http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36881724/ns/technology_and_science-space/
This article talks about a tourism firm who is planning on offering a ride to outer space for 102,000. An American space tourism company that arranges multimillion-dollar treks to the International Space Station for the ultra-wealthy has struck a new deal to offer suborbital spaceflights for nearly half the going cost. Virginia-based firm Space Adventures has signed an exclusive deal with Armadillo Aerospace, a Texas-based company founded by computer game entrepreneur John Carmack, to sell space tourist seats on new suborbital rocket ships that are currently in development at Armadillo. Flights aboard Armadillo's vertically-launched rocket ship in development will depart from a spaceport in the United States and take passengers to regions above 62 miles (100 kilometers), where space begins.
This is so awesome to me. I've seen some reports about this being offered to the mega elite like Richard Branson and felt I would never be able to afford such a thing. But, this price is nearly fifty percent less than the going rate that other companies provide this service for. Now I realize 102,000 is still extremely expensive and something still for the wealthy, but it's very encouraging to me that the price went down by that much. Who knows, maybe in 20 years it will only be 5000 for this opportunity. I for one would absolutely do this. I was never the kid growing up who loved space and wanted to be an astronaut, but the idea of seeing the world from outer space is absolutely fascinating to me. I can't even imagine what it would be like seeing the world from there. This is something even 20 years ago people thought was only possible in science fiction movies. Now, this is a reality.
The only thing that worries me is that as the market grows for this service, the precautions and standards may go down. This could result in a serious incident and all but likely death for anyone involved. This is all too common with other things such as food or car. There is such a demand for the products that more and more we see serious recalls on these items. I know that the two things are not very much related, but demand is demand. As we've seen in other space craft accidents all it takes is a single panel not being welded right or a screw not tight enough to cause a tragic crash. I think that is definitely something that could come about as a result of more tours being given.
http://www.spacetoday.org/Astronauts/SpaceTourists.html
This article talks more in depth about the idea of space travel in general. California millionaire investment fund manager and onetime NASA rocket scientist Dennis Tito, 60, was the first private space tourist selected by Russian space officials for a visit to the ISS. He paid $20 million for a ride up to Earth orbit aboard a Souyz craft for a 10-day round trip excursion. Currently, Russia offers a similar service that is extremely popular. The Russians have said they are holding seats for Space Adventures customers on four Soyuz flights to the ISS through 2015. Meanwhile, in July 2005 the U.S. space shuttle fleet resumed flights when Discovery flew to the station. However, further shuttle flights have been delayed by problems that cropped up during the 2005 flight. I can only hope before I die I am a position to do this.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Article Fourteen
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/25/israel.ipad.ban/index.html
This article talks about a recent issue regarding Ipad usage in Israel. When the Ipad was released, it quickly became illegal to use in Israel. They felt the devices advanced wi-fi technology would interfere with the communication capability of the country. Israeli authorities said the devices' Wi-Fi standard does not match Israel's standard, which is also used in Europe. In the past two weeks, Israelis and tourists entering the country at Ben Gurion Airport have had their iPads taken by customs officials. The country's communications ministry said it reached its decision after completing "intensive technical scrutiny." Many people across the world had publicly criticized the decision before the ban was lifted.
On the surface, this does not seem to be a big deal. However, this brings up an important principle that many people do not understand. Wi-fi is not universal. Yes, how it works is exactly the same, but the standards between a European Wi-fi capable device and an American capable device are much different. This is the reason why Israel placed the ban on the Ipad in the first place. These wi-fi differences make it easier for someone to hack into an important server and potentially do harmful things. On this regard, I completely back up Israel expressing concern over the device. They are not that developed of a country to begin with, so one can assume their internet security is not completely top notch. With Israel holding a huge stake in many governmental issues, the problem of hacking is extremely strong.
