We probably won't agree here, because you don't see any value in the concept. I do, so I'll just let stand my opinion in my first reply and call it a night. I think it's an interesting approach with room for improvement, in much the same way any new technique or idea is introduced and explored. It will develop and turn into something better, either by inspiring someone else, or perhaps by Microsoft making something more of it... or it will be replaced by a better entirely different technique, (I'm guessing you're in support of the latter).
I will admit that looking back I was being a little quixotic in one respect...
Meh... who cares who does it.
...Patents being the way they are these days, I guess I kind of do care who does it.
Doubtful. Other researchers will, by trying other techniques, but not these guys. There is nothing interesting here.
Meh... who cares who does it. To reflect back from a prior post...
It would be great as part of some total voice translation package, but they've done the easy part while omitting the hard part. This is my understanding of the situation.
The idea has very little to do with semantically correct translations, and as such it may have less appeal to people more interested in the accurate conveyance of meaning in translation systems. This wasn't a showcase of translations however... it was presented as a way to improve text to speech in multilingual applications, and it doesn't seem like a terrible approach, even if not yet perfectly executed. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that you were saying it was anything else... you just seem more interested in accurate translations than the actual presentation. Not even saying you're wrong - hey, form follows function. Just saying I think it's valid, even if not of universal interest.
It's not garbage, and if they had real innovations, it would be nice. Instead, they've taken a few characteristics of a speaker, like pitch, and used those to model the computer voice in another language.
No, if you listened to the keynote, they took speech characteristics, and then broke the target voice pattern up into 5ms pieces and reconstructed the voice to match a reference translation from a different language. What they are doing is not only very interesting, but clearly has space for improvement and a variety of applications.
It's about as interesting as if someone said, "what would you look like if you were a boy?" (or girl, if you are male), and then sampled your eye color, hair length, nose shape, etc, and then morphed those into a stock photo of a boy. Yeah, it would have some characteristics of you, but it also wouldn't be what you would look like if you were a boy.
That's sort of the point. The sampled voice may not speak fluent Mandarin, but if you'd like it to, this technology will allow it to. A better analogy would be along the lines of taking a computerized sample of your body shape and texture, (skin, hair, face, etc), and then using 3D animation to reconstruct a model of you doing karate, even if you didn't actually know karate.
Eventually, as the 'resolution' improves, the bits of this that you disapprove of, (the computerized feel you are getting from the voice), will most certainly improve as well. But it's the underlying ideas and tech which are interesting here.
So they've figured out that grown-ups don't drive the popularity of social networking sites?
They already knew this. The're just doing the Google thing of tossing a product out there early before throwing the doors wide open and implementing every idea or option all at once. Might as well get the product out there early, then start slowly adding in the features and opening up the access. You can do that with a "cloud" product if you want to. Kind of tough to do that with traditional off the shelf software.
I'd be shocked if they hadn't planned this from the start, and just decided to try and get it right first. Heck, they're Google. I bet they know more metrics about browsing habits and demographics than just about anyone.
...when I hated phones that did anything other than make phone calls. I had a cellular phone so I could call people. I didn't want calendars that were awkward to use, I didn't want stupid games, I didn't want colour screens, and I sure has heck didn't want a camera that could only produce grainy photos the size of icons . A simple hand-held phone with 12 push buttons for punching in phone numbers, a decent battery, and a back-lit LCD from a pocket calculator - that was good enough for me. All I wanted was clear, simple, voice communications.
In short, when the day that I dreaded finally came, and my boss tossed me a cheap Blackberry, I was thoroughly disgusted. It seemed to do everything relatively poorly except make a half decent phone call - that it couldn't do to save it's own diodes, and the phone rarely kept up with me whilst dialing numbers. The question "will it blend" became less about testing the robustness of a blender, and more about the sadistic glee I would receive while watching it disintegrate violently, forever freeing me from its torturous choke-hold on my daily life.
