On top of that, you have the recognition of meaning, not just mapping keywords onto commands. This is like Watson on Jeopardy kind of stuff, done in Apple's datacenters, not on the phone, and learning more with each request. It even learns from the current user, personalizing itself.
The developer would have to specify up front that he wants his app to do that. But if he says it shouldn't be allowed, then a virus that would hijack the app to take screenshots and tweet them out would be impossible regardless of the security context of the user running the app.
I don't know if the sandboxing applies to screenshots specifically, but you get the idea. That's all this is, the developer saying up front "I want my app to be able to do X, Y and Z" so that's all the OS will allow it to do.
The people who wrote Siri have been working on not just speech recognition, not just natural language understanding, but the entire concept of a speech-driven digital personal assistant, for eight years. Their results up to 2007 were academically published so Google and others can use that to get up to speed to that point. Then it was spun off as a private company, so Google's been cut off for four years.
It's going to be hard for Google or others to completely catch up this kind of advantage very quickly even with their copy machines running all-out, thus the reasonable conclusion that it will take a couple years.
people who target and kill large numbers of civilians, typically in order to push a geopolitical agenda
Note TARGET. During a war we might accidentally kill civilians. That has happened throughout history. But more than any other we expend a lot of effort not to. Israel has a special problem in that the Muslims purposely put Muslim civilians in harms way in order to score propaganda points against Israel.
The Palestinians also fire rockets at Israeli civilians from within Palestinian residential areas. They even purposely time their rocket attacks to coincide with the time Israeli children are traveling to school. Nobody seems to mind, except when an Israeli counter-attack kills the Palestinian civilians near the rocket launchers. Israel even hampers its own combat effectiveness to avoid killing these civilians that the Muslims put in harms way.
Wafa al-Biss was burned in an accident and was treated by Israeli doctors in an Israeli hospital for free. They gave her a pass to come back for necessary follow-up treatment. What did she do in response? The Al Aqsa Martyrsâ(TM) Brigade got her to smuggle 20 pounds of explosives into the hospital to kill those very people who had saved her. Luckily, she was stopped.
Yes, Israeli soldeirs do kill innocent Palestinian civilians outside of the human shield context. These (where true, not faked) are decried by Israel itself, and are investigated. Israel also prosecutes civilians who kill Palestinian civilians, for example the case of Asher Weisgan.
Palestinian Muslims who purposely kill Israeli civilians are heralded as heroes.
Non-citizens in the US can go home. Non-citizens in the West Bank are home. Either grant them citizenship or autonomy.
It kind of sucks for people when their side gives the other side a casus belli for war, and then they lose the resulting war. Losing a war generally has negative consequences, especially when you keep attacking the country you lost to.
A Muslim government is exactly as abhorrent as a Jewish government, in principle.
I would say neither is abhorrent in principle, as long as they don't impose their religion on the populace, and respect the rights of the minorities. The problem here is that Muslim states tend to be founded on the Quran and Sharia, and rarely respect the rights of minorities in theory or practice.
Either they give preferential treatment to Jews or they don't.
There is the law of return, automatic citizenship to Jews. Other than that, I can't think of rights Jews have that others don't, or special burdens that non-Jews have. In fact, the Muslims don't have mandatory military service that Jews do. What little is left from the old days keeps getting removed, such as the now-illegal prohibition against selling public land to non-Jews.
In addition to the absence of legal persecution of minority religions, social persecution is also fairly minor. Compare to Muslim countries where Christians are technically allowed to live in peace, but their churches keep getting burned and they keep getting massacred, and the government doesn't care about catching the perpetrators.
Like I said, I don't have a problem with people using freedom of association to create a state based on their shared religion, as long as they respect the rights of minorities. Israel isn't a perfect example, but damn close to it.
But then it's his failing that made him perfect for the communist movement promoting ignorance as the ideal. The Killing Fields may never have happened had ol' Saloth been more dedicated to his studies.
Then GP's assertion that a single state exists is false.
