Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Adds Speech To Newly Stable Chrome 11, Pays Big Bounty

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the tastiest-part-of-the-operating-system dept.

Chrome 88

CWmike writes "Google patched 27 vulnerabilities in Chrome on Wednesday as it boosted the stable build of the browser to version 11 on Windows, Mac and Linux. The company paid out a record $16,500 in bounties to researchers who reported a majority of the bugs, beating the previous biggest payday by several hundred dollars. While Google listed more than 3,700 changes in Chrome 11, the only one it highlighted was the speech input feature. The combination of Chrome and Google Translate isn't flawless. In several quick tests by Computerworld, the browser and service transcribed most phrases accurately, but in one instance heard 'Good morning, sister ship' when the line was actually 'Good morning, Mr. Smith.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Lisp? (5, Funny)

SIR_Taco (467460) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970460)

Seems that maybe they should have programmed it in Lisp?

Thanks, I'm here all week!

Re:Lisp? (2)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970534)

Seems that maybe they should have programmed it in Lisp?

Thanks, I'm here all week!

Children's version should be in Smalltalk.

Re:Lisp? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970698)

Reptiles' version should be in python.

Re:Lisp? (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970856)

Reptiles' version should be in python.

...and have a Corba interface

Re:Lisp? (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971414)

Reptiles' version should be in python.

Don't you mean parseltongue?

Re:Lisp? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35972488)

My girlfriend thinks my python and my parseltongue skillz are damn good.

Re:Lisp? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35974092)

For the last time, stop calling me your girlfriend. I'm your mother! And clean up the basement today. It smells like Cheetos.

- Mom

Re:Lisp? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35977416)

Wincest...yeah!

Re:Lisp? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971460)

Lips would have been fine as well. When it comes to testing speech recognition systems nothing beats a good tongue-lashing.

Re:Lisp? (1)

IntentionalStance (1197099) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972374)

Back when I was at University my supervisor was doing Natural Language research using LISP.

They would type in short stories then ask the computer questions about the stories

One story included something about John's driving his car and crashing into Mary
This uncovered a bug in the code where they were try to access the first element of an empty list

The LISP engine errored with.... drum roll....

"Illegal CAR usage"

Re:Lisp? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35972480)

Ahh, thanks for the nostalgia shot of the day. Lisp... University workstations... your hot calculus professor coding in the workstation next to yours... (this really happened, only she wasn't hot and she wasnt nice)

Re:Lisp? (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972622)

Seems like the Leave it to Beaver version should be written in Haskell.

(Hey, what do you want, all the funny shit was taken.)

Error is excusable (4, Funny)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970462)

Sister Ship is a much cooler band name than Mr. Smith.

Another Name Mistake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35979070)

Last week, I tried to use Voice Dial on my Android Phone to call my mother. Instead of calling her, it did a search for the words that it heard, and somehow ended up calling the county jail. I couldn't decide if it just misheard what I said (The words were nowhere close), or if Google tracked her location and she had some explaining to do.

Chrome. (3, Funny)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970486)

Now it goes to 11.

I sure hope they don't have armadillos [slashdot.org] in their trousers.

Re:Chrome. (1)

halowolf (692775) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970770)

I liked the old icon better than the new v11 one.

Re:Chrome. (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971598)

Well, that's just one more, isn't it?

Why don't they just make 10 a little better?

I guess they just want to drive home the FACT that it's better than Firefox or IE. And maybe that it's almost as good as Opera, which just hit 11 late last year ;-)

How generous of them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970494)

Their *net* income is close to $2,000,000,000. per quarter (every 3 months).

Re:How generous of them. (2)

PinchDuck (199974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970522)

Fight the Man! Go find a bug but don't tell anyone.

Re:How generous of them. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970628)

Seems to be lucrative enough; I think ive seen Wushi of team509 in the bounties just about every time. Seems hes making a decent amount of money off of this, esp if its a hobby-- this time around he netted $2500. There may be other folks who focus on this for the bounty, but his name stood out for some reason.

All that aside, how much do you propose Google offer as a reward for what seems to be a weeks worth of hobby time? Isnt it enough that they offer something?

Re:How generous of them. (1)

rta (559125) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971896)

I'd say that these amounts are little more than chump change. Google software developers cost google probably ~$150k - $300k fully loaded.

From TFA "So far this year, Google has spent more than $77,000 on bug bounties."... so since we're about 1/4th through the year we're talking about 1/2 FTE for ~50-100 bugs that made it all the way through whatever QA and security engineering they already do. This $77k is negligible. It would probably cost them at least 10x that (and probably more like 50x ) to find all those in-house.

Re:How generous of them. (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#35974272)

Are you jealous that you didn't think of it and just hired some developer to sit on Slashdot all day long? /duck

Re:How generous of them. (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35980950)

The bug hunters seem happy to do it. Why do you feel the need to be outraged on their behalf?

Chrome sucks juice! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970560)

I was just watching two youtube videos, and surfing with 3 other tabs and its using up 1.4 gigs of RAM! wth this will suck up your laptop batteries faster than using IE or Firefox. I've switched to IE and Firefox now. I like speed but if its not that efficient that would make me think twice.

Re:Chrome sucks juice! (1)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970592)

Ya, it's much more efficient to just have all your ram sitting around doing nothing all the time.

