Sure, English might have a million words, but I doubt you will use more than 1-2% of that in daily life. A system taking the 10-20000 most common words would be more that good enough for most uses. Typing (or guessing, if you're not using it for dictation) that occasional weird word (like `Slashdot':-) ) wouldn't be too much of a nuisance anyway.
Yeah, _first_ run it through a recognition process (at let's say... 95%), _then_ through Babel Fish (which has an accuracy of about 30%... if you're lucky), and then through some speech engine, which probably has an accuracy of 1%.
Sounds like you would get a close to _minus ten percent_ (OK, it's not negative...) translator to me;-) At least with today's technology. I don't think this recognition stuff is ready for the masses before at least a few years have passed... Sounds like I'll just stick with the fish in my ear for now... ("Come on, it's only a little one...")
...OR speech recognition to write mail with your voice. Actually, people are doing it today, via a very cool tool. It's called ASAACP (A Secretary And A Cell Phone);-) Yup, some do it... Not saying that it's not weird...
I don't think _everything_ is done in neural nets. Usually, they are only used for small, specific tasks. You wouldn't use a neural net to call printf() or gtk_init(), would you? Such things are generally much easier to solve in `conventional' programming;-)
I still agree, using only 11 neurons is impressive... Wonder how complex those timing issues are. (Normal neural nets can quite easily be `hard-coded' in almost any programming language, small nets means less computing power needed. This makes a small network REALLY interesting. Speech recognition in under 50 lines of C code? Or perhaps in Haskell?;-) )
Yes, the human should really beat the computer at filling in the meaning. (Example: I listen to some German speaker, and even with my bad German, I still get the general idea...)
I've heard somewhere (not confirmed from anybody else, though), that humans only actually hear _30%_ of what's being said, and then guesses the rest. Could anybody confirm (or thrash) this?
Come on, why would always the military be `5 to 20 years ahead of' civilian technology? Remember, there _are_ great people outside the military as well. And there are more of them. Sure, the military can `take' tech from civilian life and not the other way round, but still? (BTW, there are _many_ militaries in the world...)
If any choice was to be moderated, IMHO, it would have to be `Flamebait'. It's really too vague, and far too often moderators don't even see its function. At least "Flame" would be much better. I'm not sure if I like the `Funny' choice either (CT didn't like it in the beginning, either -- don't know what made him change his mind), but it's not that bad, and it works well.
Now, this debate _is_ offtopic... But perhaps there's no better place to debate it. The problem with mass moderation, is that too many people are suddenly find themselves with power they're not experienced with.
Hmmm, I disagree with this `right', and although many probably have very different opinions than me (this is a very sensitive topic for some people), I'll try to discuss some of your viewpoints. 1. The right to defend yourself against `evil governments'. How has ESR really done anything against any government? By promoting Open Source? Don't think so. And, if the government really is evil, why don't you go out and elect another one? Most people don't use their right do to just that, and then goes on to complain about the government _afterwards_. 2. The right to defend yourself against `individuals'. Yes, I believe you have a right to defend yourself, but perhaps not with a gun. The way this has turned out to be in the US is just twisted! Imagine: How would the world be without any guns? You can say that, yes, the criminals has guns, so I'll need one too. Then who is going to stop this circle? If it's easier for you to have a gun, it's easier for the criminals to have a gun as well. Yes, you have the right to defend yourself, but do you really have the right to take somebody else's life just because you suspect he's trying to steal anything from you? (That's what you are doing if you are shooting against a burglar.) Is anything really as much worth as a human life (even a criminal's life)? How can you really say that you are so much worth, as to put yourself (or anything else) over another human's life? Just look and see what has happened to the American society today, and perhaps you'll see why guns isn't the highest good on earth. I'm not saying they're the greatest evil either. But perhaps not everybody should be walking around with a gun all the time. A gun boosts your `penis factor' (excuse my wording) and makes it much easier to kill somebody `on impulse'. BTW, I have to agree with a poster further up, who said that perhaps ESR shouldn't mix his roles as a pro-OSS and a pro-gun person.