However, Israel also deserved some criticism for how they handled the situation to begin with. When the story originally broke, people were arriving into the country and with no real warning have their Ipads seized. They refused to go into specifics on plans other than they would be confiscating all Ipads due to internet security. Apparently the issue being discussed could easily be resolved just by tweaking a few things. When asked why they were refusing to do the simple tasks to fix the problem, they remained consistent on their stance. There are those who stand up with Israel with the idea that the world is backing up big business rather than a country's opinion. I have to say I can see where that argument is coming from as well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/25/apple-ipad-ban-ended-israel
This article goes into more specifics on the decision to stop the ban on Ipads.
This article talks about a recent issue regarding Ipad usage in Israel. When the Ipad was released, it quickly became illegal to use in Israel. They felt the devices advanced wi-fi technology would interfere with the communication capability of the country. Israeli authorities said the devices' Wi-Fi standard does not match Israel's standard, which is also used in Europe. In the past two weeks, Israelis and tourists entering the country at Ben Gurion Airport have had their iPads taken by customs officials. The country's communications ministry said it reached its decision after completing "intensive technical scrutiny." Many people across the world had publicly criticized the decision before the ban was lifted.
On the surface, this does not seem to be a big deal. However, this brings up an important principle that many people do not understand. Wi-fi is not universal. Yes, how it works is exactly the same, but the standards between a European Wi-fi capable device and an American capable device are much different. This is the reason why Israel placed the ban on the Ipad in the first place. These wi-fi differences make it easier for someone to hack into an important server and potentially do harmful things. On this regard, I completely back up Israel expressing concern over the device. They are not that developed of a country to begin with, so one can assume their internet security is not completely top notch. With Israel holding a huge stake in many governmental issues, the problem of hacking is extremely strong.
However, Israel also deserved some criticism for how they handled the situation to begin with. When the story originally broke, people were arriving into the country and with no real warning have their Ipads seized. They refused to go into specifics on plans other than they would be confiscating all Ipads due to internet security. Apparently the issue being discussed could easily be resolved just by tweaking a few things. When asked why they were refusing to do the simple tasks to fix the problem, they remained consistent on their stance. There are those who stand up with Israel with the idea that the world is backing up big business rather than a country's opinion. I have to say I can see where that argument is coming from as well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/apr/25/apple-ipad-ban-ended-israel
This article goes into more specifics on the decision to stop the ban on Ipads.
The country had banned imports of the iPad, which was released in the US earlier this month, because of fears its wireless signal could disrupt other devices. At least 10 iPads were seized at the country's international airport. Israel's communications ministry said officials had determined that the iPad met local standards and, as of today, imports would be permitted. Although I understand Israel's original concern, they should of tried to resolve the issue before taking a drastic measure like they did.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Article Thirteen
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/13/graphing-internet-digg-google-trends/
This article talks about how interesting new ways that a person can look at trends on the internet. The first way talks about a program specifically for diggs. The program, known as arc, is a group of Diggs that move around a circle. Larger text sizes means hotter topics. Big Spy -- perhaps the least useful tool -- shows larger text sizes for the most popular topics. And Pics is all about popular photos and graphics. The second major program is Google Trends. This program allows you to compare two different subjects to see which is more popular. It shows one this information in bar and pie graphs. The last main program is known as microsoft pivot. This allows a user to read in depth about what they are searching, say Barack Obama. Pivot shows you he was the Time Magazine person-of-the-year. You can then "pivot" this data and see every person-of-the-year, or click filters to see only African-Americans. This type of data exploration just isn't possible otherwise.
Looking through this article, it's really neat what these technologies are capable of. This really does allow a user to "watch" the internet is a way never seen before. It will make the ability to expand searches seamless and much more satisfying. Also, if these technologies work properly it will be much easier to use the information for reports or other business projects. While doing this blog I tested out a couple of these things. I'll admit, before I went to try it I wasn't expecting much. I figured it would just basically be a search engine with a couple new tools. I figured it would somewhat interesting but nothing to write home about. I was 100% wrong. I could not believe how neat it was to see information presented in the way it was. It really gave me a lot of options I would never have with a simple google search.
