Here, clean speech was used as both the input and output of the system. The subjects listened to the speech, and the speech was the target, having being reconstructed with the brain activity. (This technique uses invasive electrocorticography; they happened to have some epileptics around to use as subjects)
The target was on the speech perception. Speech production would need to focus on another region of the brain (Maybe Broca's Area or straight to the motor cortex). The training data for speech production would be significantly different - no autoregression possible in that approach. It's an order of magnitude difference.
Still, it's the first step towards actual telepathy, so it's got that going for it, which is nice.
You are mistaking frequency with duration. The number of times you glance is not the only variable. How long do you stare at your speedometer to get the required information, compared to how long you glance at your map? I think you'll find the latter takes somewhat longer to gather useful information.
CereProc did it for Roger Ebert, and other companies such as Nuance and Ivona also offer this service. I estimate you're about $10k + licencing costs from CBS away from making this a reality.
If you claim it's OK to do those things, then please tell me what exact period of time am I allowed to turn away from the highway and look at my mirror or odometer? And if so, why can't I use that same amount of time to look at a GPS?
Government Communications Security Bureau ensured Dotcom was a "foreign national" before beginning surveillance, but that's not he definition they should have been working with. Dotcom is not a "foreign person" by New Zealand law, as he is a permanent resident.
Microsoft used the Stones because their first choice "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)" by R.E.M. was not available, since the band did not want to whore themselves. Something the Stones had no problems with.
IMO, driving while texting should be treated the same as driving with blood alcohol over the limit.
To my mind, these are quite different things. Driving while intoxicated required some premeditation, whereas texting may be a spontaneous choice. Further, the driver is intoxicated for the entire duration of their journey, whereas texting is distracting (although perhaps dangerously so) for shorter periods. I think you'll find drunk drivers are a lot more dangerous than texting drivers, and should be treated as such.
* No cup holders to encourage drinking while driving. Drinking/eating anything is also a distraction.
Eating and drinker are both distracting behaviors, although not as much as talking on a cell phone.
* No radios or other music devices. Distractions are distractions.
The kind of audio distraction caused by radios does little to affect driving attention.
* Maybe even a ban on talking while in a vehicle. How different, when you get down to it, is talking on a phone and talking to a person next to you. One sideways glance to see their reaction at the wrong moment, blammo, road carnage.
Passengers tend to share the driver's situational awareness, so they are significantly safer to hold a conversation with than someone on the far end of a cell phone. A sideways glance is no problem - the driver's gaze is often off the road to check, for example, speed.
See this paper for a good overview of distracted driving behavior:
If anyone had actually bothered to read the NHTSA document (Yes, I know: This...is...Slashdot!), it explicitly says "The recommendation is not intended to prevent the display of images related to driving, such as images related to the status of the vehicle occupants or vehicle maneuvering or images depicting the rearview or blind zone areas of of a vehicle." (emphasis mine).
Wayfinding is considered a primary driving task, and turn-by-turn instructions reduce the cognitive load required for this. In general, they are not a distraction. The exception to this is where the driver already knows their route, and then the instructions do not reduce the cognitive load for the wayfinding task.
From a purely utilitarian point of view, executing anybody who is likely to consume more than they produce over the remainder of their life is a net-positive for society.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
For example, TomTom can show you the "fastest" route and the "shortest" route. When showing the "fastest" route, it makes assumptions about the speed you can drive that are not always true; it often assumes a speed of 30 mph on major roads where you can go 50. Accordingly, it will prefer a route of twice the length on the motorway vs. a major road. On the other hand, "shortest" will get you on absolutely unsuitable roads. It will send you five miles down a single lane dirt track instead of 5.1 miles on a major road.
The latest TomTom (with "IQ Routes") uses real data collected over time to determine the speed that people actually drive on the roads, so if people tend to drive at 50mph on a segment of road, it will route with this speed in mind. Also if the road is busy at certain times of the day, it will also account for this, and maybe suggest an alternative route.
