Re:Next Generation - full speech recognition in a
on
Gnome 1.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Re: Speech recognition integration
I has long been said that as it is now, the thing that most slows down a user's interaction with a computer is the interface. It takes a heck of a lot longer for someone to navigate even two(2) menu sub-trees than it takes for me to type in a 56-char command line. With a person experienced in the CLI(command line interface), I have never seen them do anything slower than someone using a GUI(graphical user interface). Now, you say, how can we expect people to learn the CLI well enough so that it's faster than the GUI? Easy. We make them. I suspect that, after learning how to touch-type, and given a good instructor, it wouldn't take more than a few weeks of concentrated study to become proficient. After all, people learn a WHOLE lot faster than a computer. It's taken twenty years to come up with what I consider to be a mediocre GUI. Sure, it does what it's supposed to. But it's hardly efficient, it's often cumbersome, and sometimes it can't do what you want it to. It takes people a lot less time (much less than twenty years) to adapt to a CLI. Now, let's not throw in speech recognition. It'll slow things down even more. It'll take the average user two or three seconds to launch a oft-used program from a GUI. It'll take them more time to say "Computer - launch."
You know what really upsets me? They talk about this thing in a bit of detail, but they didn't say anything about prototypes, or the new plant they've got for making this stuff, or anything like that. So, is this stuff in production? I doubt it. Quite honestly, I hate hearing about this stuff two-three years before it comes to market. It's starting to piss me off. Tell me about something when I can buy it, or tell me about it with enough time to plan for it. Not before.
I've been peeved for a while now about the programming behind Mozilla. It showed the kind of ugly cludges that have ruined the Windows operating system. For instance, I could always see my GTK+ theme draw its stuff before Mozilla threw on its own coat of paint, to speak figuratively. This made things horribly slow. Pixmap themes in GTK+ are bearable, but noticeably slower than the alternatives. Now, layer two on top of each other? Horrid. However, with the latest night build downloaded, I find that everything is much snappier - and I can drag links between windows. I'm pretty much happy. I think I'll switch from Netscape 4.72 now.:)
This is horrid! If this is accepted, and a court backs this action up, then things like translations are copyright infringments. You thought not being able to watch DVDs under Linux was bad? How about not being able to read documentation because it can't be translated?
Come on fellas, settle down. By the looks of it, this particular license applies to the distributed copy of Borland C++ contained in the magazine. This license would be FAR different than the one included in a retail box. They don't want anybody making any money off of this compiler - they're getting it for free, after all. Why they won't allow you to distribute source is a bit odd, but why don't you use a real compiler like GCC, anyawys?;)
Hey there:) I hope I'm not being to cynical, but sci-fi isn't the be all and end all of future visions, if you ask me(MyOpinion (TM)). I mean, look at the sheer volume of what's available. Of course SOMEONE will stumble upon the great advance of the 21st century. Hell, think abut IBM, and even NASA. The stuff they're researching now will go into production decades from now. Anybody who reads up and has their sources can predict pretty accurately what basic inventions will be available(bar the great, society-changing ones). Anyways, put a thousand NASA workers reading a thousand Sci-Fi books from a thousand different authors, and they'll come up with some great inventions:)
Dave
P.S.: I am an avid sci-fi reader. The number of Sci-Fi books I have is more than most people have in any genre.:)
1) Microsoft, after supplying only the BARE minimals worth of documentation, sold the "Resource Kit"(which was really a good manual) for $60+.
2) You much has a really nice novel, and a really nice seat. When I've got to learn a programming language from on-line/on-screen docs, it takes me about three times as long as if I had a printed book. Mostly because it's harder on the eyes, I can't bring it with me when I go to pick somebody up at the airport(that's a good 2 hours of wasted time), etc., etc..
Printed manuals and books, I feel, will become a precious commodity. I have no problem with that - so long as I can get them.:)
Please convince them that they are right.:) They shouldn't provide printed manuals. That way, when I go out and buy printed guides, I'll have a leg up over my competition.
But, seriously, anyone who has ever had a complete set of encyclopedia knows deep down that books are incredibly useful. Now, if your help system was fully indexed and quickly searchable, then I would prefer the help system, but it's got to be on my local machine. I'm not willing to set up a net connection on every bloody computer I work on just to get at some slightly obscure command-line switch.
