ust to clarify, hate speech is on a different level from other insults. To claim otherwise is to claim that all words are equivalent. Which would make language pointless.
Okay, seriously? "Hate speech"? Do you mean "insults based on (age|gender|sexual orientation|religion)"? If so, that's what you should say -- because anything said with sufficient hate is "hate speech". I'm not sure how/why/when an imaginary line was drawn around a very narrow and specific category of speech in order to define it as "hate speech", because speaking with hate is not restricted in that way. The least you can do is stop doing your part to propagate the foolishness;)
1) How will you play music in a machine, which is responding to voice?. If a song has a word "SHUTDOWN", the computer's microphone will respond to that and might power off the system:P
Definitely. That will put a damper on playing those old favorites like "Shutdown! In the name of love" and "Shutdown!" by [erm, actually a ton of artists made songs titled 'Stop'. Damn. Way to ruin a joke, thepowerofgrayskull. Would you just stop typing now before you make it worse?]
Agreed; I can't stand the speech recognition on phone systems. For one thing, it universally sucks unless you're only using single words. (I recall calling.. Verizon was it? it: "So you're having a problem. Please tell me what kind of problem you're having." me: "Internet is not working". it: "Okay. Did you say 'Phone line repairs?' ")
For another, it negates the only advantage (from a consumer perspective) of touchtone menu systems - the ability to quickly navigate when you know your choice ahead of time; or even when you hear it spoken without having to wait for the full menu of options. It seems that most systems allow touchtone interrupt, but don't allow voice interrupt, so if I press "5" for technical support it's fine - but I can't say "technical support" without being forced to listen to all the options.
Re:Watson wasn't exactly conversing with humans
on
Talking To Computers?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Actually.. you're quite incorrect.
Watson’s avatar, which viewers will see behind a standard Jeopardy! podium, is designer Joshua Davis’ artistic representation of the machine. It does not provide eyes or ears for Watson. Instead, Watson depends on text messaging, sent over TCP/IP, in order to receive the clue. At exactly the moment that the clue is revealed on the game board, a text is sent electronically to Watson’s POWER7 chips. So, Watson receives the clue text at the same time it hits Brad Rutter’s and Ken Jennings’ retinas.
You have a Constitutional right to petition your government. You do NOT have the Constitutional right to petition the grieving families at a soldier's funeral.
Sorry, but even free speech is not absolute.
Agreed. And in cases where their actions violate laws (civil or criminal) they can and should pay the penalties associated with that -- whether those be financial or incarceration. Getting ye ol' virtual smack-down from anonymous isn't on the list of acceptable punishments.
Indeed they do. And Anonymous has the right to say they're a bunch of nutjob jesushumping bigots for doing so.
Freedom of speech means people(generally in the form of some sort of government) can't restrict what you say. It doesn't say *anything* about not having to face the consequences of what you say...
--
I agree completely - they should have to face any legal consequences (civil and criminal) that their speech incurs. (Some light research has shown that they have, in fact, done so.) What does anonymous have to do with that process again?
also thought your (assuming you're from the US) constitution was about preventing your GOVERNMENT from passing laws and prosecuting people for their speech. Nothing stopping another group from downing you out with louder free speech including a wilful DoSing.
I am indeed from the US; and you're right in that this is the intention of the 1st amendment. The concept, though, is one that underlies the foundation of this country. Summed up by EB Hall's paraphrasing of Voltaire - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,"
If they were stepping outside and peacefully (if loudly) assembling across the street from the church, I'd support them 110%. But when their method of "protest" is to a) take data that isn't theirs b) vandalize property they don't own and/or c) prevent the people they dislike from speaking in the first place (in the medium of the Internet), it's just a pathetic attempt at bullying. And in this case, I suspect, a way for a couple of big egos to grab some press for themselves.
Re: harassment. Nobody said that freedom of speech comes with freedom from consequences or responsibility. The members of that church have been arrested for their activities numerous times. And if the members of "anonymous" were willing to do the things they do without being... well... "anonymous", I might be a bit more supportive -- because then they, too, could face the consequences of their actions.
I would argue than when your goal is suppression of another person/group's right to free speech (however offensive you may find that speech) there is no such thing as a "great target".
