47dadf76$1@news.povray.org...
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>> According to Google it's about delivering targeted ads based on 
>> automagically recognised audio (rather than text) samples.
>
> Damn. So much for "stealth mode."  Even our partners are ratting us out. 
> :-)

BTW I'm wondering what kind of audio input would be likely to cause a flow a 
Viagra ads via SMS. Will it recognise panting and moans? I can't wait for 
spammers to get hold of this technology ;)

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran escribió:
> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a �crit dans le message de news: 
> 47dadf76$1@news.povray.org...
>> Gilles Tran wrote:
>>> According to Google it's about delivering targeted ads based on 
>>> automagically recognised audio (rather than text) samples.
>> Damn. So much for "stealth mode."  Even our partners are ratting us out. 
>> :-)
> 
> BTW I'm wondering what kind of audio input would be likely to cause a flow a 
> Viagra ads via SMS. Will it recognise panting and moans?

Of course not. If there are moans, Viagra wasn't needed.

It will just recognize male voice saying "I swear this is the first time 
this happens to me". (or female voice saying "*that* is all?", etc; you 
get the idea).

Post a reply to this message

message de news: 47daea78$1@news.povray.org...

>> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> a ?crit dans le message de news: 
>> 47dadf76$1@news.povray.org...
>>> Gilles Tran wrote:
>>>> According to Google it's about delivering targeted ads based on 
>>>> automagically recognised audio (rather than text) samples.
>>> Damn. So much for "stealth mode."  Even our partners are ratting us out. 
>>> :-)
>>
>> BTW I'm wondering what kind of audio input would be likely to cause a 
>> flow a Viagra ads via SMS. Will it recognise panting and moans?
>
> Of course not. If there are moans, Viagra wasn't needed.
>
> It will just recognize male voice saying "I swear this is the first time 
> this happens to me". (or female voice saying "*that* is all?", etc; you 
> get the idea).

Yes, but if the system is really smart it will detect the duration and 
intensity of the moans. For instance low intensity moans during less than 30 
s will get all your gizmos from cell-phones to PDAs to start flashing both 
penis enlargement and Viagra ads.

I just hope that the tech is smarter than Google Adsense, that still insists 
in displaying ads about "Free mature models of 1000s of Beautiful Mature 
Women" because my website contains 3D computer models.

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray, Cinema 4D and Poser computer art
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:47d99d76$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>>       Tens of THOUSANDS?? I'm not that shocked at what a programmer can 
>> do, but fair play for handling that.
>
> Yeah. A couple weeks of raw audio, in 20-second chunks. Sadly, we throw 
> most of it away. :-)

     Really? Well, that's still cool. What you've pointed out is still 
beyond my grasp, but I still admire what you guys and girls can do. Me, I'm 
just a computer user.  :o/   (Null points there then!)   ;)


          ~Steve~



>
> -- 
>   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
>     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
>          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
>     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> That's the idea behind metaprogramming, after all.  You write 
>> something that gets turned into code for whatever your actual 
>> situation is :)
> 
> And if the metaprogramming was built into the compiler, I'd agree that C 
> is nicely portable.  :-)
> 
> C isn't portable. C + autoconf + the dozen tools that autoconf depends 
> on + knowing all the arcane invocations you need to include to use 
> autoconf is what's portable.
> 
> I mean, heck, 6502 assembler is portable, if you write a program to 
> interpret it on a bunch of other machines, yes?
> 

Absolutely, and I mean that quite literally.

It just goes to show that sometimes, our ideas of what words should 
mean, and the reality of the situation, are very different things.

After all, what is the *point* of portability?  Being able to use the 
same program on different machines with minimal work.  Sometimes the 
easiest way to do that will surprise you.

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Absolutely, and I mean that quite literally.

I think portability isn't a binary quality.  You seem to be saying that 
any turing-complete language is equally portable because you could write 
an interpreter for it in some other language.  So why do people complain 
about C# being microsoft-only? :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Absolutely, and I mean that quite literally.
> 
> I think portability isn't a binary quality.  You seem to be saying that 
> any turing-complete language is equally portable because you could write 
> an interpreter for it in some other language.  So why do people complain 
> about C# being microsoft-only? :-)
> 

Because they're lazy-a** b****es who would rather complain about ideals 
than get real work done?

After all, what if someone made a CPU that could execute Java bytecode 
directly?  (In fact, I think someone *has* done this)  At this point, 
the Java bytecode is now machine language.  Does that make it any less 
portable?

He**, is the Java bytecode any less portable for requiring an 
interpreter to begin with?

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> > I think portability isn't a binary quality.  You seem to be saying that
> > any turing-complete language is equally portable because you could write
> > an interpreter for it in some other language.  So why do people complain
> > about C# being microsoft-only? :-)
>
> Because they're lazy-a** b****es who would rather complain about ideals
> than get real work done?

No, I'd say it's because C# the language is about as useful as Java the
language:  not at all!  Both don't work outside their humongous associated
libraries/frameworks.

So, commiting to implemente said "languages" -- for them to be useful to
developers -- is commiting to implement not just a parser anb compiler but also
all the cruft people expect.  And guess what?!  C# is an ECMA standard, but not
..NET!  Thus, implementing a C# compiler by itself is not that useful.  Unless
you wish to follow a "standard" dictated by a single company with its
well-known forced upgrade cycle and be always left way behind.

Or simply ship a free compiler and help spread C# apps that require a licensed
framework to run.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> After all, what if someone made a CPU that could execute Java bytecode 
> directly?  (In fact, I think someone *has* done this) 

Actually, the Dolphin computer had programmable microcode and was used 
to run Smalltalk early on, interpreting Smalltalk bytecodes directly. So 
yah, like that.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

> After all, what if someone made a CPU that could execute Java bytecode 
> directly?  (In fact, I think someone *has* done this)

Yes, I think there are native CPUs for java bytecode; mainly for 
embedded devices where it's better to have a slow-ish CPU running Java 
directly than a fast CPU running a software interpreter (and sucking 
more power off the battery).

Post a reply to this message