Re:Voice recognition has been around since years!
on
Talking To Computers?
·
· Score: 1
I was pleasantly suprised when I tried the speech recognition for Windows 7. It's seemed even better than dragon natural speaking and easily integrated with the OS.
The calibration process was long but easy and useful and, with some practice, you get the hang of it.
The problem most tech users will face is that they probably think and type much faster than the speed at which they need to talk, so, ultimately, widespread use seems unlikely.
If a media outlet reports a fact. It's still a fact. It doesn't matter if they want world peace, war, high taxes or anything else. The BAD thing happens when they omit/hide portions of the truth because they're contrary to that "agenda" you talk about.
We can try to be as objective as we can but we will always favor one policy over another, one path, one faction, etc.
Arguably, you won't find an objective news source. They ALL have agendas. What you have to be wary of is if they are willing to resort to lying, hiding or distorting instead of just reporting facts.
So journalists should find information they do not care about and heartlessly report about it?
That whole "They have an agenda" talk is starting to get old. We should stop looking at ulterior motives ans start checking if reports are facts or not.
Would peer to peer services which offer end to end encryption like Skype be required to re-engineer their software to allow government wiretaps? This could be the end of personal use encryption as we know it.
Only criminals use encryption. If you're not doing anything wrong, what is there to hide?
Nothing, of course. Unless you're part of the goverment. In that case, you're hiding information to protect your citizens.
This reminds me of a chapter of South Park where the characters are even younger and small kids did their voices. One of the creators had to tell his mother that kids hadn't been exposed to foul language, that they just made them say "drat" and stuff like that and beep over it to make it sound worse.
But no one had to know that. If his mom could've been fooled, why couldn't we?
I thought this was commons standard for people who worked with these type of web projects. I guess the haste of finishing or implementing something may end up with the creators overlooking vital security procedures?
I mean, I've heard it from every expert, in every tutorial, from every knowledgeable user.
"Psychologists from Edinburgh Napier University surveyed 200 students on their use of Facebook, and found that a for a significant number of users the negative effect of the social network outweighed the benefits of staying in touch with friends and family. "
Apparently, if you agree with something there's no need to analyze where did it come from. The conclusions per se are interesting but many are debatable and might vary greatly if we switch the social frame of the users.
Informal focus groups were conducted using opportunity sampling of third year psychology and social science students. The three groups comprised seven students.
The online survey attracted 175 participants of which 127 (72.6%) were female and 48 (27.4%) male. The mean age of the sample was 30.4 years (SD = 10.3, range 18 to 62) with four participants not disclosing their age.
Five participants (two male) participated in semi-structured interviews on their use of Facebook. They were drawn from a subset of the survey sample who indicated their willingness to be interviewed.
Isn't it possible to argue that students related to the subject might be more prone to over analyzing and over thinking these situations? Or maybe they're more likely to answer truthfully?
Anyway, Too small, too specific sample to end up with arguable conclusions.
Can't say I'm surprised but the tactics and manipulation they discuss but I find it outrageous all the same.
However, the fact that they felt the need to present such a teach-yourself-how-to-destroy-wikileaks-in-21-days presentation in such a dumb manner is somewhat encouraging.
I agree. If the contract covers that area allowing them to terminate your job because of such incident then I guess it's perfectly valid for them to do so.
No one is prohibiting you from breaking the terms of that contract but you'll face the agreed measures afterwards.
The only problem here is that if, hypothetically, they managed to destroy Google. They wouldn't have access to it's results. Therefore, the "quality" of it's searches would decrease.
by the way, Is it bad for them that I don't recognize more than half the things on the list?
A goverment company in a third world country with 350+ employees and a lazy IT department (of which I'm not a part of).
That being said, the users have no regards for computer security. They care about their cars, their paperwork, the keys to the office, but always fail to recognize the vulnerabilities of a computer system.
Dude, At least, In my company. Mails were sent providing patches and explanations of how to deal with the conficker virus. How to treat your removable drives, etc.
Few listened and we were annoyed for some months by each infected computer. Somehow, the virus managed to get into the network and lot of employees wasted valuable time reinstalling their OSes only to be infected immediately for not taking the necessary measures (being offline, patching).
Slashdot Mirror
I was pleasantly suprised when I tried the speech recognition for Windows 7. It's seemed even better than dragon natural speaking and easily integrated with the OS.
The calibration process was long but easy and useful and, with some practice, you get the hang of it.
The problem most tech users will face is that they probably think and type much faster than the speed at which they need to talk, so, ultimately, widespread use seems unlikely.
If a media outlet reports a fact. It's still a fact. It doesn't matter if they want world peace, war, high taxes or anything else. The BAD thing happens when they omit/hide portions of the truth because they're contrary to that "agenda" you talk about.