But that was then, and these days, smart phones are now a vital part of what I do. They are better. They're faster. The networks are faster. The newer phones don't have to take a half an hour to boot. They integrate with the work I do. I need a lot of access to various types of communications and data on the road, and in emergencies, I need ways of dealing with certain issues remotely. Today's decent smartphones are fast enough and versatile enough to allow me to access information and perform vital tasks when I'm visiting a client or travelling. If I'm in a pinch, I can tether my netbook and get things done that way too. I think smart phones are finally coming into their own.
Scandisk is a fantastic way to destroy even more data... scandisk tries to correct file system problems. It does not try to recover damaged bits on a disk surface. Software like Scandisk, Chkdsk, and fsck should be avoided. Instead, try software like SpinRite using a very good floppy drive.
This has been around for a while. It's part of vPro, and it already has the ability to boot a machine with a disabled HDD using an ISO remotely. I'm kind of shocked because this isn't exactly news... I've been showing our clients how to use VNC Viewer Plus to remotely manage hardware for some time now.
Like Intel's Centrino product, vPro is a suite of technologies designed to aid with management in environments where machines are deployed. The VNC component allows for out-of-band remote KVM - this means you can work on a system even if there is no OS, or if the OS isn't working correctly. vPro also provides hardware aid for full disk encryption, (more secure than software-only solutions), as well as asset tracking through software such as Computrace Lowjack, (includes other features like remotely bricking a system, etc.).
vPro presently only works on i5/i7 systems with a vPro enabled chipset. It is one of those major features which Intel has been unable to market successfully, as proven by the general lack of knowledge here at Slashdot.
Because people don't understand digital signatures. They do understand a FAX machine. I find it amazing how many purchase orders our company still receives by FAX. But I see and hear it all the time - when an on-line system fails, (or more likely, when someone fails to understand an on-line system), they revert back to the easiest way to get the job done.
And who started spouting about FAX being more secure than email? Forget security - that's something we came up with, not something the users are ever thinking about... If an IT person was thinking about security, they'd still send stuff by email... encrypted. Why would anyone even think a FAX is a secure way to send when you can't control how the document arrives or who sees it when it gets there? We're talking about your average office staff here. FAX machines offer comfort, and a perception of simplicity and reliability.
When people don't trust technology, and when people don't understand technology, then people don't use technology. It's as simple as that.
Heck, I could spout a lot of jargon and babble, throw it on a Joomla site, grab a copy of Artisteer, and make the whole thing a lot more convincing than what he threw together. If this is a con, it's a horrible one. Even his LinkedIn profile looks like it was thrown together with crayons and Scotch tape. The way one presents one's self should involve at least an attempt at professionalism. Even I wear a suit and tie at an interview. I know nothing of radioactive isotopes or lasers powered turbines, but anyone seriously considering investing in this is insane.
I love Linux, however, there isn't going to be 'The Year of the Linux Desktop'. Maybe there will be a 'The Decade of Gradual Adoption of the Linux Desktop for Enthusiasts', or perhaps 'The Eventual Five Year Rise of One Linux Distribution to Market Dominance in the *NIX Desktop Sector', but I suspect that we'll see different hardware form-factors make the desktop as we know it more or less irrelevant long before Linux makes any startling leaps in mainstream acceptance.
While some people find all the speculation entertaining, I'm not really holding my breath. In spite of the questionable analogy here, I imagine that the present incarnation of Google+ is nowhere near an accurate representation of what it will be. Google, being what they are, will probably find a compromise between the "social climate" and their own goals and thoughts on policy. And it probably will evolve. Most of the good stuff from Google gets caught up in an evolutionary process.
As far as aliases and pseudonyms, if this is really the deal-breaker that a lot of outspoken people say it is, I suspect Google will address it carefully, and not just barge into a solution. Anyone out there feel like they would prefer Google to change policies like underwear until they find something that works? As a Google+ user, I'd wait it out, and see what they come up with. It's ludicrous to believe anything is set in stone at this stage of the game, while the Google+ network is still a relatively controlled testing environment, (albeit with a lot of beta testers).