With that being said, there are some things I didn't care for. For starters, it took a good bit of time to load up the information after I put it into the search engine. Also, although there was more information while searching this way, it often was somewhat confusing to try and figure out what was where. I would definitely only recommend this type of search for someone who is doing a report or heavy intensive research based project. Although this may seem like common sense, if these types of technologies get extremely popular people may get dragged in and forget about the simpler ways.
An article specifically regarding Digg Lab, found here http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/03/24/new_digg_app/, discusses the idea that although interesting it is still just another search engine. The interface is nice and clean, easy to use and it will be nice to have Digg to search. But to be honest, this is Digg and I was expecting a lot more. So it is a good app and good to have, but it will need to work hard to keep my interest.
These are definitely interesting pieces of technologies, but I will still just google what I need for now.
This article talks about how interesting new ways that a person can look at trends on the internet. The first way talks about a program specifically for diggs. The program, known as arc, is a group of Diggs that move around a circle. Larger text sizes means hotter topics. Big Spy -- perhaps the least useful tool -- shows larger text sizes for the most popular topics. And Pics is all about popular photos and graphics. The second major program is Google Trends. This program allows you to compare two different subjects to see which is more popular. It shows one this information in bar and pie graphs. The last main program is known as microsoft pivot. This allows a user to read in depth about what they are searching, say Barack Obama. Pivot shows you he was the Time Magazine person-of-the-year. You can then "pivot" this data and see every person-of-the-year, or click filters to see only African-Americans. This type of data exploration just isn't possible otherwise.
Looking through this article, it's really neat what these technologies are capable of. This really does allow a user to "watch" the internet is a way never seen before. It will make the ability to expand searches seamless and much more satisfying. Also, if these technologies work properly it will be much easier to use the information for reports or other business projects. While doing this blog I tested out a couple of these things. I'll admit, before I went to try it I wasn't expecting much. I figured it would just basically be a search engine with a couple new tools. I figured it would somewhat interesting but nothing to write home about. I was 100% wrong. I could not believe how neat it was to see information presented in the way it was. It really gave me a lot of options I would never have with a simple google search.
With that being said, there are some things I didn't care for. For starters, it took a good bit of time to load up the information after I put it into the search engine. Also, although there was more information while searching this way, it often was somewhat confusing to try and figure out what was where. I would definitely only recommend this type of search for someone who is doing a report or heavy intensive research based project. Although this may seem like common sense, if these types of technologies get extremely popular people may get dragged in and forget about the simpler ways.
An article specifically regarding Digg Lab, found here http://thenextweb.com/apps/2010/03/24/new_digg_app/, discusses the idea that although interesting it is still just another search engine. The interface is nice and clean, easy to use and it will be nice to have Digg to search. But to be honest, this is Digg and I was expecting a lot more. So it is a good app and good to have, but it will need to work hard to keep my interest.
These are definitely interesting pieces of technologies, but I will still just google what I need for now.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Article Twelve
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/04/09/cnet.nasa.new.programs/index.html
This article talks about the new programs that NASA is trying to get into production for 2011. The NASA programs will center on commercial manned rockets and technology for deep space exploration. However, The new plan for NASA does not specify a long-range target for exploration. This new program will cancel out President Bush's previous plan, Constellation, which will result in thousands of lost jobs. Under this new fiscal plan, roughly $6 billion more dollars will be put into NASA research and development. This is somewhat controversial given the current state of the economy, but president Barack Obama feels it is vital for NASA research to go on stronger than ever.
I am on the fence when it comes to money being spent of space exploration. On the one hand, I realize there are many vital reasons to explore space. Understanding how space works helps us to predict patterns of behavior for Earth. Also, knowing about the distant planets and the solar system is very important to know for our future. There is also an obvious need for things such as satellites and defense systems. However, the other half of me wonders how much money is going to waste on programs that mean nothing for Earth. The most recent thing that comes to my mind is the project NASA implemented to try and find water on Mars. The cost of the project was roughly $450 million dollars. I do realize understanding the composition of other planets is important, but was this completely necessary? It certainly seems to me that our society has much more pressing needs than seeing if there water vapor on a distant planet.