This is absolute rubbish. Even the article states "Any activity requiring a driver to actively be part of a conversation likely will impair driving abilities" The primary reason that conversation with a passenger is less distracting is that they are aware of your environment, and can react to the same things that you do. A passenger in the back seat that you cannot see at all would still be less distracting than a person on the other end of a cell phone.
As I recall, from just a couple days ago, there is a drive to make forwarding email without explicit permission illegal.
For the other geographically chalanged, New Zealand!=Australia
If I aimed for Florida, and ended up in in the Panama cannel, I would be a lot closer than New Zealand to Australia. Is Moscow close to London? It's closer than the Auckland is to Melbourne.
Since we are also discovering gas giants far larger than jupiter orbiting other stars, does that mean that the[y] 'could' be protecting more inner planets than Jupiter in our solar system.
The extra-solar planets discovered so far are larger, faster moving, and closer to their star. They have not been directly observed yet, only their influence on their star has been seen.
So, protecting planets - No. Eating Planets - Maybe
I recall the the band Rancid listed their domain on one of their albums as www.rancid.com, but this was already registered for a porno site. Rancid, therefore, are now www.rancidrancid.com. The interesting thing here is that (depending on the content), one could argue that rancid.com may well be appropreate and legitimate for porn. The Jethro Tull case could well be justified by including pictures of naked babes advocating the thorough tilling of soil.
Slashdot Mirror
Here, clean speech was used as both the input and output of the system. The subjects listened to the speech, and the speech was the target, having being reconstructed with the brain activity. (This technique uses invasive electrocorticography; they happened to have some epileptics around to use as subjects)
The target was on the speech perception. Speech production would need to focus on another region of the brain (Maybe Broca's Area or straight to the motor cortex). The training data for speech production would be significantly different - no autoregression possible in that approach. It's an order of magnitude difference.
Still, it's the first step towards actual telepathy, so it's got that going for it, which is nice.
You are mistaking frequency with duration. The number of times you glance is not the only variable. How long do you stare at your speedometer to get the required information, compared to how long you glance at your map? I think you'll find the latter takes somewhat longer to gather useful information.
Back of the napkin calculation:
Pass grade required for English is 70%
16 multi choice questions requires 12 correct
Given 4 options per question
Using the calculator here: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx
Gives a 99.99618928% failure rate
Chances of 24000 failing students = 40%
CereProc did it for Roger Ebert, and other companies such as Nuance and Ivona also offer this service.
I estimate you're about $10k + licencing costs from CBS away from making this a reality.
http://www.cereproc.com/en/services/voicecreation
http://www.nuance.com/for-business/by-solution/custom-voices/index.htm
http://www.ivona.com/en/custom-voice/
If you claim it's OK to do those things, then please tell me what exact period of time am I allowed to turn away from the highway and look at my mirror or odometer? And if so, why can't I use that same amount of time to look at a GPS?
Less than 1.6 seconds does not increase your crash risk significantly. More than 2 seconds is right out.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv20/07-0082-O.pdf
http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/kim-dotcom-questions-and-answers/
Government Communications Security Bureau ensured Dotcom was a "foreign national" before beginning surveillance, but that's not he definition they should have been working with. Dotcom is not a "foreign person" by New Zealand law, as he is a permanent resident.
Microsoft used the Stones because their first choice "It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)" by R.E.M. was not available, since the band did not want to whore themselves. Something the Stones had no problems with.
IMO, driving while texting should be treated the same as driving with blood alcohol over the limit.
To my mind, these are quite different things.
Driving while intoxicated required some premeditation, whereas texting may be a spontaneous choice.
Further, the driver is intoxicated for the entire duration of their journey, whereas texting is distracting (although perhaps dangerously so) for shorter periods.
I think you'll find drunk drivers are a lot more dangerous than texting drivers, and should be treated as such.
