Under Islamic law if your brother rapes and beats your wife, you have to kill the wife for tempting him and forgive the brother.
This is categorically wrong. Islamic law has no such injunction, and this is the type of utter drivel and FUD that makes it hard for Muslims and non-Muslims to co-exist. Rape is a punishable crime in Islam, regardless of who commits it.
I challenge you to present any evidence of your claim.
If you check some of these services, you'll find many of them ship to the US. Even if they do ship outside the US, you have the usual problems with customs, credit cards, and who knows what else. Are there others that operate in different countries, e.g. Australia or Europe?
Re:Something else (researcher's response)
on
Speech For The Deaf
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually, I do feel I have a clue. Why? Because I've talked (or more accurately signed) to Deaf people. They seem enthusiastic generally -- but have concerns over practicalities like cost and reliability.
I know of the regional difference (even in Australia, there's a northern and southern dialects and both dialects are dialects of British Sign Language) but (a) they affect less common signs (b) our system learns, so all it takes is someone to demonstrate a new sign and/or variant -- much like speech recognition systems today can cope with different accents.
Our initial attempt would be to go for Signed English to begin with (there's no translation necessary with signed english; imagine English, except the words are spoken in French, but without the grammar of French), then move on to full ASL.
I'm also aware of the cochlear implant debate. And you've missed the most important differences: (a) this solution embraces sign, rather trying to supersede it; (b) this technology can be used by those who are born deaf as well as those who are postlingually deaf; (c) it's a non-intrusive and low-risk technology - you can take off the gloves whenever you like.
Re:I hope this isn't based off (researcher's resp)
on
Speech For The Deaf
·
· Score: 1
The first version WAS based on the Nintendo PowerGlove (this was my honours thesis in 1995). Since 1997 we've been using the following:
The later system uses a total of 4 serial ports. The technology has improved quite a bit since 1997, so it might be possible to do it cheaper/better now.
I'm confident of the system being able to keep up with you. The gloves measure finger bend, position (x, y, z) and orientation (roll, pitch, yaw) 200 times a second; and the sensors actually work that fast -- the lag is on the order of 3 milliseconds, so the only issue is training. If you train it while you're in "the zone", I don't see any reason why it couldn't learn.
When it comes to deep, conceptual signs, I totally agree though -- it ain't got a chance. The ultimate goal is to make day-to-day things easier, not to replace skilled interpreters. I don't think you're ever going to see a Deaf person get on stage with some automated gloves and talk to an audience. But just as -- in English -- the average person's daily vocabulary is a few thousand words, this system may still be useful enough to level the playing field for the Deaf.
The Deaf I've spoken to are eager to see the technology mature. They raise questions like cost, reliability, etc. They like the idea, the issue seems to be the implementation.
Right now, of course, it only works in Signed English mode: one sign == one word. But the hope is to move to translation. BTW, I really don't like the CNN story -- it's probably too sensationalised. A much better article can be found at ABC online.
Why don't hearing people learn to sign? Because learning sign language is hard: I know English, French, Arabic, and a little bit of Auslan. By far Auslan is the hardest language to learn -- mainly because you're using your hands and eyes. When I was learning, I used to have signing dreams and I'd sometimes wake up finding my hands moving. Perhaps this is some kind of indication of how mentally demanding that is.
Re:Isn't this old? (researcher's response)
on
Speech For The Deaf
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Actually, I did a bit more research on Ryan's work, and it turns out what he built was a system that converted fingerspelling, not sign language into speech.
Sign languages typically have a finger-spelling system as a fallback. Say you want to specify a name, like McGill. There's no sign for it, so you finger-spell it. Each letter has a corresponding sign. ASL has single-handed fingerspelling, while Auslan has two-handed fingerspelling.
But it's not sign language. A typical sign might be something like "thank" where you touch the chin and move the hand forward (at least in Auslan anyway).
Recognising sign is much harder. Fingerspelling is pretty much position-independent. For sign recognition, you need to track the person's position and motion.
This is not to cast any aspersions on Ryan's work, of course -- especially that he made it so cheaply. I think that's a major accomplishment. But designs for such gloves date back to Grimes' work in 1983 (patent 4,414,537), or James Kramer's work at Stanford in the early 90's (patent 5,047,952).
Re:Why? (researcher's response)
on
Speech For The Deaf
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Firstly, there's an even simpler solution than a keyboard: a piece of paper and a pen. Most (non-geeks) can write faster than they type anyway, so why bother with the keyboard at all?
Secondly, I feel it does offer an advantage -- it uses the medium of communication that the Deaf themselves prefer to use. Sign languages are not a word-for-word translation of English. No offence to Deaf people intended, but if you've ever read any unedited text by Deaf (say, e-mail), their grammar is sometimes poor. It's not because Deaf are stupid, it's just it's not their language, and the language that they do use -- ASL or Auslan or whichever sign language -- is so totally foreign to spoken language that it is hard for them to come to grips with the grammar. So forcing them to use English is already forcing them to do something they'd prefer not to do.
It's like saying why bother with Babelfish when anyone could learn Spanish?
Re: never gonna work (researcher's response)
on
Speech For The Deaf
·
· Score: 1
Hi elmegil,
This is my research, and some of what you say is absolutely true.