I know a lot of people would argue with me that $450 million in an economy such as United States is not a whole lot, but think how many times similar money has been used on such projects. I'd guess billions upon billions of dollars have been pumped into programs that probably weren't needed. This money could be used to fuel failing government programs that need more assistance. Maybe I don't understand how important some things NASA do are, but it seems to me that the money could be a lot better spent in America
http://www.financialnewsusa.com/more/47-tech/14252-nasa-unveils-sweeping-new-programs
This article puts into better perspective the cost of the new policy broken down into more specific. It also talks more about how the new program will completely eliminate many of Bush's prior programs which will cost thousands of jobs. Looking through the costs, I see many many things that from an outsider view look superfluous. I suppose I will always wonder if only that money were used differently how it could affect society differently.
This article talks about the new programs that NASA is trying to get into production for 2011. The NASA programs will center on commercial manned rockets and technology for deep space exploration. However, The new plan for NASA does not specify a long-range target for exploration. This new program will cancel out President Bush's previous plan, Constellation, which will result in thousands of lost jobs. Under this new fiscal plan, roughly $6 billion more dollars will be put into NASA research and development. This is somewhat controversial given the current state of the economy, but president Barack Obama feels it is vital for NASA research to go on stronger than ever.
I am on the fence when it comes to money being spent of space exploration. On the one hand, I realize there are many vital reasons to explore space. Understanding how space works helps us to predict patterns of behavior for Earth. Also, knowing about the distant planets and the solar system is very important to know for our future. There is also an obvious need for things such as satellites and defense systems. However, the other half of me wonders how much money is going to waste on programs that mean nothing for Earth. The most recent thing that comes to my mind is the project NASA implemented to try and find water on Mars. The cost of the project was roughly $450 million dollars. I do realize understanding the composition of other planets is important, but was this completely necessary? It certainly seems to me that our society has much more pressing needs than seeing if there water vapor on a distant planet.
I know a lot of people would argue with me that $450 million in an economy such as United States is not a whole lot, but think how many times similar money has been used on such projects. I'd guess billions upon billions of dollars have been pumped into programs that probably weren't needed. This money could be used to fuel failing government programs that need more assistance. Maybe I don't understand how important some things NASA do are, but it seems to me that the money could be a lot better spent in America
http://www.financialnewsusa.com/more/47-tech/14252-nasa-unveils-sweeping-new-programs
This article puts into better perspective the cost of the new policy broken down into more specific. It also talks more about how the new program will completely eliminate many of Bush's prior programs which will cost thousands of jobs. Looking through the costs, I see many many things that from an outsider view look superfluous. I suppose I will always wonder if only that money were used differently how it could affect society differently.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Article Eleven
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/02/navy-developing-cyber-weapons-shoot-data/
This article talks about the U.S. Navy trying to create a remote control plane that could shoot data beams instead of actual attacks. According to the report, the navy expects to spend around $400 million dollars over the next eight years to try and accomplish this feat. The practical uses could include jamming an enemy's radar signal, or cut of communications of a buildings. This plane would be a completely unmanned aircraft vessel controlled by remote control at a central command base. There would be a defensive weapons system on the plate as well. The use of nanotechnology would be vital to recognize distinct radio and wave signals as well as antenna signals. The Navy cites that this airplane is currently only in the planning phase and still needs approval from other government outlets before the construction begins.
This is such an interesting piece of technology that would be amazing for use in the wars of the future. Imagine a plane that would be able to shut down communications and jam computers. Ground forces would be able to gain a strategic advantage before having to risk their lives invading a building or area. It's simply amazing that we have come this far in society today. Not only can we use this in war, but the fact that it will be unmanned is so great to save lives. I really hope that this idea gets pushed through and the project gets completed. A lot of times sadly these great ideas do even get approval yet never get finished due to lack of resources of man power. If the Navy decides to stick this one out and put it into production for use in future wars.
