Yep - that's the only thing stopping me from going out and getting one. I'm sure I'd find it extremely useful, but have an aversion to looking like a dickhead.
It's unfortunate that a few people who feel they need to advertise to the world that they're really important can ruin a technology for the rest of us:(.
Wake me up when you can get a custom kernel patch for Windows - from somebody other than microsoft - for under $100K.
Exactly. And swords make much better weapons than machine guns. Those machine gun n00bs keep telling me that guns are better from a distance, but I'm yet to find _anyone_ who is willing to sharpen the blade on a machine gun...
Actually, if I am not mistaken, there is something in the Bible against profiteering and gathering wealth in general
1. There is a big difference between profiteering and making a profit. 2. Not everyone lives by the "code of conduct" presented in the bible.
I personally see nothing intrinsically wrong with gathering wealth. I do have problems with some methods by which it may be gathered. I also have problems with many practices that are condoned in the bible, and see them as completely evil.
Just because the bible says something is good or bad, does not mean everyone views those things as good or bad.
If Google were to start sacrificing animals, or keeping slaves (even if they were allowed to go free after the biblically acceptable 7 years), then I would call them evil.
If this is a true tenent of the Ninja philosphy; always be able to kill your students. It follows that your students will be less skilled than you... So the next generation of teachers will be less skillful, and so on.
While I agree with the gist of what you are saying (this guy is clearly talking out his arse), there is a problem in your logic. You assume that only students may learn. Generations may actually get more skillful if the teacher continues to get better as they teach. Their students will never be as good as them, but each student who becomes a teacher may be better than their teacher was when they started teaching.
I wouldn't count on any "voice search" to be usefull in the slightest.
But that's what's novel about this patent. It doesn't just run voice recognition and put a resulting string into the normal google search.
It generates a weighted list of things that you *might* have said, looks them all up, revises the weights based on the results, and returns all the results, using the weights to help order them.
If you had bothered to RTFP, you'd know:P. The patent doesn't explicitly say what type of data you are searching - it just says that it generates a list of weighted hypothesis for what the searcher may have said (i.e. a bunch of text strings with probabilities attached), and forwards them on to a (text-based) search engine.
I'd say they are intending for this to interface with any of the existing google searches (web, images, news, etc). Your idea of searching audio, while interesting, would be completely separate to this patent - if you could generate text indices for the audio files (voice recognition on the audio files), then you could apply this patent.
This patent certainly makes no attempt to provide audio files in the results based on sounds that are similar to the user's audio request.
Yeah, because combining 2 technologies is never novel...
How about:
Sliced bread/heating elements - this turned out to be one of the best inventions since, well... never mind
radio waves and telephones - both quite old technologies, but where would we be without them combined?
In general, I think it's customary to at least look at a patent before commenting on its novelty. If you had, you may find that the patent goes a little further than just saying "take search, and add voice recognition". Oh wait - what site am I on again?
I'd say that if Google had any serious plans to do anything with this, then we would have heard something about it already (something more than a paper written 4 years ago). Although the patent was only just issued today, it was filed over 5 years ago.
It seems like a pretty big logical leap to say that it is "coming soon" based on the fact that the USPTO finally got their butts into gear.
It's probably just an idea they though was cool at the time, and should be patented in case they want to use it some time.
[...] designed to shoot down enemy missiles half a world away, at the speed of light
That's a pretty impressive feat. Does it shoot the laser straight through the Earth's core? Or have they managed to get the jumbo to fly at the speed of light?
Yep, the linked article is unfortunately pretty light on both detail and factual accuracy. A much better source of information, with a reference to Lucent's patent is available here: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30743.
Still, the original GamerNode link for this story is an amusing read, with gems such as, "Lucent claims that Microsoft has violated copyright patent laws". Uh.. What is a 'copyright patent law'? Are they trying to say that Lucent has the copyright on the patent laws? Or are they just confused about the difference between these two relatively unrelated concepts?
Slashdot Mirror
Yep - that's the only thing stopping me from going out and getting one. I'm sure I'd find it extremely useful, but have an aversion to looking like a dickhead.
:(.
It's unfortunate that a few people who feel they need to advertise to the world that they're really important can ruin a technology for the rest of us
Wake me up when you can get a custom kernel patch for Windows - from somebody other than microsoft - for under $100K.
Exactly. And swords make much better weapons than machine guns. Those machine gun n00bs keep telling me that guns are better from a distance, but I'm yet to find _anyone_ who is willing to sharpen the blade on a machine gun...
Wow - you could have at least warn... Oh, never mind.
wow u r fat
This couldn't have happened with MS Windows, that's for sure...