The West Bank is in a strange situation. Israel did annex Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, giving residents the option of Jewish citizenship.
What's the difference between that and a government?
They aren't necessarily citizens. Even non-citizens within Israel can't vote. Same for the most countries.
I can't stand the existance of any state based on religion or ethnicity.
The Muslim-controlled nations must really piss you off. You should also be against a Palestinian state, because it would definitely be created as an Arab Muslim state.
But personally I agree with you. I don't like religious states either. But I have to balance that with the right of self-determination, as long as the rights of minorities are respected. Israel isn't perfect in this regard, but they do have the best record in the region.
The idea that Israel can be both a secular democratic state and a Jewish state simultaneously is classic doublethink.
It's pretty simple actually. They claim a Jewish identity as a state, respecting Jewish heritage and culture. But the laws are set up mostly secular concerning the day to day lives of the people, nothing in the base law states laws must comply with Jewish law. The government's structure is strictly secular, there is no religious high court.
Back in 2005 were two camps in Apple. One of them wanted to make basically a bigger iPod using a Linux-based OS, and it was led by the iPod chief Tony Fadell. The other wanted to repurpose OS X to mobile devices, and was led by the top OS X architect, Scott Forstall. Jobs had them do a bake-off, the OS X camp won. Forstall is now head of the iOS division.
However, there is the theory that Jobs was always going to go with OS X, but wanted Forstall to prove himself against other VPs before he was promoted to VP himself.
The only thing that protected Iran's Jewish community was the fact that it was not run as a Muslim state until the 1979 revolution, when most of the Jews fled. It largely missed the Muslim fervor to kill and expel the Jews in the wake of the creation of Israel.
Iran does have a Jewish member of the assembly, but that's only token. All religious minorities combined get five seats in the almost three hundred seat assembly. The all-Islamic Guardian Council gets to choose who can be in the assembly, and you can bet the number of minority seats will never rise above that token five.
The sad part is those token members have to violate their faith to enter the assembly, since they have to swear they are committed to the Iranian constitution, which, among other things, commits them to furthering the Islamic revolution.
Israel does not claim the West Bank. Israel holds military control over the area, which was formerly Jordanian, as long as its residents are a threat to Israeli security. But Israeli citizens living in the West Bank can vote and hold office.
As far as I'm aware none of them claim to be secular democratic states. Neither should Israel.
Israel should have the right to exist as Jewish state as long as it protects the rights of religious minorities. The Muslims, with about 50 countries under their rule, just cannot stand the existence of one Jewish state.
The real solution is to make Palestine and Israel one secular democratic state.
First, return all of the "refugees," making the population overwhelmingly Muslim, then have elections. After that, the Jews will be permanently reduced to second-class citizen status, will have no say in their government, and have to pay the Jizya.
If the Jews have the majority, the violence will simply continue, and it will continue until the Jews are either driven out (as they were in the other Muslim Arab states) or subjugated under a Muslim (Sharia) government.
The secular democratic state sounds fine, and that's what it is now, a democratic parliamentary system with universal suffrage. But you need to realize that the Muslims will accept nothing less than the entire area falling under a Muslim religious state.
Palestinian statehood is only a temporary situation until they can destroy Israel. They admit this. It is a solution only if your end goal is a world without Israel.
The only obvious real solution is for the world to let Israel defend itself, for the Palestinians to know that attacks on Israel will be met with extreme retaliation, for Muslims to give up their third most holy site and allow Israel to have their one, and for all the other Muslim countries residing within the historical area of Palestine (present-day Syria, Lebanon and Jordan) to absorb their Palestinian populations instead of talking about "right of return" since those people are still in Palestine.
The local Muslims have wanted the Jews dead or out of the area since the Ottomans stopped enforcing that everybody get along. In the 20s and 30s their efforts to murder or expel the local Jews hadn't been very effective with the British in charge.
They saw that the Nazis were becoming powerful, and that they wanted all Jews dead, so they hitched their wagon to that cause in the hopes that their Jewish problem could be solved.