* No cup holders to encourage drinking while driving. Drinking/eating anything is also a distraction.
Eating and drinker are both distracting behaviors, although not as much as talking on a cell phone.
* No radios or other music devices. Distractions are distractions.
The kind of audio distraction caused by radios does little to affect driving attention.
* Maybe even a ban on talking while in a vehicle. How different, when you get down to it, is talking on a phone and talking to a person next to you. One sideways glance to see their reaction at the wrong moment, blammo, road carnage.
Passengers tend to share the driver's situational awareness, so they are significantly safer to hold a conversation with than someone on the far end of a cell phone. A sideways glance is no problem - the driver's gaze is often off the road to check, for example, speed.
See this paper for a good overview of distracted driving behavior:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2008/810787.pdf
If anyone had actually bothered to read the NHTSA document (Yes, I know: This...is...Slashdot!), it explicitly says "The recommendation is not intended to prevent the display of images related to driving, such as images related to the status of the vehicle occupants or vehicle maneuvering or images depicting the rearview or blind zone areas of of a vehicle." (emphasis mine).
Wayfinding is considered a primary driving task, and turn-by-turn instructions reduce the cognitive load required for this. In general, they are not a distraction. The exception to this is where the driver already knows their route, and then the instructions do not reduce the cognitive load for the wayfinding task.
http://xkcd.com/526/
From a purely utilitarian point of view, executing anybody who is likely to consume more than they produce over the remainder of their life is a net-positive for society.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Not quite - it's a complete fallacy:
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp
...also a comic book adaptation of "Bambi Meets Godzilla"
For example, TomTom can show you the "fastest" route and the "shortest" route. When showing the "fastest" route, it makes assumptions about the speed you can drive that are not always true; it often assumes a speed of 30 mph on major roads where you can go 50. Accordingly, it will prefer a route of twice the length on the motorway vs. a major road. On the other hand, "shortest" will get you on absolutely unsuitable roads. It will send you five miles down a single lane dirt track instead of 5.1 miles on a major road.
The latest TomTom (with "IQ Routes") uses real data collected over time to determine the speed that people actually drive on the roads, so if people tend to drive at 50mph on a segment of road, it will route with this speed in mind.
Also if the road is busy at certain times of the day, it will also account for this, and maybe suggest an alternative route.
This is absolute rubbish. Even the article states "Any activity requiring a driver to actively be part of a conversation likely will impair driving abilities"
The primary reason that conversation with a passenger is less distracting is that they are aware of your environment, and can react to the same things that you do. A passenger in the back seat that you cannot see at all would still be less distracting than a person on the other end of a cell phone.
For the other geographically chalanged, New Zealand!=Australia
If I aimed for Florida, and ended up in in the Panama cannel, I would be a lot closer than New Zealand to Australia. Is Moscow close to London? It's closer than the Auckland is to Melbourne.
Since we are also discovering gas giants far larger than jupiter orbiting other stars, does that mean that the[y] 'could' be protecting more inner planets than Jupiter in our solar system.
The extra-solar planets discovered so far are larger, faster moving, and closer to their star. They have not been directly observed yet, only their influence on their star has been seen.
So, protecting planets - No. Eating Planets - Maybe
-Richard> Until you can vote, don't compain about your rights and freedom of speech.
Also don't pay taxes - no taxation without representation, remember?
Unless they mean Jethro Tull (1674-1741), the English agriculturist and inventor. :) A celebraty amoung other manure advocates, perhaps.
The band's official site is at http://www.j-tull.com/, while http://www.jethrotull.com/ is a porno outfit.
I recall the the band Rancid listed their domain on one of their albums as www.rancid.com, but this was already registered for a porno site. Rancid, therefore, are now www.rancidrancid.com. The interesting thing here is that (depending on the content), one could argue that rancid.com may well be appropreate and legitimate for porn. The Jethro Tull case could well be justified by including pictures of naked babes advocating the thorough tilling of soil.