Indeed. How is it that they (anon) fail to see the hypocrisy here? (emphasis added)
'We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS – the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People – have long heard you issue your venomous statements of hatred, and we have witnessed your flagrant and absurd displays of inimitable bigotry and intolerant fanaticism,' says Anonymous, stating 'Should you ignore this warning, you will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS.'"
I don't like anything that Westboro has to say either -- but they damned sure have the right to say it.
This much is true. MS as a distributor would be required to ensure that the source is available. In practice, this means that they can link to the author's site; and yank the app if the author makes the source unavailable.
This entails some overhead in monitoring, but realistically... the OSS market for windows phone software isn't all that big. I would have hoped they would wait to make such a decision until it actually became burdensome.
They could just as easily include in their agreement that the developer must make freely available any required source code or other files to meet the conditions of the OSS license; that the developer do so in such a way that is obvious to the customer; and that when the source code et al is no longer available, the app can no longer be sold via MS's store.
That's more expensive though, as it requires actual people to fllow up. On the other hand, I can't picture that the number of OSS apps are *that* numerous for the Win mobile platform...
Look at the trouble Apple had posting stuff like VLC into the App Store and then had it removed via a lawsuit. Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?
Yes, as long as you make the source freely and easily available; and make sure the customer knows how to get it.
As long as we're talking conspiracy theory, Elop was quite possibly sent over from MS in order to acquire nokia as a partner in manufacturing . And no, of course I don't have facts to back it up. What kind of lame conspiracy theory would that be?
If by "press" you mean "bloggers" (as is becoming more common these days) -- well, who's surprised? Too many want to claim privileges of press, and too few the responsibility.
All genetic data is public domain*. You're merely the temporary custodian of your particular permutations, combinations, and mutations.
* yes. I know it probably isn't in a legal sense - but I've yet to see a convincing explanation of why it shouldn't be. We don't earn it or create it. We just pass it on or not.
Slashdot Mirror
ust to clarify, hate speech is on a different level from other insults. To claim otherwise is to claim that all words are equivalent. Which would make language pointless.
Okay, seriously? "Hate speech"? Do you mean "insults based on (age|gender|sexual orientation|religion)"? If so, that's what you should say -- because anything said with sufficient hate is "hate speech". I'm not sure how/why/when an imaginary line was drawn around a very narrow and specific category of speech in order to define it as "hate speech", because speaking with hate is not restricted in that way. The least you can do is stop doing your part to propagate the foolishness ;)
1) How will you play music in a machine, which is responding to voice?. If a song has a word "SHUTDOWN", the computer's microphone will respond to that and might power off the system :P
Definitely. That will put a damper on playing those old favorites like "Shutdown! In the name of love" and "Shutdown!" by [erm, actually a ton of artists made songs titled 'Stop'. Damn. Way to ruin a joke, thepowerofgrayskull. Would you just stop typing now before you make it worse?]
For another, it negates the only advantage (from a consumer perspective) of touchtone menu systems - the ability to quickly navigate when you know your choice ahead of time; or even when you hear it spoken without having to wait for the full menu of options. It seems that most systems allow touchtone interrupt, but don't allow voice interrupt, so if I press "5" for technical support it's fine - but I can't say "technical support" without being forced to listen to all the options.
Watson’s avatar, which viewers will see behind a standard Jeopardy! podium, is designer Joshua Davis’ artistic representation of the machine. It does not provide eyes or ears for Watson. Instead, Watson depends on text messaging, sent over TCP/IP, in order to receive the clue. At exactly the moment that the clue is revealed on the game board, a text is sent electronically to Watson’s POWER7 chips. So, Watson receives the clue text at the same time it hits Brad Rutter’s and Ken Jennings’ retinas.
Source: http://ibmresearchnews.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-watson-sees-hears-and-speaks-to.html
which has a grammatical error in it's explanation.
Curse you Muphry! Curse you!
A site that has an article telling us how "nosql databases go mobile" isn't one that I take too seriously.
There is nothing "moral" or even "right" about Westboro. They claim it, much as many of Islam do...but, we do know better in both cases, now don't we?
Rather missing the point entirely, aren't you?
You have a Constitutional right to petition your government. You do NOT have the Constitutional right to petition the grieving families at a soldier's funeral. Sorry, but even free speech is not absolute.