Their Jew hatred didn't start with the Nazis, they were just natural allies. Those people aren't still alive, but their ideology is still running strong in Palestine.
If your talking politics then you need to know that Israel has defied more international legislation than any other country in the world according to UN.
That's because every Muslim country votes for any anti-Israel measure, then so do Russia and China just to take a jab at the US by opposing Israel.
So please keep your seeds of discord and hate speech to yourself whilst everyone continues to work on uniting mankind
Tell that to the prominent Muslims whose policy is that Israel should be wiped from the Earth. This is Iran's policy, this is the policy of Hamas. The only way the Jews will be allowed to live there is under Muslim rule as second-class citizens.
Yes, I know the Muslim definition of hate speech -- anything that exposes their violent history and their genocidal goals. That's why they've been trying to get a ban on "defamation of religion" passed in the UN. And unlike US defamation law, the truth will not be a defense.
Collaborating with Hitler and Himmler to achieve the eventual eradication of Jews.
Too bad for you, Hitler lost. There wouldn't be Jew left alive in Palestine if he had won, because the local Muslims would have murdered them with Hitler's support. The only question is whether they would have been murdered locally or sent off to the established death camps.
I had a large collection of saved MRE pieces to make my recipes. For example, crush a cracker, add jelly, creamer and sugar, mix, flatten, let bake in the sun for a while, you have a Pop Tart.
A hardware patent generally describes the exact mechanism needed to achieve the result. It even comes with a diagram to help rebuild the mechanism.
This also allowed competitors to design around the patent, finding a better or at least different way of achieving the result. This is true to the intent of the copyright clause that allows patents -- the advancement of science.
A software patent says "it does X" and that's it, just the general idea, or the general steps to that idea. IMHO any valid software patent should have at least a pseudocode implementation example to show how it is done.
In short, vagueness needs to be absolutely removed from our patent process. Too often, what was invented was the patent itself, worded vaguely to cover anything that might arise.
Slashdot Mirror
So Dragon can't be any better at speech.
On top of that, you have the recognition of meaning, not just mapping keywords onto commands. This is like Watson on Jeopardy kind of stuff, done in Apple's datacenters, not on the phone, and learning more with each request. It even learns from the current user, personalizing itself.
The developer would have to specify up front that he wants his app to do that. But if he says it shouldn't be allowed, then a virus that would hijack the app to take screenshots and tweet them out would be impossible regardless of the security context of the user running the app.
I don't know if the sandboxing applies to screenshots specifically, but you get the idea. That's all this is, the developer saying up front "I want my app to be able to do X, Y and Z" so that's all the OS will allow it to do.
Don't worry, any company wanting to do it will need FDA approval for their implementation and then the price will get close to that.
And then if insurance covers it they'll jack up the price further, and there won't be any savings at all.
The people who wrote Siri have been working on not just speech recognition, not just natural language understanding, but the entire concept of a speech-driven digital personal assistant, for eight years. Their results up to 2007 were academically published so Google and others can use that to get up to speed to that point. Then it was spun off as a private company, so Google's been cut off for four years.
It's going to be hard for Google or others to completely catch up this kind of advantage very quickly even with their copy machines running all-out, thus the reasonable conclusion that it will take a couple years.
So he's kind of like a non-religious Kent Hovind?
Can anybody actually be that bad?
Apple bought Siri, integrated the whole thing into iOS. This guy was an investor, and made his money with the Apple acquisition.
people who target and kill large numbers of civilians, typically in order to push a geopolitical agenda
Note TARGET. During a war we might accidentally kill civilians. That has happened throughout history. But more than any other we expend a lot of effort not to. Israel has a special problem in that the Muslims purposely put Muslim civilians in harms way in order to score propaganda points against Israel.
The Palestinians also fire rockets at Israeli civilians from within Palestinian residential areas. They even purposely time their rocket attacks to coincide with the time Israeli children are traveling to school. Nobody seems to mind, except when an Israeli counter-attack kills the Palestinian civilians near the rocket launchers. Israel even hampers its own combat effectiveness to avoid killing these civilians that the Muslims put in harms way.