You're probably not alone. On the other hand, (and forgive me for jumping to conclusions), it sounds like you're thinking about devices such as tablets or cell phones. Those aren't the only applications for battery technology.
That's the great thing about discovery... Just because someone came up with a new technology, doesn't mean future applications are readily apparent. Someone out there is going to think, "Hey! This sucks for laptops, but you know what this would be great for?!...." and the next thing you know you have contact lenses with a HUD.
That's the root problem... the government lost control. Regaining control is becoming increasingly more difficult and messy. Information flows too easily. Not so long ago, they used to be able to stick a finger or two in the dam to keep the flow of information at bay, but the dam is about to burst, and the government is grasping at straws, (sorry to mix metaphors), and someone will have to be held accountable.
At some point, we will either have a situation where the citizens have ultimate control over how their country operates, or the government will have to toss out bigger and bigger chunks of the constitution to handle the fallout.
...introducing intelligent car noise. Have electric cars make a 'beep beep' sound as they are backing, similar to the way a larger truck might. Whilst driving forwards, change the volume and/or pitch of the audio produced at various speeds to reduce noise pollution but maintain awareness of the vehicle. Also, make the noise directional! If you focus the sound forwards, it will reduce automobile noise in neighbourhoods, (you tend to drive forwards, not sideways, so focusing the audio in the direction you are driving should help reduce noise pollution as well).
...as if millions of chirping birds suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
More like peace and quiet for once... At the risk of careening off topic, anyone else think the web has become an unnecessarily noisy place? It's getting harder and harder to cut through the crap and meaningless prattle...
Where are you from, so that I can make up a ridiculous name for your nationality?
Probably from Canada... definitely from somewhere in the America's though. I've met a lot of people who often get peeved that the US has decided that somehow they are Americans and others from countries in the Americas are not.
It seems nice to have a day for it... people don't care or even notice that System Admins exist until something goes wrong, and then they are simply blamed until it goes right again.
Instead, a committee seems to be doing everything in its power to hold it back... what happened to the heady days of the internet when a standard popped onto the scene and quickly matured to give way for the next one? YES - many were not perfect, but that's why standards evolve. Instead, we now seem to be on this endless, "Duke Nukem Forever"-like quest to perfect the thing, even if it takes 10 or more years before it settles out.
You seem to forget that the reason standards are created is to prevent things from being done the wrong way. You are promoting trial and error... flying by the seat of your pants... hey, it will eventually work out. I for one don't want them introducing a standard done the wrong way, only to have to support that bad method in the future. I'm sick of coding for multiple browsers just because different people have different ideas about the way something should be done.
We aren't in the pioneer days of the internet anymore, where a few people decided to settle in and plough some land. The net has grown exponentially from those glory days, and there's a lot more at stake when it comes to investing in a way of doing things.... and there are a LOT more opinions on how it should be done.
Not saying it's easy to swallow, just saying that hopping up and down with clenched fists won't result in an accepted and established standard any quicker.
...straightforward, simple-to-use programming interfaces for ordinary humans?
I think the problem here is there are a lot of people who fancy themselves programmers because they managed to complete the "Hello world!" tutorial in VB, and now they want to write software which writes itself. theodp clearly seems to know that this is a programming interface, (as per the above quote), but is inferring that it should be designed so that every Johnny-come-lately who can tell a turtle where to go should be able to sit down and make use of it intuitively.
Which raises the question: Is Bell Helicopter with 'world-class engineering skills' capable of producing straightforward, simple-to-use helicopter interfaces for ordinary humans? Like your mom?
Slashdot Mirror
We probably won't agree here, because you don't see any value in the concept. I do, so I'll just let stand my opinion in my first reply and call it a night. I think it's an interesting approach with room for improvement, in much the same way any new technique or idea is introduced and explored. It will develop and turn into something better, either by inspiring someone else, or perhaps by Microsoft making something more of it... or it will be replaced by a better entirely different technique, (I'm guessing you're in support of the latter).