>Then of course there is the problem of >"terrorism." We had very minimal problems with >this in previous years, but last year (my >last year there) the problem exploded.
Thank you, I know exactly what you're talking about:-) Lots of rubbish around in the computers at school. People play games of the 6 PCs that are available all the time (at 780 pupils... we have a computer room with 40 PCs as well, but that is used primarily for whole classes, as well as outside normal school hours), while others can't get one to do their schoolwork at.
In my experience, actually messing the computers up isn't so much an `evil' act as much as somebody just being stupid. We actually had a pupil setting a PC to 110V (it's 220V here) because he believed that would fix it. POOF! There goes one PC...
The biggest problem is, as you pointed out, the total lack of security in most OSes. Change to Linux, and (most of) your problems would go away. But, as you also pointed out, it isn't easy to get support for such a thing:-(
I'm not sure if you need NCs for this. `Real' PCs will do, as long as nobody has the opportunity to mess them up. (Remove the access to bootdisks, for instance... If they REALLY need disk access, put a floppy or two at some server-like computers. Weird idea?)
Yeah, the docs are very comprehensive. Fortunately, you simply don't need to check them every time you want to do something:-) I think that's the strength of Exim. Sendmail is just complicated without really being logical.
(There is an INSTALL doc, BTW. I think it tells you everything you need to know.)
Yes, Exim is definitely a nice program. Without ever having seen it, I was able to get it up and running (after a short edit of the configuration files) in 5 minutes. Compare that to the time you used on your first sendmail installation (I believe the average there is _well_ over 5 minutes...), add the fact that Exim isn't as widely used (security through obscurity in practice!;-) ) and you have something that works very well. For anyone struggling with sendmail, Exim might be your program.
Yeah... (When I see that phrase, it is usually when I login. Or, when I check my mail once in a while using Eudora. Hmmm, I guess Eudora has used `You've got male' for over 5 years now. Wonder if AOL even _is_ that new.) Next thing is that they'll try to add a tax on the movie tickets... (`You've got mail -- $x a ticket, including AOL tax.')/* Steinar */
OK, the _story_ has been verified. But does anybody know whether `Nick' really is a _Microsoft_ employee or not? (He could have lied, you know...) Awaiting eagerly a clarification:-)
I think providing a _direct link_ to an MP3 is just as bad as uploading it. Give me one good reason why it shouldn't? After all, _exactly the same_ will happen, except that the poor guy who originally uploaded the MP3 will have less bandwidth for his own `customers'.
(Again, I'm pointing out that I talk about linking to the _MP3_ file, not any HTTP/FTP url.)
When I'm talking about "linking" here, I'm talking about linking _directly_ to the file (which I clearly pointed out in my original post). No, I'm not a lawyer, and in a professional sense, I'm probably not a programmer either.
And correct, you have to draw a line somewhere. And I don't know exactly where that line should go. But I'd say drawing the line at a link is too far away.
With all due respect... when you're referring to `major record labels ripping off musicians', do you ever consider:
1. Have the artists chosen those record companies themselves? 2. Do they get money (if even a fraction) for every CD sold?
I sincerely hope you're answering yes to both. If they'd want their music to be free-for-all, they would have published it themselves. (Yes, the record contract probably prohibits that, but they didn't _need_ to sign one, did they?)
Again, I didn't mean the last post as an MP3 debate (this one probably is). It was just to point out that _linking_ to an MP3 was no `better' than publishing one yourself.
Whether a person hosts the MP3s himself (or herself), or links to another person's MP3s (which I believe is EVEN worse -- for small, small kinds only...), it's essentially the same. (Note that I'm talking about a direct link here.) Does people care where the URL points to? Do they download _less_ MP3s if they see that the URL is absolute and not relative? Pretty unlikely, don't you think?