Come on guys - there will always be someone around who was in the game earlier than you. Except for the older guy/gal in the business, and I doubt that they could even read the bloody screen before. Hey, but, for my two cents, I'm 19, and I learnt to type before I could speak(you'll notice proper spelling, more-or-less correct grammar, and, yup, you got it, capitalization;). Anyways, my first computer: An Atari. Yeah, one with the keyboard that came with a great big 'ol 5"1/4' diskette drive(no, no hard drive). The first computer I put together: A 286 with 512k of RAM. Did most of the soldering myself, too.
That's seven BILLION years.:) Please change that. For a second, I thougt that we(the human race) might actually have been around to see it - but I doubt it now;)
Dave
Great! I get to re-install windows...
on
Carmack Speaks
·
· Score: 2
Okay, maybe not - I'm really just kidding. But, I must say, I'm very glad they're not thinking about doing another first-person shooter. If this new game is any good, I may consider *gasp* re-installing windows. I've got 9 gigs on this drive wanting to be burned...;)
Anyways, on a serious note, hopefully graphics support under Linux will be up to par when this game is released. Most of my computer-literate friends love my computer(Linux-only), and they tend to use it whenever they come over. But, they're unwilling to give up their Windows boxen because of their games. Ah well, c'est la vie:)
I'm sorry, but I feel that this attitude is a detriment to society. Once we start saying things like, "Well, they did it for profits - so they're not bad, they're just a company," then things go down the shithole. Try this, "Well, they just killed those people in that country because they needed cheap labour. They're not bad, they're just making profits." See the problem? Yes, I am exaggerating, but, if left upchecked, that's what it will come to.
Well, as the person to whom you're replaying to(my original post was titled something like "If this false reading started it all"), I'd like to thank you for the information. It is true, that I had only considered people searching in optical wavelengths, and I had completely missed the good souls who were using the star's "wobble" as a measue.:) Thanks:)
It isn't the size of a company that makes it good or bad. It's not even the amount of power it has. Whether a company is good or bad depends on what it DOES with that size and power. Microsoft shut out competition, snowed customers, and screwed governments. We have to wait and see what AOL/Time-Warner does before we can make a judegement, if any.
That's a moderately valid point, but I forgot to mention hardware acceleration. I think you're right about the implementation, and part of that is hardware acceleration. It's been a while since any game I played was tolerable with software-based rendering, so these APIs have to have hardware accelereation.
Stop whining. Wait, and it will come. To develop any complex software(such as a game), you need a stable API. What is one of the most important things in a "modern" game? Graphics, of course(I personally prefer text-mode NetHack, but hey, that's besides the point). And can you find a stable, and robust graphics API for Linux? I doubt it. At least, I doubt you'll find one developed with games in mind. So, to sum up, stop whining. If you want good, modern games you can either a) write it yourself, or b) buy Loki games, 'cause they'll need the case to develop a good, robust, stable game API. Got it? Good.
It's a thought, true enough, but I don't think that's what they're really looking for. They're looking, not for invulnerable humans, but for stronger, faster, and deadlier humans. Without either a) a massively heavy base, or b) an incredibly complex motor-system AI to keep center of gravity, the machine won't be any stronger. If you're piloting one of these machines, you'd need to see where its feet were going, and you'd have to look ahead - both at once. So it's not going to be any faster. And any remote-controlled atomaton will have lag - slower reflexes, and hence not as deadly. What your solution is about is a smart missle. Fast, doesn't care about terrain, and packs a punch.
I read the newspaper. You know, the paper-and-print kind. Think about how long they have been the same. Sure, now we have a slightly different layout, more ads, and colour photos. But, honestly, these people are dedicated to CONTENT, and pretty much little else. If you read a web site for anything other then the content, then what exactly are you doing? The newspaper industry is now moving their(sometimes) quality content into a new medium. Give them a chance to realize this new medium's advantages.:)
Some people will say this is cheating, but I disagree. A fellow before me pointed out that universities to not teach people to memorize information so much as they teach people how to use it.