I will admit that looking back I was being a little quixotic in one respect...
Meh... who cares who does it.
...Patents being the way they are these days, I guess I kind of do care who does it.
Doubtful. Other researchers will, by trying other techniques, but not these guys. There is nothing interesting here.
Meh... who cares who does it. To reflect back from a prior post...
It would be great as part of some total voice translation package, but they've done the easy part while omitting the hard part. This is my understanding of the situation.
The idea has very little to do with semantically correct translations, and as such it may have less appeal to people more interested in the accurate conveyance of meaning in translation systems. This wasn't a showcase of translations however... it was presented as a way to improve text to speech in multilingual applications, and it doesn't seem like a terrible approach, even if not yet perfectly executed. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that you were saying it was anything else... you just seem more interested in accurate translations than the actual presentation. Not even saying you're wrong - hey, form follows function. Just saying I think it's valid, even if not of universal interest.
It's not garbage, and if they had real innovations, it would be nice. Instead, they've taken a few characteristics of a speaker, like pitch, and used those to model the computer voice in another language.
No, if you listened to the keynote, they took speech characteristics, and then broke the target voice pattern up into 5ms pieces and reconstructed the voice to match a reference translation from a different language. What they are doing is not only very interesting, but clearly has space for improvement and a variety of applications.
It's about as interesting as if someone said, "what would you look like if you were a boy?" (or girl, if you are male), and then sampled your eye color, hair length, nose shape, etc, and then morphed those into a stock photo of a boy. Yeah, it would have some characteristics of you, but it also wouldn't be what you would look like if you were a boy.
That's sort of the point. The sampled voice may not speak fluent Mandarin, but if you'd like it to, this technology will allow it to. A better analogy would be along the lines of taking a computerized sample of your body shape and texture, (skin, hair, face, etc), and then using 3D animation to reconstruct a model of you doing karate, even if you didn't actually know karate.
Eventually, as the 'resolution' improves, the bits of this that you disapprove of, (the computerized feel you are getting from the voice), will most certainly improve as well. But it's the underlying ideas and tech which are interesting here.
Usually?!? How many phones do you go through, man?
So they've figured out that grown-ups don't drive the popularity of social networking sites?
They already knew this. The're just doing the Google thing of tossing a product out there early before throwing the doors wide open and implementing every idea or option all at once. Might as well get the product out there early, then start slowly adding in the features and opening up the access. You can do that with a "cloud" product if you want to. Kind of tough to do that with traditional off the shelf software.
I'd be shocked if they hadn't planned this from the start, and just decided to try and get it right first. Heck, they're Google. I bet they know more metrics about browsing habits and demographics than just about anyone.
Nah... pretty much everything they make is crap. That's why they buy companies like Sybari.
...when I hated phones that did anything other than make phone calls. I had a cellular phone so I could call people. I didn't want calendars that were awkward to use, I didn't want stupid games, I didn't want colour screens, and I sure has heck didn't want a camera that could only produce grainy photos the size of icons . A simple hand-held phone with 12 push buttons for punching in phone numbers, a decent battery, and a back-lit LCD from a pocket calculator - that was good enough for me. All I wanted was clear, simple, voice communications.
In short, when the day that I dreaded finally came, and my boss tossed me a cheap Blackberry, I was thoroughly disgusted. It seemed to do everything relatively poorly except make a half decent phone call - that it couldn't do to save it's own diodes, and the phone rarely kept up with me whilst dialing numbers. The question "will it blend" became less about testing the robustness of a blender, and more about the sadistic glee I would receive while watching it disintegrate violently, forever freeing me from its torturous choke-hold on my daily life.