So, to sum it up: If you first think having (and spreading) illegal copies of music (aka piracy), linking (directly) to it is just as bad. Perhaps not juridically (I'm no lawyer), but at least (IMHO) morally.
Whether copying music you don't already have (e.g. on CD) (optionally helping others to do the same) is `bad' or `good', is another debate, of course.
That coupled with the fact that most photo ID comes from the government makes me wonder why this is such a big deal.
Well, you never thought they would use the electronic version for something else than just storing? What about having installed cameras, identifiying most everybody who walks by (OK, it's a bit difficult...)? I don't think they want this all in one place. You could well be a bit paranoid here -- exactly why would they want such a system?
If you don't like threads, you could always switch to Flat-mode. I'm not sure if you find it easier to read, but I really don't care which comment is a reply to which -- you usually see it out of the context, and I can reply to it just as easily.
BTW, I disagree with your `new' choices. `Interesting link' is already covered under `Informative', `Enlightened opinion' is covered under `Insightful', `Humor' is covered under `Funny', and `Agreement' should never make it into Slashdot at all. The moderation system shouldn't be a voting system, run by the moderators.
As for more moderator points, I think the system is already churning out enough points just for the `original' gang of 400 to moderate all comments a few times or so. I think it's rather a problem with people not using their points.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, English might have a million words, but I doubt you will use more than 1-2% of that in daily life. A system taking the 10-20000 most common words would be more that good enough for most uses. Typing (or guessing, if you're not using it for dictation) that occasional weird word (like `Slashdot' :-) ) wouldn't be too much of a nuisance anyway.
/* Steinar */
Yeah, _first_ run it through a recognition process (at let's say... 95%), _then_ through Babel Fish (which has an accuracy of about 30%... if you're lucky), and then through some speech engine, which probably has an accuracy of 1%.
;-) At least with today's technology. I don't think this recognition stuff is ready for the masses before at least a few years have passed... Sounds like I'll just stick with the fish in my ear for now... ("Come on, it's only a little one...")
Sounds like you would get a close to _minus ten percent_ (OK, it's not negative...) translator to me
/* Steinar */
...OR speech recognition to write mail with your voice. Actually, people are doing it today, via a very cool tool. It's called ASAACP (A Secretary And A Cell Phone) ;-) Yup, some do it... Not saying that it's not weird...
/* Steinar */
The Matrix is a movie (a good movie, but not the `god' movie many wants it to be). The main concept is: The world is a computer-generated illusion...
I don't see what that (The Matrix) had to do with this (speech recognition), though...
/* Steinar */
I don't think _everything_ is done in neural nets. Usually, they are only used for small, specific tasks. You wouldn't use a neural net to call printf() or gtk_init(), would you? Such things are generally much easier to solve in `conventional' programming ;-)
;-) )
I still agree, using only 11 neurons is impressive... Wonder how complex those timing issues are. (Normal neural nets can quite easily be `hard-coded' in almost any programming language, small nets means less computing power needed. This makes a small network REALLY interesting. Speech recognition in under 50 lines of C code? Or perhaps in Haskell?
/* Steinar */
Yes, the human should really beat the computer at filling in the meaning. (Example: I listen to some German speaker, and even with my bad German, I still get the general idea...)
I've heard somewhere (not confirmed from anybody else, though), that humans only actually hear _30%_ of what's being said, and then guesses the rest. Could anybody confirm (or thrash) this?
/* Steinar */
Come on, why would always the military be `5 to 20 years ahead of' civilian technology? Remember, there _are_ great people outside the military as well. And there are more of them. Sure, the military can `take' tech from civilian life and not the other way round, but still? (BTW, there are _many_ militaries in the world...)