However, I am a bit worried about fairness. There are two problems: connection speed and notebook availability. I can't afford a notebook, so I am at an EXTREME disadvantage. Someone with a notebook and proper preparation can have pretty much all of humanity's knowledge(applicable to the particular course) within two or three mouse click. Where as I, a starving student, would have to memorize the equivalent to be able to use it.
Secondly, if notebooks were given away, the network speed could be a factor, if only a minor one.
Yet again, we are saved by patent laws that some feel are evil, and should be done away with.
Think about it this way: without these laws, the rich would be richer, and the poor would be dead. You, a fairly capable inventor/developer, have created a nifty gadget that would sell fairly well. You start manufacturing, and then a rich guy down the street copies you. He has slave labour in a third world country somewhere, he makes them cheap, and sells them cheap. All of a sudden, the life savings you spent making this thing are down the tube. And there's nothing you can do about it.
Now, imagine a world with intelligent intellectual property patent laws. You, the inventor, patent your invention. You have twenty years(or something like it), to make your money. The patent expires, and everyone starts making your gadgets. Luckily, though, you've had time to ramp up production(hopefully not using slave labour;), and you can compete with the nasty ugly corporations(of which we hope you have not become).
I once read someone say that without very strict patent laws, open source would be impossible. And I agree. The GPL is based on those laws, and others like it. If they didn't exist, there would be nothing stopping people from using code developed in a free and encouraging community in their own proprietary works, without recognition, without compensation.
The SIR patents seem to be a windfall to the open source community. With these and the GPL behind us, we can lay the groundwork for a re-invention of computers. The way we use them, and how we understand them.
I am not lawyer, nor am I a rich man. But, if someone set up a charity drive/fund for open source SIR patents, I would gladly donate what I could spare.
Slashdot Mirror
Re: Speech recognition integration
."
I has long been said that as it is now, the thing that most slows down a user's interaction with a computer is the interface. It takes a heck of a lot longer for someone to navigate even two(2) menu sub-trees than it takes for me to type in a 56-char command line. With a person experienced in the CLI(command line interface), I have never seen them do anything slower than someone using a GUI(graphical user interface). Now, you say, how can we expect people to learn the CLI well enough so that it's faster than the GUI? Easy. We make them. I suspect that, after learning how to touch-type, and given a good instructor, it wouldn't take more than a few weeks of concentrated study to become proficient. After all, people learn a WHOLE lot faster than a computer. It's taken twenty years to come up with what I consider to be a mediocre GUI. Sure, it does what it's supposed to. But it's hardly efficient, it's often cumbersome, and sometimes it can't do what you want it to. It takes people a lot less time (much less than twenty years) to adapt to a CLI. Now, let's not throw in speech recognition. It'll slow things down even more. It'll take the average user two or three seconds to launch a oft-used program from a GUI. It'll take them more time to say "Computer - launch
Just my two bits.
Dave
You know what really upsets me? They talk about this thing in a bit of detail, but they didn't say anything about prototypes, or the new plant they've got for making this stuff, or anything like that. So, is this stuff in production? I doubt it. Quite honestly, I hate hearing about this stuff two-three years before it comes to market. It's starting to piss me off. Tell me about something when I can buy it, or tell me about it with enough time to plan for it. Not before.
Dave
Oh so funny. I would happily kill a tree to print this post, if I had a printer. :)
Dave
I've been peeved for a while now about the programming behind Mozilla. It showed the kind of ugly cludges that have ruined the Windows operating system. For instance, I could always see my GTK+ theme draw its stuff before Mozilla threw on its own coat of paint, to speak figuratively. This made things horribly slow. Pixmap themes in GTK+ are bearable, but noticeably slower than the alternatives. Now, layer two on top of each other? Horrid. However, with the latest night build downloaded, I find that everything is much snappier - and I can drag links between windows. I'm pretty much happy. I think I'll switch from Netscape 4.72 now. :)
;)
Keep up the good work, guys
Dave
Hey, come on! Relax, man. If all these technologies come together some day, we'll be able to produce gold en masse :)
Dave
This is horrid! If this is accepted, and a court backs this action up, then things like translations are copyright infringments. You thought not being able to watch DVDs under Linux was bad? How about not being able to read documentation because it can't be translated?