About facial gestures: absolutely true. Facial gestures are very important in sign, as are facial expressions and vocal inflections in human speech. But we can still talk over a phone line, or with very poor audio quality, or even with monotone voice. You can still do quite a bit within this limitation, say, if you had to visit a doctor. It would be a lot easier than having to scribble everything down, and a lot cheaper/more convenient than hiring an interpreter.
About classifiers and spatial pronouns: There's two things at work, actually. Classifiers are an ability to
Bottom line: Your wife has nothing to worry about:-). She'll still have a job for many years to come.
Slashdot Mirror
Under Islamic law if your brother rapes and beats your wife, you have to kill the wife for tempting him and forgive the brother.
This is categorically wrong. Islamic law has no such injunction, and this is the type of utter drivel and FUD that makes it hard for Muslims and non-Muslims to co-exist. Rape is a punishable crime in Islam, regardless of who commits it.
I challenge you to present any evidence of your claim.
If you check some of these services, you'll find many of them ship to the US. Even if they do ship outside the US, you have the usual problems with customs, credit cards, and who knows what else. Are there others that operate in different countries, e.g. Australia or Europe?
I know of the regional difference (even in Australia, there's a northern and southern dialects and both dialects are dialects of British Sign Language) but (a) they affect less common signs (b) our system learns, so all it takes is someone to demonstrate a new sign and/or variant -- much like speech recognition systems today can cope with different accents.
Our initial attempt would be to go for Signed English to begin with (there's no translation necessary with signed english; imagine English, except the words are spoken in French, but without the grammar of French), then move on to full ASL.
I'm also aware of the cochlear implant debate. And you've missed the most important differences: (a) this solution embraces sign, rather trying to supersede it; (b) this technology can be used by those who are born deaf as well as those who are postlingually deaf; (c) it's a non-intrusive and low-risk technology - you can take off the gloves whenever you like.
- Two 5DT Data Gloves (one left, one right).
- Two Ascension Flock of Birds: again, one for each hand.
The later system uses a total of 4 serial ports. The technology has improved quite a bit since 1997, so it might be possible to do it cheaper/better now.When it comes to deep, conceptual signs, I totally agree though -- it ain't got a chance. The ultimate goal is to make day-to-day things easier, not to replace skilled interpreters. I don't think you're ever going to see a Deaf person get on stage with some automated gloves and talk to an audience. But just as -- in English -- the average person's daily vocabulary is a few thousand words, this system may still be useful enough to level the playing field for the Deaf.
The Deaf I've spoken to are eager to see the technology mature. They raise questions like cost, reliability, etc. They like the idea, the issue seems to be the implementation.
Right now, of course, it only works in Signed English mode: one sign == one word. But the hope is to move to translation. BTW, I really don't like the CNN story -- it's probably too sensationalised. A much better article can be found at ABC online.
Why don't hearing people learn to sign? Because learning sign language is hard: I know English, French, Arabic, and a little bit of Auslan. By far Auslan is the hardest language to learn -- mainly because you're using your hands and eyes. When I was learning, I used to have signing dreams and I'd sometimes wake up finding my hands moving. Perhaps this is some kind of indication of how mentally demanding that is.
Sign languages typically have a finger-spelling system as a fallback. Say you want to specify a name, like McGill. There's no sign for it, so you finger-spell it. Each letter has a corresponding sign. ASL has single-handed fingerspelling, while Auslan has two-handed fingerspelling.
But it's not sign language. A typical sign might be something like "thank" where you touch the chin and move the hand forward (at least in Auslan anyway).
Recognising sign is much harder. Fingerspelling is pretty much position-independent. For sign recognition, you need to track the person's position and motion.
This is not to cast any aspersions on Ryan's work, of course -- especially that he made it so cheaply. I think that's a major accomplishment. But designs for such gloves date back to Grimes' work in 1983 (patent 4,414,537), or James Kramer's work at Stanford in the early 90's (patent 5,047,952).
Secondly, I feel it does offer an advantage -- it uses the medium of communication that the Deaf themselves prefer to use. Sign languages are not a word-for-word translation of English. No offence to Deaf people intended, but if you've ever read any unedited text by Deaf (say, e-mail), their grammar is sometimes poor. It's not because Deaf are stupid, it's just it's not their language, and the language that they do use -- ASL or Auslan or whichever sign language -- is so totally foreign to spoken language that it is hard for them to come to grips with the grammar. So forcing them to use English is already forcing them to do something they'd prefer not to do. It's like saying why bother with Babelfish when anyone could learn Spanish?
This is my research, and some of what you say is absolutely true.
About facial gestures: absolutely true. Facial gestures are very important in sign, as are facial expressions and vocal inflections in human speech. But we can still talk over a phone line, or with very poor audio quality, or even with monotone voice. You can still do quite a bit within this limitation, say, if you had to visit a doctor. It would be a lot easier than having to scribble everything down, and a lot cheaper/more convenient than hiring an interpreter.
About classifiers and spatial pronouns: There's two things at work, actually. Classifiers are an ability to Bottom line: Your wife has nothing to worry about :-). She'll still have a job for many years to come.
Thanks for everyone's comments. I'm the one who did the work. If you want to find out more, there's more info at my PhD web page.