/* Steinar */
That's the second comment today that slipped through the error check with an error. The first sentence should read:
:-)
"If any choice was to be removed..." You can't moderate a choice
/* Steinar */
If any choice was to be moderated, IMHO, it would have to be `Flamebait'. It's really too vague, and far too often moderators don't even see its function. At least "Flame" would be much better. I'm not sure if I like the `Funny' choice either (CT didn't like it in the beginning, either -- don't know what made him change his mind), but it's not that bad, and it works well.
Now, this debate _is_ offtopic... But perhaps there's no better place to debate it. The problem with mass moderation, is that too many people are suddenly find themselves with power they're not experienced with.
/* Steinar */
s) before gpm hit `Submit' for me ;-)
Even forgot to add my signature... Well, OK...
/* Steinar */
Hmmm, I disagree with this `right', and although many probably have very different opinions than me (this is a very sensitive topic for some people), I'll try to discuss some of your viewpoints. 1. The right to defend yourself against `evil governments'. How has ESR really done anything against any government? By promoting Open Source? Don't think so. And, if the government really is evil, why don't you go out and elect another one? Most people don't use their right do to just that, and then goes on to complain about the government _afterwards_. 2. The right to defend yourself against `individuals'. Yes, I believe you have a right to defend yourself, but perhaps not with a gun. The way this has turned out to be in the US is just twisted! Imagine: How would the world be without any guns? You can say that, yes, the criminals has guns, so I'll need one too. Then who is going to stop this circle? If it's easier for you to have a gun, it's easier for the criminals to have a gun as well. Yes, you have the right to defend yourself, but do you really have the right to take somebody else's life just because you suspect he's trying to steal anything from you? (That's what you are doing if you are shooting against a burglar.) Is anything really as much worth as a human life (even a criminal's life)? How can you really say that you are so much worth, as to put yourself (or anything else) over another human's life? Just look and see what has happened to the American society today, and perhaps you'll see why guns isn't the highest good on earth. I'm not saying they're the greatest evil either. But perhaps not everybody should be walking around with a gun all the time. A gun boosts your `penis factor' (excuse my wording) and makes it much easier to kill somebody `on impulse'. BTW, I have to agree with a poster further up, who said that perhaps ESR shouldn't mix his roles as a pro-OSS and a pro-gun person.
>Then of course there is the problem of
>"terrorism." We had very minimal problems with
>this in previous years, but last year (my
>last year there) the problem exploded.
Thank you, I know exactly what you're talking about :-) Lots of rubbish around in the computers at school. People play games of the 6 PCs that are available all the time (at 780 pupils... we have a computer room with 40 PCs as well, but that is used primarily for whole classes, as well as outside normal school hours), while others can't get one to do their schoolwork at.
In my experience, actually messing the computers up isn't so much an `evil' act as much as somebody just being stupid. We actually had a pupil setting a PC to 110V (it's 220V here) because he believed that would fix it. POOF! There goes one PC...
The biggest problem is, as you pointed out, the total lack of security in most OSes. Change to Linux, and (most of) your problems would go away. But, as you also pointed out, it isn't easy to get support for such a thing :-(
I'm not sure if you need NCs for this. `Real' PCs will do, as long as nobody has the opportunity to mess them up. (Remove the access to bootdisks, for instance... If they REALLY need disk access, put a floppy or two at some server-like computers. Weird idea?)
/* Steinar */
Yeah, the docs are very comprehensive. Fortunately, you simply don't need to check them every time you want to do something :-) I think that's the strength of Exim. Sendmail is just complicated without really being logical.
(There is an INSTALL doc, BTW. I think it tells you everything you need to know.)
/* Steinar */
Yes, Exim is definitely a nice program. Without ever having seen it, I was able to get it up and running (after a short edit of the configuration files) in 5 minutes. Compare that to the time you used on your first sendmail installation (I believe the average there is _well_ over 5 minutes...), add the fact that Exim isn't as widely used (security through obscurity in practice! ;-) ) and you have something that works very well. For anyone struggling with sendmail, Exim might be your program.
/* Steinar */
Seems like their registration form uses JavaScript or something like that. Anyway, there are several (important) selections that I can't make in Lynx.