A lot of the time I see people talking about how the government wastes money on projects like this. This really frustrates me and makes me realize that people are ignorant to the world around. We are arguably the most technologically advanced country in the world, and in order for that to stay this way we have to be on the cutting edge of technology. If we do not spend the necessary funds to stay on top of the game, another country will gain the edge over us. I think Americans take for granted the fact we have never been truly invaded by another country on our mainland. This is largely due to the fact that we have spent the money to create a defense system that is cutting edge. Without this defense, who knows what could possibly happen to the America we all live in.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,212940,00.html
this article is a direct link from the military discussing the specifics on how the airplane would function and its uses again. It goes into good detail on the exact radar technology that would be used and each step of the production throughout the eight year process. The director of the process told the reporter that this type of technology is slowly becoming vital to warfare of the future. Without these types of technologies America could fall behind and be susceptible to attack. Although people may disagree that this money is being spent inappropriately, its obvious to me that this type of advanced digital fighting is necessary for our country.
This article talks about the U.S. Navy trying to create a remote control plane that could shoot data beams instead of actual attacks. According to the report, the navy expects to spend around $400 million dollars over the next eight years to try and accomplish this feat. The practical uses could include jamming an enemy's radar signal, or cut of communications of a buildings. This plane would be a completely unmanned aircraft vessel controlled by remote control at a central command base. There would be a defensive weapons system on the plate as well. The use of nanotechnology would be vital to recognize distinct radio and wave signals as well as antenna signals. The Navy cites that this airplane is currently only in the planning phase and still needs approval from other government outlets before the construction begins.
This is such an interesting piece of technology that would be amazing for use in the wars of the future. Imagine a plane that would be able to shut down communications and jam computers. Ground forces would be able to gain a strategic advantage before having to risk their lives invading a building or area. It's simply amazing that we have come this far in society today. Not only can we use this in war, but the fact that it will be unmanned is so great to save lives. I really hope that this idea gets pushed through and the project gets completed. A lot of times sadly these great ideas do even get approval yet never get finished due to lack of resources of man power. If the Navy decides to stick this one out and put it into production for use in future wars.
A lot of the time I see people talking about how the government wastes money on projects like this. This really frustrates me and makes me realize that people are ignorant to the world around. We are arguably the most technologically advanced country in the world, and in order for that to stay this way we have to be on the cutting edge of technology. If we do not spend the necessary funds to stay on top of the game, another country will gain the edge over us. I think Americans take for granted the fact we have never been truly invaded by another country on our mainland. This is largely due to the fact that we have spent the money to create a defense system that is cutting edge. Without this defense, who knows what could possibly happen to the America we all live in.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,212940,00.html
this article is a direct link from the military discussing the specifics on how the airplane would function and its uses again. It goes into good detail on the exact radar technology that would be used and each step of the production throughout the eight year process. The director of the process told the reporter that this type of technology is slowly becoming vital to warfare of the future. Without these types of technologies America could fall behind and be susceptible to attack. Although people may disagree that this money is being spent inappropriately, its obvious to me that this type of advanced digital fighting is necessary for our country.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Article Ten
http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/26/a-new-look-at-spam-by-the-numbers/
This article talks about the ever prevalent problem of spam. A recent research venture done by Twitter showed that only 1% of posts were spam. This may seem encouraging, but in regards to email only 10% are not considered as spam. On average, an email address receives 100 spam messages a day. This is most likely a direct result if hackers setting up "phantom computers", or computers that simply send out mass spam email. Shockingly, according to a survey conducted by CNN nearly half the people still click on these links despite them realizing it is spam. To try and fight this battle, the government has put out a list of tips and tricks to try and avoid falling for spam. Twitter has also taken the same initiative to try and get less people to possibly give up personal information.