Wafa al-Biss was burned in an accident and was treated by Israeli doctors in an Israeli hospital for free. They gave her a pass to come back for necessary follow-up treatment. What did she do in response? The Al Aqsa Martyrsâ(TM) Brigade got her to smuggle 20 pounds of explosives into the hospital to kill those very people who had saved her. Luckily, she was stopped.
Yes, Israeli soldeirs do kill innocent Palestinian civilians outside of the human shield context. These (where true, not faked) are decried by Israel itself, and are investigated. Israel also prosecutes civilians who kill Palestinian civilians, for example the case of Asher Weisgan.
Palestinian Muslims who purposely kill Israeli civilians are heralded as heroes.
That's terrorism.
It kind of sucks for people when their side gives the other side a casus belli for war, and then they lose the resulting war. Losing a war generally has negative consequences, especially when you keep attacking the country you lost to.
I would say neither is abhorrent in principle, as long as they don't impose their religion on the populace, and respect the rights of the minorities. The problem here is that Muslim states tend to be founded on the Quran and Sharia, and rarely respect the rights of minorities in theory or practice.
There is the law of return, automatic citizenship to Jews. Other than that, I can't think of rights Jews have that others don't, or special burdens that non-Jews have. In fact, the Muslims don't have mandatory military service that Jews do. What little is left from the old days keeps getting removed, such as the now-illegal prohibition against selling public land to non-Jews.
In addition to the absence of legal persecution of minority religions, social persecution is also fairly minor. Compare to Muslim countries where Christians are technically allowed to live in peace, but their churches keep getting burned and they keep getting massacred, and the government doesn't care about catching the perpetrators.
Like I said, I don't have a problem with people using freedom of association to create a state based on their shared religion, as long as they respect the rights of minorities. Israel isn't a perfect example, but damn close to it.
If he hadn't failed his exams.
But then it's his failing that made him perfect for the communist movement promoting ignorance as the ideal. The Killing Fields may never have happened had ol' Saloth been more dedicated to his studies.
And I'm not even going to use them here just so I can gloat in this post.
Na na na na na.
The West Bank is in a strange situation. Israel did annex Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, giving residents the option of Jewish citizenship.
They aren't necessarily citizens. Even non-citizens within Israel can't vote. Same for the most countries.
The Muslim-controlled nations must really piss you off. You should also be against a Palestinian state, because it would definitely be created as an Arab Muslim state.
But personally I agree with you. I don't like religious states either. But I have to balance that with the right of self-determination, as long as the rights of minorities are respected. Israel isn't perfect in this regard, but they do have the best record in the region.
It's pretty simple actually. They claim a Jewish identity as a state, respecting Jewish heritage and culture. But the laws are set up mostly secular concerning the day to day lives of the people, nothing in the base law states laws must comply with Jewish law. The government's structure is strictly secular, there is no religious high court.
Back in 2005 were two camps in Apple. One of them wanted to make basically a bigger iPod using a Linux-based OS, and it was led by the iPod chief Tony Fadell. The other wanted to repurpose OS X to mobile devices, and was led by the top OS X architect, Scott Forstall. Jobs had them do a bake-off, the OS X camp won. Forstall is now head of the iOS division.
However, there is the theory that Jobs was always going to go with OS X, but wanted Forstall to prove himself against other VPs before he was promoted to VP himself.
We've crushed our enemies, now we need to see them driven before us and hear the lamentations of their women
Morocco's Jewish population: 1948, 250,000. Present, 3,000.
The only thing that protected Iran's Jewish community was the fact that it was not run as a Muslim state until the 1979 revolution, when most of the Jews fled. It largely missed the Muslim fervor to kill and expel the Jews in the wake of the creation of Israel.
Iran does have a Jewish member of the assembly, but that's only token. All religious minorities combined get five seats in the almost three hundred seat assembly. The all-Islamic Guardian Council gets to choose who can be in the assembly, and you can bet the number of minority seats will never rise above that token five.
