."
I thought that they might fall under Section 3 as well, but you need to consider if in doing so the intent was: (a) to impair the operation of any computer; (b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer;
Remember, they not only accessed nearly 22000 computers without permission of the owners, they removed the botnet software. They "impaired", without permission, software operating on another computer, repeated 22000 times.
Oh, I know it's a retarded interpretation. But the 2006 P&J Act contains no "reasonable person" cop-outs. (s36.3.2(b)) "Intent" means "intended to access without authorisation", not "intended to use access for other crimes". It is incorrect to argue, as TFA does, "If this exercise had been done with criminal intent it would be breaking the law," the access was the crime, so too, bizarrely, the removal of botware; acts which they intended.
To Debrain: The point other posters are trying to make is that these illegal-access laws are not being interpreted to allow for good-intent (ie, exposing security flaws), they are being interpreted harshly against individuals, even academics, while softly/not-at-all for companies/organisations. If you did what they did, with exactly the same intent, and were caught, you would likely be punished.
(Usual IANAL crap)
From TFA: "... They ultimately decided to castrate him in the autumn last year[...]"
I would throw feces. Look what throwing rocks gets you...
Given his ability to recognise patterns, they only needed to cut one off...
Watson, come here. I need you.
"Oh Mr. Bell, you have no idea how long I've been waiting to hear you say that!"
Why don't we outlaw the wheel, then?
Then only outlaws will have wheels! Remember, wheels don't wheel people, people do.
Yeah, but how do you find them?
"Are you a liar?" "No."
You need to get all greek-mythology on them... "If you were the opposite of what you are, and I asked you if you were a liar, how would you answer?"
(oh, and then sue them anyway.)
Don't forget, that was his sides contribution to internet censorship. Free government sanctioned (end-user installed) net filters. Hardly anyone wanted it (surprise), but he can't really say "neither did I".
Mod parent +1 Punny.
but that argument only holds if 'shadow' actually does evoke these gut reactions. In Australia, its such a standard term for the opposition minister with the same portfolio, that it doesn't have those connotations.
In fact, until TFS, the comicbook-geek second meaning had never occurred to me. So thank you American slashdotters.
To repay you, may I point out that the Shadow Communication Minister is a member of the Shadow Cabinet, ultimately answerable to The Leader of The Opposition, who once led the movement to bring in a Republic and overthrow the foreign empire! (But he failed.)
I'd heard that the Germans had taken over the project - something about creating the perfect solution... or maybe it was final solution? Anyway, now the French are begging the English to help them get it back.
Dude, too soon.
So if they decide to put Firefox on there, do I use that to download Firefox? Oh... hang on...
Actually, yeah. Have you seen the cripple/demo/custom/old-ware crap most OEMs put on the average computer. What will they do with firefox? The very first thing you'll do is download a clean version, then kill theirs, hoping like hell they haven't pulled a microsoft and tied it to anything important.
That would be the advantage of a radar-freq cloak. It should wrap ambient rf around itself, so no "hole". Judging by the pics, it shouldn't even create that classic sci-fi background distortion.
(Judging by the text, otoh, it can't be used for anything like that. As other posters have pointed out, this will be a cool technical tool that lives inside clever devices, but can't ever become an actual cloak or paint-job.)
Why must people bicker over trivial interpretations? Can't you all accept that you're all wrong? Oh, and the article.
It clearly says, "The cloak that the researchers built works with wavelengths of light ranging from about 1 to 18 gigahertz--a swath as broad as the visible spectrum."
1 - 18GHz RF has a wavelength of ~ 3 - 60 metres (or about 0.82 - 4.4 1967 VW beetles.) A 57 metre/3.6VW range. Visible light is hundreds of nanometres, less than the coat of paint.
But they were only such bullies and emotionally disturbed individuals because of the violent games they played.
There, corrected that for you.
I mean, has anyone done a study of regular outdoor team sport (particularly one with an aggressive culture) like this politician uses to vilify video games? If they had, and got the same result, hands up who thinks said politician would have vilified the study instead? "This is an attack on American values!"