I find it shocking how many people can possibly fall for the spam emails we all get every day. Sure, on the surface it sounds great. "Fill out a survey and get a $500 gift card of your choice!" or "email submit for a new LCD TV!". Really people, does this even sound realistic. I understand it can be sometimes hard to sway away from these ads, but clearly this is a case of too good to be true. It's almost sad to hear these stories because typically it tends to be those who are in need of money or have some sort of mental disability. I feel badly for these people, but especially those in need of money have to realize the impossibility of these things being true. I suppose that is always going to be human nature though. Any time something is easy to do and ends in what seems to be a high payout, people will do it.
I guess the thing I still don't understand is how the major email clients have not been able to stop the flow of spam emails. I realize they are impossible to stop, it just seems that in today's society we would be capable of making a process to let these fake emails even hit the spam folder. I can personally say that my yahoo email receives roughly 75 spam emails a day. Although i never pay more attention to them other than to delete them, that is definitely too many for a email service as popular as Yahoo!
http://erictric.com/2010/03/26/twitter-cuts-down-spam-to-under-1-of-total-daily-tweets/
This article briefly talks about the attempt of Twitter to reduce the serious problem of spam they had in early and mid 2009. They were able to reduce the spam count from roughly 11% of posts to under 1% now. They did this by specifically targeting the programs and ways spammers hit the site and stopped it. If Twitter was able to do this, I find it amazing that google and yahoo! aren't able to get on board in regards to email. I realize that these emails are not technically illegal to send, but the average of 100 is incredible to me. Even more than 5 makes me feel as though Yahoo is not doing a good enough job to prevent it's user from dangers. Yahoo and other email clients need to step up their security and limit the number of spam emails sent to it's user. I know they aren't literally forcing anyone to click these sites, but they have to realize people will. Human nature will trump common sense.
This article talks about the ever prevalent problem of spam. A recent research venture done by Twitter showed that only 1% of posts were spam. This may seem encouraging, but in regards to email only 10% are not considered as spam. On average, an email address receives 100 spam messages a day. This is most likely a direct result if hackers setting up "phantom computers", or computers that simply send out mass spam email. Shockingly, according to a survey conducted by CNN nearly half the people still click on these links despite them realizing it is spam. To try and fight this battle, the government has put out a list of tips and tricks to try and avoid falling for spam. Twitter has also taken the same initiative to try and get less people to possibly give up personal information.
I find it shocking how many people can possibly fall for the spam emails we all get every day. Sure, on the surface it sounds great. "Fill out a survey and get a $500 gift card of your choice!" or "email submit for a new LCD TV!". Really people, does this even sound realistic. I understand it can be sometimes hard to sway away from these ads, but clearly this is a case of too good to be true. It's almost sad to hear these stories because typically it tends to be those who are in need of money or have some sort of mental disability. I feel badly for these people, but especially those in need of money have to realize the impossibility of these things being true. I suppose that is always going to be human nature though. Any time something is easy to do and ends in what seems to be a high payout, people will do it.
I guess the thing I still don't understand is how the major email clients have not been able to stop the flow of spam emails. I realize they are impossible to stop, it just seems that in today's society we would be capable of making a process to let these fake emails even hit the spam folder. I can personally say that my yahoo email receives roughly 75 spam emails a day. Although i never pay more attention to them other than to delete them, that is definitely too many for a email service as popular as Yahoo!
http://erictric.com/2010/03/26/twitter-cuts-down-spam-to-under-1-of-total-daily-tweets/
This article briefly talks about the attempt of Twitter to reduce the serious problem of spam they had in early and mid 2009. They were able to reduce the spam count from roughly 11% of posts to under 1% now. They did this by specifically targeting the programs and ways spammers hit the site and stopped it. If Twitter was able to do this, I find it amazing that google and yahoo! aren't able to get on board in regards to email. I realize that these emails are not technically illegal to send, but the average of 100 is incredible to me. Even more than 5 makes me feel as though Yahoo is not doing a good enough job to prevent it's user from dangers. Yahoo and other email clients need to step up their security and limit the number of spam emails sent to it's user. I know they aren't literally forcing anyone to click these sites, but they have to realize people will. Human nature will trump common sense.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Article Nine
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/19/voice.recognition/index.html
This article discusses voice recognition technology in use for every day items. Specifically, it talks about the capability of cell phones to take in what someone is saying and convert it into text messaging form. If this were to be implemented in cell phones, the article discusses the many practical uses that could follow. The main idea talked about is for use in the car. It has been proposed that through voice recognition technology and the car's audio it could decipher a text, say it through the speakers, and allow the user to voice back what they want to say. There are already some applications for the Iphone that do this, but the the author of the article notes they are very choppy and often convert things wrong. There is currently a serious push to get more funding to create a better system.