The sad part is those token members have to violate their faith to enter the assembly, since they have to swear they are committed to the Iranian constitution, which, among other things, commits them to furthering the Islamic revolution.
Israel does not claim the West Bank. Israel holds military control over the area, which was formerly Jordanian, as long as its residents are a threat to Israeli security. But Israeli citizens living in the West Bank can vote and hold office.
Israel should have the right to exist as Jewish state as long as it protects the rights of religious minorities. The Muslims, with about 50 countries under their rule, just cannot stand the existence of one Jewish state.
First, return all of the "refugees," making the population overwhelmingly Muslim, then have elections. After that, the Jews will be permanently reduced to second-class citizen status, will have no say in their government, and have to pay the Jizya.
If the Jews have the majority, the violence will simply continue, and it will continue until the Jews are either driven out (as they were in the other Muslim Arab states) or subjugated under a Muslim (Sharia) government.
The secular democratic state sounds fine, and that's what it is now, a democratic parliamentary system with universal suffrage. But you need to realize that the Muslims will accept nothing less than the entire area falling under a Muslim religious state.
But Muslim citizens can vote and are even in parliament. Can you show me reciprocation in a Muslim state?
Palestinian statehood is only a temporary situation until they can destroy Israel. They admit this. It is a solution only if your end goal is a world without Israel.
The only obvious real solution is for the world to let Israel defend itself, for the Palestinians to know that attacks on Israel will be met with extreme retaliation, for Muslims to give up their third most holy site and allow Israel to have their one, and for all the other Muslim countries residing within the historical area of Palestine (present-day Syria, Lebanon and Jordan) to absorb their Palestinian populations instead of talking about "right of return" since those people are still in Palestine.
The local Muslims have wanted the Jews dead or out of the area since the Ottomans stopped enforcing that everybody get along. In the 20s and 30s their efforts to murder or expel the local Jews hadn't been very effective with the British in charge.
They saw that the Nazis were becoming powerful, and that they wanted all Jews dead, so they hitched their wagon to that cause in the hopes that their Jewish problem could be solved.
Their Jew hatred didn't start with the Nazis, they were just natural allies. Those people aren't still alive, but their ideology is still running strong in Palestine.
That's because every Muslim country votes for any anti-Israel measure, then so do Russia and China just to take a jab at the US by opposing Israel.
Tell that to the prominent Muslims whose policy is that Israel should be wiped from the Earth. This is Iran's policy, this is the policy of Hamas. The only way the Jews will be allowed to live there is under Muslim rule as second-class citizens.
Yes, I know the Muslim definition of hate speech -- anything that exposes their violent history and their genocidal goals. That's why they've been trying to get a ban on "defamation of religion" passed in the UN. And unlike US defamation law, the truth will not be a defense.
With the inclusion of the so-called state of Palestine. Thus we cannot suppor them.
Collaborating with Hitler and Himmler to achieve the eventual eradication of Jews.
Too bad for you, Hitler lost. There wouldn't be Jew left alive in Palestine if he had won, because the local Muslims would have murdered them with Hitler's support. The only question is whether they would have been murdered locally or sent off to the established death camps.
Any organization that does then should obviously not be funded by us. Pretty simple.
Mix that with the omelete, add Tobasco, not bad.
I had a large collection of saved MRE pieces to make my recipes. For example, crush a cracker, add jelly, creamer and sugar, mix, flatten, let bake in the sun for a while, you have a Pop Tart.
A hardware patent generally describes the exact mechanism needed to achieve the result. It even comes with a diagram to help rebuild the mechanism.
This also allowed competitors to design around the patent, finding a better or at least different way of achieving the result. This is true to the intent of the copyright clause that allows patents -- the advancement of science.
A software patent says "it does X" and that's it, just the general idea, or the general steps to that idea. IMHO any valid software patent should have at least a pseudocode implementation example to show how it is done.
In short, vagueness needs to be absolutely removed from our patent process. Too often, what was invented was the patent itself, worded vaguely to cover anything that might arise.