Seriously though, fluff pieces like this shouldn't appear on Slashdot. They're nothing more than attempts to inflate ad revenue. They have absolutely nothing of substance. That "article" didn't tell me a single thing. Complete waste of thee minutes of my life.
Perhaps the ed's need an "articlenotworththeclick" tag? Then /. can get its ad-revenue, but it saves you rewarding the other site. Anyone really keen on reading about the topic must be new^H^H^H will know to ctrl-f "better link" to see anyone suggests one.
Not to mention someone else hitting you. The car won't be able to detect someone running a red light and T-boning you. Fatalities don't come from head-on collisions of you rear ending someone. Cars are designed to handle those rather well.
Sure it will. A centrally mounted emergency thruster will quickly lift you 20 or 30 feet into the air, hovering while the offending vehicle passes safely underneath you, afterwhich you'll return to your previous altitude.
They said 2020! I want my flying car, dammit!
Next thing you know...they'll put govenors on all the cars to limit how fast you can go if you want to...nothing over 70mph.
Actually, it'll get worse than that. I saw a review of a Japanese sports car (might have been Nissan, might have been Top Gear); on the road, it was speed-limited by the manufacturer to double or triple the highway speed-limit, but once the reviewer turned onto a racetrack, the GPS system picked up that fact and switched the speed-limiter off.
That means it is technically possible, today, to speed-limit every new gps-fitted car to the local speed limits, changing to match the road you're on. You know it will happen. At first they'll be 20 [local-speed-units] above the highest highway limit, then 10. Then 10 above each lower limit, then 5, then right on the local-limit, with some manufacturers preventing users disengaging it. Then legislation to prevent it being [legally] disengaged on any vehicle.
It will come. Your whinging about ABS will pale against how you will feel in ten years.
Well, shit.
Read the actual page the GP was quoting (here). That was a real quote, not made-up text: "Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year."
Ummm... Are you sure you want me to read the actual page? Coz...
{Quoth} America Serves
"When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream."
The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation's challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.
{Endquoth}
http://change.gov/americaserves/ (Emphasis mine)
Either you and the GP lied, or it's an evolving site, run by volunteers, responding to feedback/criticism; or it's randomly displaying different text just to fuck with people. Do let me know which.
It's a false dichotomy to compare google and "five nines". Google promises only three, has delivered two, and will give you 15 days credit(*) if they fall to one and a half.
The question is, can you do better than 95% uptime for about $48 per user-account? If you can, you are a 'tard for going with google.
(*) about $2 value and only if you apply for it.
Personally, I wonder how exactly people think photography was used by terrorists in the 9/11 incident. Did one of them photograph the World Trade Center so that they could find it from a plane?
Apparently they used simple GPS systems to work out the coords of the NY towers + DC targets. (They weren't comfortable with the autopilot.)
Now a reasonable number of people have it built into their phones. In fact, if They really needed street level images, They could presumably just walk around with route-mapping turned on, phone/GPS in pocket, then, when They got home, download the appropriate images via Google streetview.
(Sudden image of hundreds of security guards running down the street after a google-van screaming "No photography!")
is contact lenses with built in nanoscale light sources that can project microtext and images directly onto my retinae.
The image wouldn't move. Your brain will filter it out fairly quickly.
There was a research project that did this awhile back, a camera watching your pupils moves the screen to exactly match their twitching. To you, the image disappears.
The problem is that very few of the talented pilots want to do this stuff. ...said that if they were forced to do UAV flying, they'd have to find some way out of flying all together. For most of them, they signed up to be fighter pilots, so even flying a bomber would be a let down.
But that's only because they're using pilots as UAV controllers. Which is because UAV's are just glorified RC-planes. As more functionality is shifted to the UAV's autopilot, the role of the "pilot" becomes more engineer/nav/overseer(*), then finally just strategic oversight and the most basic human-in-the-loop for kill/no-kill decisions.
This may come from army/usmc ground-support UAV's more than airforce though. Perhaps DARPA can do another annual robot challenge to push the tech?(***)
Eventually "pilots" may be limited the guys with rotors above their heads.(**)
* and I for one...
** on their helicopters not their hats
*** is there a mod -1 Skynet?
You'll need a clever product name, something catchy, something eco-friendly. Hmmm, "something" Green...