Re: Scripting languages
- From: John Doe <jdoe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:07:43 GMT
Joerg <notthisjoergsch removethispacbell.net> wrote:
John Doe wrote:
Joerg <notthisjoergsch removethispacbell.net> wrote:
John Doe wrote:
Joerg <notthisjoergsch removethispacbell.net> wrote:
But I don't want to condition my voice so that some machine
understands it.
I couldn't care less whether a machine understands what I say, and
that's not the goal. Maybe that just seems like the goal.
Then how would a machine that didn't understand your command
execute the macro that you wanted?
The distinction should be made because "recognition" is far from
"understanding". It does the recognition thing and then matches
that with the most likely possibility from a list of words in its
vocabulary. Word popularity is a heavy factor.
Whatever you call it, the objective is not to get a machine to
understand what you say. A singer conditions his voice with the
goal of wooing an audience, not to make the sound waves move
through the air in a particular way.
However, no matter how you turn it in the end the machine has to
recognize (or whatever you'd like to call it) your command and then
execute the correct macro. If it works like some voice recognition
"customer service" outfits it's 50% hit or miss.
Get real. For the vast majority of users, speech-recognition automated
phone service must be much greater than 50% hit or miss. You're dealing
with the wrong company.
Doctors and other medical professionals use speech recognition.
One thing I use speech recognition for is online gaming. Of course
that's not critical, but it gets very intense. My speech activated
macroing is absolutely positively extremely accurate, and it uses a
much larger vocabulary than a typical speech driven phone service
implementation.
Ham radio operators (I am one)
Not according to your other reply.
know how tricky that can be even for
a human when dealing with noise plus a heavy accent. So they, the
military guys
Have you ever been in the military?
and lots of others use special words. An example: They
say "niner" instead of "nine", to avoid a mix up with "five".
There's nothing unusual about using a lesser technology in a more
critical environment. Using speech recognition, you learn to fluently
revert back to doing things by hand and then back to using the
technology.
It is quite tough to make voice recognition work reliably without at
least some modification of speech.
That depends a lot on the vocabulary. If you are getting 50% accuracy
from a decent implementation of speech driven phone service that has a
few word vocabulary, Yes you should forget about using speech
recognition on a computer for dictation or macro activation.
Also, simply dismissing accents ain't going to fly anymore,
considering that more than a third of Californians have some kind of
accent. Heck, even our governor does. IOW, machine recognition has
to be able to deal with that or it's not working right.
Oh whail. If you're rich, fund the research to make it work better. If
not, either cope with the fact you cannot use it or train your voice
so that you can.
newscon02.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com
Path: newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net!newsdst02.news.prodigy.net!
prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!
newssvr11.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!78df62d6!not-for-mail
From: Joerg <notthisjoergsch removethispacbell.net>Gecko/20040113
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.6)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en<h7huc350695eulqgdihfdi57v2eeu2sef5 4ax.com> <46CF549F.9090104
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: Scripting languages
References: <13cufcj2i2tq7c9 corp.supernews.com>
SpamMeSenseless.pergamos.net> <13cuv22h4v766e0 corp.supernews.com>
<1188225692.806005.172290 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> <XdEAi.56$3Y1.10
newssvr17.news.prodigy.net> <YlEAi.50$4J3.8 newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>
<fxEAi.63$3Y1.58 newssvr17.news.prodigy.net> <AJEAi.21585$eY.13393
newssvr13.news.prodigy.net> <w9HAi.434$FO2.325
newssvr14.news.prodigy.net> <AqHAi.438$FO2.244
newssvr14.news.prodigy.net> <eOHAi.65$4J3.5 newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>
In-Reply-To: <eOHAi.65$4J3.5 newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>(Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:42:27 EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <nrIAi.30719$RX.29900 newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.26.178.215
X-Complaints-To: abuse prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.net 1188254547 ST000 75.26.178.215
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:42:27 EDT\JXUCKVFDYZKBMSFX^OMSAFNTINTDDMVW[X\THOPXZRVOCJTUTPC\_JSBVX
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: TSU[ ION_ZUYB_TY]ZKTOFTBTR\B GXLN GZ_GYO^ZUDUWYAKVUOPCW[ML
\KAOTBAJBVMZTYAKMNLDI_MFDSSOLXINH__FS^\WQGHGI^C E[A_CF\AQLDQ
\BTMPLDFNVUQ_VM
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 22:42:27 GMT(newsdbm02.news.prodigy.net)
Xref: prodigy.net sci.electronics.design:835519
X-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 18:43:01 EDT
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Scripting languages
- From: Joerg
- Re: Scripting languages
- References:
- Ping John Larkin
- From: Robert
- Re: Ping John Larkin
- From: John Larkin
- Re: Ping John Larkin
- From: Phil Hobbs
- Re: Ping John Larkin
- From: Joel Kolstad
- Scripting languages (was: Ping John Larkin)
- From: pcdhobbs
- Re: Scripting languages (was: Ping John Larkin)
- From: John Doe
- Re: Scripting languages
- From: Joerg
- Re: Scripting languages
- From: John Doe
- Re: Scripting languages
- From: Joerg
- Re: Scripting languages
- From: John Doe
- Re: Scripting languages
- From: Joerg
- Re: Scripting languages
- From: John Doe
- Re: Scripting languages
- From: Joerg
- Ping John Larkin
- Prev by Date: Re: Flexible Instruction Set Encoding.
- Next by Date: Re: OT: American flyers bomb their allies AGAIN !
- Previous by thread: Re: Scripting languages
- Next by thread: Re: Scripting languages
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|