Dave
Sorry, your interpretation is false, it states very clearly:
...
You may produce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you created
Sorry.
Dave
Come on fellas, settle down. By the looks of it, this particular license applies to the distributed copy of Borland C++ contained in the magazine. This license would be FAR different than the one included in a retail box. They don't want anybody making any money off of this compiler - they're getting it for free, after all. Why they won't allow you to distribute source is a bit odd, but why don't you use a real compiler like GCC, anyawys? ;)
Dave
Hey there :) I hope I'm not being to cynical, but sci-fi isn't the be all and end all of future visions, if you ask me(MyOpinion (TM)). I mean, look at the sheer volume of what's available. Of course SOMEONE will stumble upon the great advance of the 21st century. Hell, think abut IBM, and even NASA. The stuff they're researching now will go into production decades from now. Anybody who reads up and has their sources can predict pretty accurately what basic inventions will be available(bar the great, society-changing ones). Anyways, put a thousand NASA workers reading a thousand Sci-Fi books from a thousand different authors, and they'll come up with some great inventions :)
:)
Dave
P.S.: I am an avid sci-fi reader. The number of Sci-Fi books I have is more than most people have in any genre.
1) Microsoft, after supplying only the BARE minimals worth of documentation, sold the "Resource Kit"(which was really a good manual) for $60+.
:)
2) You much has a really nice novel, and a really nice seat. When I've got to learn a programming language from on-line/on-screen docs, it takes me about three times as long as if I had a printed book. Mostly because it's harder on the eyes, I can't bring it with me when I go to pick somebody up at the airport(that's a good 2 hours of wasted time), etc., etc..
Printed manuals and books, I feel, will become a precious commodity. I have no problem with that - so long as I can get them.
Dave
Please convince them that they are right. :) They shouldn't provide printed manuals. That way, when I go out and buy printed guides, I'll have a leg up over my competition.
But, seriously, anyone who has ever had a complete set of encyclopedia knows deep down that books are incredibly useful. Now, if your help system was fully indexed and quickly searchable, then I would prefer the help system, but it's got to be on my local machine. I'm not willing to set up a net connection on every bloody computer I work on just to get at some slightly obscure command-line switch.
Dave
Come on guys - there will always be someone around who was in the game earlier than you. Except for the older guy/gal in the business, and I doubt that they could even read the bloody screen before. Hey, but, for my two cents, I'm 19, and I learnt to type before I could speak(you'll notice proper spelling, more-or-less correct grammar, and, yup, you got it, capitalization ;). Anyways, my first computer: An Atari. Yeah, one with the keyboard that came with a great big 'ol 5"1/4' diskette drive(no, no hard drive). The first computer I put together: A 286 with 512k of RAM. Did most of the soldering myself, too.
That's seven BILLION years. :) Please change that. For a second, I thougt that we(the human race) might actually have been around to see it - but I doubt it now ;)
Dave
Okay, maybe not - I'm really just kidding. But, I must say, I'm very glad they're not thinking about doing another first-person shooter. If this new game is any good, I may consider *gasp* re-installing windows. I've got 9 gigs on this drive wanting to be burned... ;)
:)
Anyways, on a serious note, hopefully graphics support under Linux will be up to par when this game is released. Most of my computer-literate friends love my computer(Linux-only), and they tend to use it whenever they come over. But, they're unwilling to give up their Windows boxen because of their games. Ah well, c'est la vie
Dave
I'm sorry, but I feel that this attitude is a detriment to society. Once we start saying things like, "Well, they did it for profits - so they're not bad, they're just a company," then things go down the shithole. Try this, "Well, they just killed those people in that country because they needed cheap labour. They're not bad, they're just making profits." See the problem? Yes, I am exaggerating, but, if left upchecked, that's what it will come to.