I've had an opportunity to use this technology but on the computer. My dad's company had paid the outrageous price and let him use it at home. On a base level, it was very entertaining. I attempted to use it to write a paper for school, and the thought of not having to type up a whole lengthy paper sounded great in my head. However, the actual functionality of the device was much different. It misunderstood nearly a quarter of the words I said and sometimes did not even write the words I was saying. Also, it was not really able to delete things I said and wanted to change. I ended up becoming so frustrated with the process that I quit using it. I had to scrap what I hardly wrote and start fresh. Looking back, I realize that I misused the technology and now realize that it should only be used for quick, simple things. And what is quicker than a text?
I think it'd be really great if researchers could get this to work out well. More and more in our society, people are getting into car accidents as a result of looking down at a text. This would severely decrease those accident numbers and make every thing safer. This would also just make sending a text better and easier. I personally as I've stated a few times now hate text messaging. If i get into a text conversation my fingers tend to strain and hurt. This would obviously cease if I were able to just state out loud what I want to say, then have it go. I would use it all the time and I'm sure many other people would as well.
the article posted here http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14514306 discusses the advancement of the voice recognition software. He explains that essentially they are in a place to make the software almost error free soon. Although it is much better than before, it is still not perfect. He notes that he sent his wife what was supposed to be "How's it going hun" but it was sent as "acetone hon". There's clearly room to improve for this technology, but it's great where it can lead. I'm sure in the not so distant future everyone will be using Voice recognition for all their basic needs.
This article discusses voice recognition technology in use for every day items. Specifically, it talks about the capability of cell phones to take in what someone is saying and convert it into text messaging form. If this were to be implemented in cell phones, the article discusses the many practical uses that could follow. The main idea talked about is for use in the car. It has been proposed that through voice recognition technology and the car's audio it could decipher a text, say it through the speakers, and allow the user to voice back what they want to say. There are already some applications for the Iphone that do this, but the the author of the article notes they are very choppy and often convert things wrong. There is currently a serious push to get more funding to create a better system.
I've had an opportunity to use this technology but on the computer. My dad's company had paid the outrageous price and let him use it at home. On a base level, it was very entertaining. I attempted to use it to write a paper for school, and the thought of not having to type up a whole lengthy paper sounded great in my head. However, the actual functionality of the device was much different. It misunderstood nearly a quarter of the words I said and sometimes did not even write the words I was saying. Also, it was not really able to delete things I said and wanted to change. I ended up becoming so frustrated with the process that I quit using it. I had to scrap what I hardly wrote and start fresh. Looking back, I realize that I misused the technology and now realize that it should only be used for quick, simple things. And what is quicker than a text?
I think it'd be really great if researchers could get this to work out well. More and more in our society, people are getting into car accidents as a result of looking down at a text. This would severely decrease those accident numbers and make every thing safer. This would also just make sending a text better and easier. I personally as I've stated a few times now hate text messaging. If i get into a text conversation my fingers tend to strain and hurt. This would obviously cease if I were able to just state out loud what I want to say, then have it go. I would use it all the time and I'm sure many other people would as well.
the article posted here http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_14514306 discusses the advancement of the voice recognition software. He explains that essentially they are in a place to make the software almost error free soon. Although it is much better than before, it is still not perfect. He notes that he sent his wife what was supposed to be "How's it going hun" but it was sent as "acetone hon". There's clearly room to improve for this technology, but it's great where it can lead. I'm sure in the not so distant future everyone will be using Voice recognition for all their basic needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)