But that was then, and these days, smart phones are now a vital part of what I do. They are better. They're faster. The networks are faster. The newer phones don't have to take a half an hour to boot. They integrate with the work I do. I need a lot of access to various types of communications and data on the road, and in emergencies, I need ways of dealing with certain issues remotely. Today's decent smartphones are fast enough and versatile enough to allow me to access information and perform vital tasks when I'm visiting a client or travelling. If I'm in a pinch, I can tether my netbook and get things done that way too. I think smart phones are finally coming into their own.
Scandisk is a fantastic way to destroy even more data... scandisk tries to correct file system problems. It does not try to recover damaged bits on a disk surface. Software like Scandisk, Chkdsk, and fsck should be avoided. Instead, try software like SpinRite using a very good floppy drive.
This has been around for a while. It's part of vPro, and it already has the ability to boot a machine with a disabled HDD using an ISO remotely. I'm kind of shocked because this isn't exactly news... I've been showing our clients how to use VNC Viewer Plus to remotely manage hardware for some time now.
Like Intel's Centrino product, vPro is a suite of technologies designed to aid with management in environments where machines are deployed. The VNC component allows for out-of-band remote KVM - this means you can work on a system even if there is no OS, or if the OS isn't working correctly. vPro also provides hardware aid for full disk encryption, (more secure than software-only solutions), as well as asset tracking through software such as Computrace Lowjack, (includes other features like remotely bricking a system, etc.).
vPro presently only works on i5/i7 systems with a vPro enabled chipset. It is one of those major features which Intel has been unable to market successfully, as proven by the general lack of knowledge here at Slashdot.
Sounds like a great low-cost solution....
Because people don't understand digital signatures. They do understand a FAX machine. I find it amazing how many purchase orders our company still receives by FAX. But I see and hear it all the time - when an on-line system fails, (or more likely, when someone fails to understand an on-line system), they revert back to the easiest way to get the job done.
And who started spouting about FAX being more secure than email? Forget security - that's something we came up with, not something the users are ever thinking about... If an IT person was thinking about security, they'd still send stuff by email... encrypted. Why would anyone even think a FAX is a secure way to send when you can't control how the document arrives or who sees it when it gets there? We're talking about your average office staff here. FAX machines offer comfort, and a perception of simplicity and reliability.
When people don't trust technology, and when people don't understand technology, then people don't use technology. It's as simple as that.
Heck, I could spout a lot of jargon and babble, throw it on a Joomla site, grab a copy of Artisteer, and make the whole thing a lot more convincing than what he threw together. If this is a con, it's a horrible one. Even his LinkedIn profile looks like it was thrown together with crayons and Scotch tape. The way one presents one's self should involve at least an attempt at professionalism. Even I wear a suit and tie at an interview. I know nothing of radioactive isotopes or lasers powered turbines, but anyone seriously considering investing in this is insane.
I love Linux, however, there isn't going to be 'The Year of the Linux Desktop'. Maybe there will be a 'The Decade of Gradual Adoption of the Linux Desktop for Enthusiasts', or perhaps 'The Eventual Five Year Rise of One Linux Distribution to Market Dominance in the *NIX Desktop Sector', but I suspect that we'll see different hardware form-factors make the desktop as we know it more or less irrelevant long before Linux makes any startling leaps in mainstream acceptance.
While some people find all the speculation entertaining, I'm not really holding my breath. In spite of the questionable analogy here, I imagine that the present incarnation of Google+ is nowhere near an accurate representation of what it will be. Google, being what they are, will probably find a compromise between the "social climate" and their own goals and thoughts on policy. And it probably will evolve. Most of the good stuff from Google gets caught up in an evolutionary process.
As far as aliases and pseudonyms, if this is really the deal-breaker that a lot of outspoken people say it is, I suspect Google will address it carefully, and not just barge into a solution. Anyone out there feel like they would prefer Google to change policies like underwear until they find something that works? As a Google+ user, I'd wait it out, and see what they come up with. It's ludicrous to believe anything is set in stone at this stage of the game, while the Google+ network is still a relatively controlled testing environment, (albeit with a lot of beta testers).