Sure it could. If the bug has no behavioural symptoms, or no method of reproduction, then it would hardly be a critical issue.
This bug could have been found by running the relevant X11 feature with appropriate uid/euid. The code would not have behaved correctly.
Arrr!!
However, he worked on the tech side of a TV broadcasting station
Hey - I work for teh tech side of a TV broadcasting station, you insensitive clod!!!11!!one!
Actually, if I am not mistaken, there is something in the Bible against profiteering and gathering wealth in general
1. There is a big difference between profiteering and making a profit.
2. Not everyone lives by the "code of conduct" presented in the bible.
I personally see nothing intrinsically wrong with gathering wealth. I do have problems with some methods by which it may be gathered. I also have problems with many practices that are condoned in the bible, and see them as completely evil.
Just because the bible says something is good or bad, does not mean everyone views those things as good or bad.
If Google were to start sacrificing animals, or keeping slaves (even if they were allowed to go free after the biblically acceptable 7 years), then I would call them evil.
If this is a true tenent of the Ninja philosphy; always be able to kill your students. It follows that your students will be less skilled than you... So the next generation of teachers will be less skillful, and so on.
While I agree with the gist of what you are saying (this guy is clearly talking out his arse), there is a problem in your logic. You assume that only students may learn. Generations may actually get more skillful if the teacher continues to get better as they teach. Their students will never be as good as them, but each student who becomes a teacher may be better than their teacher was when they started teaching.
Didn't I read about this yesterday? Oh, wait.. We're redesigning BBC this time!
I wouldn't count on any "voice search" to be usefull in the slightest.
But that's what's novel about this patent. It doesn't just run voice recognition and put a resulting string into the normal google search.
It generates a weighted list of things that you *might* have said, looks them all up, revises the weights based on the results, and returns all the results, using the weights to help order them.
Now which is it?
:P. The patent doesn't explicitly say what type of data you are searching - it just says that it generates a list of weighted hypothesis for what the searcher may have said (i.e. a bunch of text strings with probabilities attached), and forwards them on to a (text-based) search engine.
If you had bothered to RTFP, you'd know
I'd say they are intending for this to interface with any of the existing google searches (web, images, news, etc). Your idea of searching audio, while interesting, would be completely separate to this patent - if you could generate text indices for the audio files (voice recognition on the audio files), then you could apply this patent.
This patent certainly makes no attempt to provide audio files in the results based on sounds that are similar to the user's audio request.
How about:
In general, I think it's customary to at least look at a patent before commenting on its novelty. If you had, you may find that the patent goes a little further than just saying "take search, and add voice recognition". Oh wait - what site am I on again?
I'd say that if Google had any serious plans to do anything with this, then we would have heard something about it already (something more than a paper written 4 years ago). Although the patent was only just issued today, it was filed over 5 years ago.
It seems like a pretty big logical leap to say that it is "coming soon" based on the fact that the USPTO finally got their butts into gear.
It's probably just an idea they though was cool at the time, and should be patented in case they want to use it some time.
that you try this new application that is out... Linux :-)
But can it run Linux?
> I think the bigger question is this: Can they mount those frickin' laserbeams on sharks?
Does slashdot have a policy on censorship?
Yeah - any time anyone says "frickin'", it automatically converts it to "frickin'"
[...] designed to shoot down enemy missiles half a world away, at the speed of light
That's a pretty impressive feat. Does it shoot the laser straight through the Earth's core? Or have they managed to get the jumbo to fly at the speed of light?
Just like insect can walk on water but you can't
Hey - *I* can walk on water, you insensitive clod!
You gotta be careful about moon cooties...
Somehow, I suspect that's the only kind of cooties you need to worry about.
I've always thought that makes it sound like "Urinous", i.e. made of urine. Maybe that's just me though.
It's
not
that hard.
Have a go!
You might be surprised
at the peotry you can write!
I
hope
the mods
can have fun,
or I'll get modded
as a troll for my "first post" gag
First
Post!
I bet
nobody
can beat me to it
with a Fibonacci poem!
Yep, the linked article is unfortunately pretty light on both detail and factual accuracy. A much better source of information, with a reference to Lucent's patent is available here: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30743.
The patent being disputed is available here
Still, the original GamerNode link for this story is an amusing read, with gems such as, "Lucent claims that Microsoft has violated copyright patent laws". Uh.. What is a 'copyright patent law'? Are they trying to say that Lucent has the copyright on the patent laws? Or are they just confused about the difference between these two relatively unrelated concepts?
I could write a long narrative about the ethics of post-modern male chauvinism
Yep - go for it. It just has to be more interesting than the thing about the 1m^3 box.