Well, as the person to whom you're replaying to(my original post was titled something like "If this false reading started it all"), I'd like to thank you for the information. It is true, that I had only considered people searching in optical wavelengths, and I had completely missed the good souls who were using the star's "wobble" as a measue. :) Thanks :)
Dave
It isn't the size of a company that makes it good or bad. It's not even the amount of power it has. Whether a company is good or bad depends on what it DOES with that size and power. Microsoft shut out competition, snowed customers, and screwed governments. We have to wait and see what AOL/Time-Warner does before we can make a judegement, if any.
Hey, if this false reading is what started all the planet-hunters, then it's one false reading I'd be proud of.
Dave
That's a moderately valid point, but I forgot to mention hardware acceleration. I think you're right about the implementation, and part of that is hardware acceleration. It's been a while since any game I played was tolerable with software-based rendering, so these APIs have to have hardware accelereation.
Sorry, hate to self-reply, but I meant that you should buy Loki games because they'll need the cash, not the case ;)
Stop whining. Wait, and it will come. To develop any complex software(such as a game), you need a stable API. What is one of the most important things in a "modern" game? Graphics, of course(I personally prefer text-mode NetHack, but hey, that's besides the point). And can you find a stable, and robust graphics API for Linux? I doubt it. At least, I doubt you'll find one developed with games in mind. So, to sum up, stop whining. If you want good, modern games you can either a) write it yourself, or b) buy Loki games, 'cause they'll need the case to develop a good, robust, stable game API. Got it? Good.
Dave
It's a thought, true enough, but I don't think that's what they're really looking for. They're looking, not for invulnerable humans, but for stronger, faster, and deadlier humans. Without either a) a massively heavy base, or b) an incredibly complex motor-system AI to keep center of gravity, the machine won't be any stronger. If you're piloting one of these machines, you'd need to see where its feet were going, and you'd have to look ahead - both at once. So it's not going to be any faster. And any remote-controlled atomaton will have lag - slower reflexes, and hence not as deadly. What your solution is about is a smart missle. Fast, doesn't care about terrain, and packs a punch.
Dave
I read the newspaper. You know, the paper-and-print kind. Think about how long they have been the same. Sure, now we have a slightly different layout, more ads, and colour photos. But, honestly, these people are dedicated to CONTENT, and pretty much little else. If you read a web site for anything other then the content, then what exactly are you doing? The newspaper industry is now moving their(sometimes) quality content into a new medium. Give them a chance to realize this new medium's advantages. :)
Dave
Some people will say this is cheating, but I disagree. A fellow before me pointed out that universities to not teach people to memorize information so much as they teach people how to use it.
However, I am a bit worried about fairness. There are two problems: connection speed and notebook availability. I can't afford a notebook, so I am at an EXTREME disadvantage. Someone with a notebook and proper preparation can have pretty much all of humanity's knowledge(applicable to the particular course) within two or three mouse click. Where as I, a starving student, would have to memorize the equivalent to be able to use it.
Secondly, if notebooks were given away, the network speed could be a factor, if only a minor one.
Dave
Yet again, we are saved by patent laws that some feel are evil, and should be done away with.
;), and you can compete with the nasty ugly corporations(of which we hope you have not become).
Think about it this way: without these laws, the rich would be richer, and the poor would be dead. You, a fairly capable inventor/developer, have created a nifty gadget that would sell fairly well. You start manufacturing, and then a rich guy down the street copies you. He has slave labour in a third world country somewhere, he makes them cheap, and sells them cheap. All of a sudden, the life savings you spent making this thing are down the tube. And there's nothing you can do about it.
Now, imagine a world with intelligent intellectual property patent laws. You, the inventor, patent your invention. You have twenty years(or something like it), to make your money. The patent expires, and everyone starts making your gadgets. Luckily, though, you've had time to ramp up production(hopefully not using slave labour
I once read someone say that without very strict patent laws, open source would be impossible. And I agree. The GPL is based on those laws, and others like it. If they didn't exist, there would be nothing stopping people from using code developed in a free and encouraging community in their own proprietary works, without recognition, without compensation.
The SIR patents seem to be a windfall to the open source community. With these and the GPL behind us, we can lay the groundwork for a re-invention of computers. The way we use them, and how we understand them.
I am not lawyer, nor am I a rich man. But, if someone set up a charity drive/fund for open source SIR patents, I would gladly donate what I could spare.
David B. Harris