Agreed. And in cases where their actions violate laws (civil or criminal) they can and should pay the penalties associated with that -- whether those be financial or incarceration. Getting ye ol' virtual smack-down from anonymous isn't on the list of acceptable punishments.
Indeed they do. And Anonymous has the right to say they're a bunch of nutjob jesushumping bigots for doing so. Freedom of speech means people(generally in the form of some sort of government) can't restrict what you say. It doesn't say *anything* about not having to face the consequences of what you say... --
I agree completely - they should have to face any legal consequences (civil and criminal) that their speech incurs. (Some light research has shown that they have, in fact, done so.) What does anonymous have to do with that process again?
Well. That sure added a lot to the conversation.
That's why Facebook is such a huge thing right now. We're people, and we want to share.
But somehow "I, for one, welcome our new human overlords" doesn't have quite the right ring to it, ya know?
also thought your (assuming you're from the US) constitution was about preventing your GOVERNMENT from passing laws and prosecuting people for their speech. Nothing stopping another group from downing you out with louder free speech including a wilful DoSing.
I am indeed from the US; and you're right in that this is the intention of the 1st amendment. The concept, though, is one that underlies the foundation of this country. Summed up by EB Hall's paraphrasing of Voltaire - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,"
If they were stepping outside and peacefully (if loudly) assembling across the street from the church, I'd support them 110%. But when their method of "protest" is to a) take data that isn't theirs b) vandalize property they don't own and/or c) prevent the people they dislike from speaking in the first place (in the medium of the Internet), it's just a pathetic attempt at bullying. And in this case, I suspect, a way for a couple of big egos to grab some press for themselves.
Re: harassment. Nobody said that freedom of speech comes with freedom from consequences or responsibility. The members of that church have been arrested for their activities numerous times. And if the members of "anonymous" were willing to do the things they do without being... well... "anonymous", I might be a bit more supportive -- because then they, too, could face the consequences of their actions.
Indeed. Westboro is the Jack Thompson of the moral right.
I would argue than when your goal is suppression of another person/group's right to free speech (however offensive you may find that speech) there is no such thing as a "great target".
"Anonymous is now recognised as a serious force to be taken seriously..."
C'mon, "a serious force to be taken seriously?" Who wrote that?
Yeah, seriously.
'We, the collective super-consciousness known as ANONYMOUS – the Voice of Free Speech & the Advocate of the People – have long heard you issue your venomous statements of hatred, and we have witnessed your flagrant and absurd displays of inimitable bigotry and intolerant fanaticism,' says Anonymous, stating 'Should you ignore this warning, you will meet with the vicious retaliatory arm of ANONYMOUS.'"
I don't like anything that Westboro has to say either -- but they damned sure have the right to say it.
This entails some overhead in monitoring, but realistically... the OSS market for windows phone software isn't all that big. I would have hoped they would wait to make such a decision until it actually became burdensome.
That's more expensive though, as it requires actual people to fllow up. On the other hand, I can't picture that the number of OSS apps are *that* numerous for the Win mobile platform...
Look at the trouble Apple had posting stuff like VLC into the App Store and then had it removed via a lawsuit. Can you host Open-sourced apps if the store adds DRM to them or doesn't bundle the code in with the app?
Yes, as long as you make the source freely and easily available; and make sure the customer knows how to get it.
As long as we're talking conspiracy theory, Elop was quite possibly sent over from MS in order to acquire nokia as a partner in manufacturing . And no, of course I don't have facts to back it up. What kind of lame conspiracy theory would that be?
If by "press" you mean "bloggers" (as is becoming more common these days) -- well, who's surprised? Too many want to claim privileges of press, and too few the responsibility.
All genetic data is public domain*. You're merely the temporary custodian of your particular permutations, combinations, and mutations.
* yes. I know it probably isn't in a legal sense - but I've yet to see a convincing explanation of why it shouldn't be. We don't earn it or create it. We just pass it on or not.
Programmer or unix admin? I saw those matched parenthesis -- so which is it?
That would in large part defeat the convenience of the device that most people find valuable.
If anything, the OSes running on other smartphones of the time were far more garbage than WinMo was.
Just because an OS is flexible doesn't preclude it from being a piece of crap OS for a phone. (Said by someone who HAS owned a WinMo OS device.)