:-)
This is a very nice gest from Compaq, but I'd prefer if they supported Lynx (which is pretty common on Linux/Unix) as well
/* Steinar */
1. s/male/mail/
:-)
2. Add a line or two before the signature.
Sorry
/* Steinar */
Yeah... (When I see that phrase, it is usually when I login. Or, when I check my mail once in a while using Eudora. Hmmm, I guess Eudora has used `You've got male' for over 5 years now. Wonder if AOL even _is_ that new.) Next thing is that they'll try to add a tax on the movie tickets... (`You've got mail -- $x a ticket, including AOL tax.') /* Steinar */
OK, the _story_ has been verified. But does anybody know whether `Nick' really is a _Microsoft_ employee or not? (He could have lied, you know...) Awaiting eagerly a clarification :-)
/* Steinar */
I'm trying to send you mail, but I only get `ragemail.com domain unroutable'... (I think it would be better to continue this discussion via mail.)
Any ideas?
/* Steinar */
Sorry, but I don't follow your path either.
I think providing a _direct link_ to an MP3 is just as bad as uploading it. Give me one good reason why it shouldn't? After all, _exactly the same_ will happen, except that the poor guy who originally uploaded the MP3 will have less bandwidth for his own `customers'.
(Again, I'm pointing out that I talk about linking to the _MP3_ file, not any HTTP/FTP url.)
/* Steinar */
When I'm talking about "linking" here, I'm talking about linking _directly_ to the file (which I clearly pointed out in my original post). No, I'm not a lawyer, and in a professional sense, I'm probably not a programmer either.
And correct, you have to draw a line somewhere. And I don't know exactly where that line should go. But I'd say drawing the line at a link is too far away.
/* Steinar */
With all due respect... when you're referring to `major record labels ripping off musicians', do you ever consider:
1. Have the artists chosen those record companies themselves?
2. Do they get money (if even a fraction) for every CD sold?
I sincerely hope you're answering yes to both. If they'd want their music to be free-for-all, they would have published it themselves. (Yes, the record contract probably prohibits that, but they didn't _need_ to sign one, did they?)
Again, I didn't mean the last post as an MP3 debate (this one probably is). It was just to point out that _linking_ to an MP3 was no `better' than publishing one yourself.
/* Steinar */
Come on!
Whether a person hosts the MP3s himself (or herself), or links to another person's MP3s (which I believe is EVEN worse -- for small, small kinds only...), it's essentially the same. (Note that I'm talking about a direct link here.) Does people care where the URL points to? Do they download _less_ MP3s if they see that the URL is absolute and not relative? Pretty unlikely, don't you think?
So, to sum it up: If you first think having (and spreading) illegal copies of music (aka piracy), linking (directly) to it is just as bad. Perhaps not juridically (I'm no lawyer), but at least (IMHO) morally.
Whether copying music you don't already have (e.g. on CD) (optionally helping others to do the same) is `bad' or `good', is another debate, of course.
/* Steinar */
Well, you never thought they would use the electronic version for something else than just storing? What about having installed cameras, identifiying most everybody who walks by (OK, it's a bit difficult...)? I don't think they want this all in one place. You could well be a bit paranoid here -- exactly why would they want such a system?
If you don't like threads, you could always switch to Flat-mode. I'm not sure if you find it easier to read, but I really don't care which comment is a reply to which -- you usually see it out of the context, and I can reply to it just as easily.
BTW, I disagree with your `new' choices. `Interesting link' is already covered under `Informative', `Enlightened opinion' is covered under `Insightful', `Humor' is covered under `Funny', and `Agreement' should never make it into Slashdot at all. The moderation system shouldn't be a voting system, run by the moderators.
As for more moderator points, I think the system is already churning out enough points just for the `original' gang of 400 to moderate all comments a few times or so. I think it's rather a problem with people not using their points.
/* Steinar */