We can try to be as objective as we can but we will always favor one policy over another, one path, one faction, etc.
Arguably, you won't find an objective news source. They ALL have agendas. What you have to be wary of is if they are willing to resort to lying, hiding or distorting instead of just reporting facts.
So journalists should find information they do not care about and heartlessly report about it?
That whole "They have an agenda" talk is starting to get old. We should stop looking at ulterior motives ans start checking if reports are facts or not.
Would peer to peer services which offer end to end encryption like Skype be required to re-engineer their software to allow government wiretaps? This could be the end of personal use encryption as we know it.
Only criminals use encryption. If you're not doing anything wrong, what is there to hide?
Nothing, of course. Unless you're part of the goverment. In that case, you're hiding information to protect your citizens.
This reminds me of a chapter of South Park where the characters are even younger and small kids did their voices. One of the creators had to tell his mother that kids hadn't been exposed to foul language, that they just made them say "drat" and stuff like that and beep over it to make it sound worse.
But no one had to know that. If his mom could've been fooled, why couldn't we?
Thank God it was not a rooster. The wording might've killed you.
I'm surprised they stopped watching futbol (soccer) and Tinelli in the first place to build such a road.
But I agree on the sentiment. ;)
123 ?
Obviously, you're to take everything you read at face value.
Specially when it serves to further embarrass the antagonists of the "truth tellers".
I thought this was commons standard for people who worked with these type of web projects. I guess the haste of finishing or implementing something may end up with the creators overlooking vital security procedures?
I mean, I've heard it from every expert, in every tutorial, from every knowledgeable user.
No one questions the validity of it....
relevant paragraph:
Apparently, if you agree with something there's no need to analyze where did it come from. The conclusions per se are interesting but many are debatable and might vary greatly if we switch the social frame of the users.
TFA didn't even feel necessary to put this:
Isn't it possible to argue that students related to the subject might be more prone to over analyzing and over thinking these situations? Or maybe they're more likely to answer truthfully?
Anyway, Too small, too specific sample to end up with arguable conclusions.
Try laughing. It's pretty positive for your health.
Wanting to be a slave based on "the last pole" sounds incredibly kinky. XD
isn't the whole indoctrination of "you're only as good as you pay for" doing that job, anyway?
The system works. So follow our orders or be nothing.
No, but we would be compelled to ask you what kinds of drugs you hate and why.
There's a quote attributed to Stourtroup that talks about analogies...
http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201106/6798/Data-intelligence-firms-proposed-a-systematic-attack-against-WikiLeaks
Can't say I'm surprised but the tactics and manipulation they discuss but I find it outrageous all the same.
However, the fact that they felt the need to present such a teach-yourself-how-to-destroy-wikileaks-in-21-days presentation in such a dumb manner is somewhat encouraging.
So all those rich people who find ways to evade taxes are poor?
How does it violate the US constitution? (If that's what you're implying)
Have you ever seen how restrictive Disney contracts are? Or, for that matter, any contract that involves a celebrity and a brand.
Are the contracts unconstitutional if they can't do a certain amount of things or face the fines/whatever?
Look behind you!
A three headed monkey!
I agree. If the contract covers that area allowing them to terminate your job because of such incident then I guess it's perfectly valid for them to do so.
No one is prohibiting you from breaking the terms of that contract but you'll face the agreed measures afterwards.
disclaimer: didn't RTFA.
Right now, both sites have been seized (I just tested) and the term rojadirecta on Google links to the IP in it's second result.
There's a message in the webpage that reads:
"Authorities from US "steal" our domain names rojadirecta.org and also rojadirecta.com!
We are currently in: www.rojadirecta.me, www.rojadirecta.es, www.rojadirecta.in.
Don't email the new .com, the new mail ends with .in.
Spread our new uncontroled (by the US gov) addresses."
Don't let research get in the way of a smart-ass comment.
The only problem here is that if, hypothetically, they managed to destroy Google. They wouldn't have access to it's results. Therefore, the "quality" of it's searches would decrease.
by the way, Is it bad for them that I don't recognize more than half the things on the list?
A goverment company in a third world country with 350+ employees and a lazy IT department (of which I'm not a part of).
That being said, the users have no regards for computer security. They care about their cars, their paperwork, the keys to the office, but always fail to recognize the vulnerabilities of a computer system.
Dude, At least, In my company. Mails were sent providing patches and explanations of how to deal with the conficker virus. How to treat your removable drives, etc.
Few listened and we were annoyed for some months by each infected computer. Somehow, the virus managed to get into the network and lot of employees wasted valuable time reinstalling their OSes only to be infected immediately for not taking the necessary measures (being offline, patching).
The Average User is still a threat in his path to ignore one and all security measures.