I think most of us have suspected for some time that many people in the USPTO have already suffered blunt force trauma to the cranium. Repeatedly.
You're probably not alone. On the other hand, (and forgive me for jumping to conclusions), it sounds like you're thinking about devices such as tablets or cell phones. Those aren't the only applications for battery technology.
That's the great thing about discovery... Just because someone came up with a new technology, doesn't mean future applications are readily apparent. Someone out there is going to think, "Hey! This sucks for laptops, but you know what this would be great for?!...." and the next thing you know you have contact lenses with a HUD.
That's the root problem... the government lost control. Regaining control is becoming increasingly more difficult and messy. Information flows too easily. Not so long ago, they used to be able to stick a finger or two in the dam to keep the flow of information at bay, but the dam is about to burst, and the government is grasping at straws, (sorry to mix metaphors), and someone will have to be held accountable.
At some point, we will either have a situation where the citizens have ultimate control over how their country operates, or the government will have to toss out bigger and bigger chunks of the constitution to handle the fallout.
Which do you think is more likely?
...introducing intelligent car noise. Have electric cars make a 'beep beep' sound as they are backing, similar to the way a larger truck might. Whilst driving forwards, change the volume and/or pitch of the audio produced at various speeds to reduce noise pollution but maintain awareness of the vehicle. Also, make the noise directional! If you focus the sound forwards, it will reduce automobile noise in neighbourhoods, (you tend to drive forwards, not sideways, so focusing the audio in the direction you are driving should help reduce noise pollution as well).
Just some thoughts.
...as if millions of chirping birds suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
More like peace and quiet for once... At the risk of careening off topic, anyone else think the web has become an unnecessarily noisy place? It's getting harder and harder to cut through the crap and meaningless prattle...
...hmm... I'd better shut up now....
Where are you from, so that I can make up a ridiculous name for your nationality?
Probably from Canada... definitely from somewhere in the America's though. I've met a lot of people who often get peeved that the US has decided that somehow they are Americans and others from countries in the Americas are not.
It seems nice to have a day for it... people don't care or even notice that System Admins exist until something goes wrong, and then they are simply blamed until it goes right again.
I love all the /. people commenting on YouTube... it's like finding nachos on the moon.
Instead, a committee seems to be doing everything in its power to hold it back... what happened to the heady days of the internet when a standard popped onto the scene and quickly matured to give way for the next one? YES - many were not perfect, but that's why standards evolve. Instead, we now seem to be on this endless, "Duke Nukem Forever"-like quest to perfect the thing, even if it takes 10 or more years before it settles out.
You seem to forget that the reason standards are created is to prevent things from being done the wrong way. You are promoting trial and error... flying by the seat of your pants... hey, it will eventually work out. I for one don't want them introducing a standard done the wrong way, only to have to support that bad method in the future. I'm sick of coding for multiple browsers just because different people have different ideas about the way something should be done. We aren't in the pioneer days of the internet anymore, where a few people decided to settle in and plough some land. The net has grown exponentially from those glory days, and there's a lot more at stake when it comes to investing in a way of doing things.... and there are a LOT more opinions on how it should be done. Not saying it's easy to swallow, just saying that hopping up and down with clenched fists won't result in an accepted and established standard any quicker.
...straightforward, simple-to-use programming interfaces for ordinary humans?
I think the problem here is there are a lot of people who fancy themselves programmers because they managed to complete the "Hello world!" tutorial in VB, and now they want to write software which writes itself. theodp clearly seems to know that this is a programming interface, (as per the above quote), but is inferring that it should be designed so that every Johnny-come-lately who can tell a turtle where to go should be able to sit down and make use of it intuitively. Which raises the question: Is Bell Helicopter with 'world-class engineering skills' capable of producing straightforward, simple-to-use helicopter interfaces for ordinary humans? Like your mom?
10MW of electricity going into your servers and quite a lot of that energy coming back out as heat ;)
Actually, aside from trivial losses, all of that 10MW load will be converted to heat.