Re:Chrome sucks juice! (1)

leamanc (961376) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970752)

No doubt...if programs would actually load themselves completely into RAM, you'd see an overall performance increase AND battery life would improve. It's apps that are constantly writing out to disk and hogging the CPU that drain battery life.

Re:Chrome sucks juice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971430)

Does your OS do multitasking? Mine does. Or have swap space? Mine has, and I'd rather have my RAM available for multiple programs and my hard drive not slowing everything down from constant swapping.

Re:Chrome sucks juice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35972472)

go suck a dick, pony loaf.

Re:Chrome sucks juice! (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971346)

That's funny, because I am currently switching my users from FF to Dragon (Chromium based) as the latest FF seems to slam the CPU too much for my taste. All of my users and myself have plenty of RAM, but slamming the CPU isn't good, especially for the nettops and netbooks. Certainly a lot easier to add a RAM stick than to yank out the CPU on some of the lower end power sippers.

Re:Chrome sucks juice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35972402)

it's because you're a fag and chrome has detected that.

Nothing new or innovative really (4, Informative)

ya really (1257084) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970612)

Opera has had a similar feature [opera.com] for years now

Re:Nothing new or innovative really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970722)

They had it on android for a while now and i think they had some phone service with speech recognition for even longer. But i'm sure if you dig in the university archives, you'll find some odd presentation from the 60's or something where they're trying out a primitive version of this with a completely different usage scenario. Prior art all around. Oh, and i'm sure people have been doing speech recognition for a while as well. :)

Too lazy to look any of it up and even too lazy to log in, sorry. :)

Re:Nothing new or innovative really (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970972)

Except no one cares about Opera.

Re:Nothing new or innovative really (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971898)

I and three other people care. You insensitive clod.

Re:Nothing new or innovative really (1)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972108)

You know it's time to go to bed when the comments start to run together and you think that similar feature is "armadillos"...

Re:Nothing new or innovative really (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972366)

and speech input shouldn't be a part of the browser. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE BROWSER KEEP A MIC LINE OPEN.

anyways, it sucks for using unless you're disabled and if you were then you'd have had this already for years since os/2 warp(and the windows port of the ibm speech stuff, it actually worked pretty well, too bad using voice commands actually sucks big time).

Re:Nothing new or innovative really (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35973594)

and speech input shouldn't be a part of the browser. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE BROWSER KEEP A MIC LINE OPEN.

Google's still living in the late 90's world of "the browser will become the OS." Because you know: if you only have a hammer ...

herp derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970632)

inb4 "OMG already version 11?! It's not even been two months since version 10! They really are rushing versions now herp derp"

Riddle me this: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970638)

Why does Barack Obama think it's ok for GE to rake in billions but wrong for Exxon Mobil to rake in billions? Exxon pays income taxes and GE doesn't. Why is Exxon the one who isn't paying "their fair share"?

Re:Riddle me this: (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971564)

I dunno, Obama's actually been parading GE around as the model corporation, so the other corporations can learn to do things the same way. Maybe he has a lot invested in overseas stocks (I know I do :P )

But really, the majority of the US budget is split roughly in half between defense and entitlements, which pretty much follows the model of the ancient Roman empire, where they pretty much used their military force to make the rest of the known world work to support Roman citizens. Living on welfare here still seems to beat the heck out of working in a developing nation. But the cost of living is too high, so no point in investing domestically.

Computer: (1)

Ancantus (1926920) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970678)

Computer: open slashdot.org Computer: read first article I think we have found a better User Interface replacement for Slashdot 3.0

Re:Computer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35972510)

"read first article"??

It should go like this:

"tab-open all articles, scroll down to first Score:5 Funny comment".

Re:Computer: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35973772)

Computer: open slashdot.org
Computer: read first article

I think we have found a better User Interface replacement for Slashdot 3.0

Yeah, now everyone in the office will know when you're wasting time on Slashdot.

Nah, we won't secretly turn on the Microphone! (1, Insightful)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970704)

There's absolutely no way no way I tell you to use a hook for a specially delivered payload to turn that ol Microphone on when you didn't know it!

Re:Nah, we won't secretly turn on the Microphone! (1)

Sinthet (2081954) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970758)

Recording audio at all times during web-browsing is clearly for your own good and required for Google to continue providing the best service possible for its users. I can see it now.

Re:Nah, we won't secretly turn on the Microphone! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970836)

mod parent up

Re:Nah, we won't secretly turn on the Microphone! (1)

sincewhen (640526) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972226)

Also, even if Google are entirely trustworthy, is there absolutely zero chance that it could be subverted by malware?

Hello Computer (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970854)

Does it work like this [google.com] yet?

Bounty hunting steps. (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 3 years ago | (#35970872)

1) Submit code under a fake identity to an open-source project that pays a bounty on security vulnerabilities. (Are any OSS contributors vetted?)
2) "Discover" the flaw(s) in your code and report it.
3) ???
4) Profit

Re:Bounty hunting steps. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35970964)

LOL.

Unless I'm missing something and the 'bounty' was $16,500 per bug (and no, I haven't bothered reading TFA), the 'record' sum seems rather insulting. For commercial software $16,500 would barely cover the regression testing of a particularly simple change to a simple system, and then only if it's done off-shore. Obviously Google will have their own test teams but it sounds as if they're on to a winner using the open source community.

Re:Bounty hunting steps. (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972078)

> Are any OSS contributors vetted?

Not necessarily, but their code sure is, before it's included in the product!

They're ignoring the largest bug (4, Insightful)

Posting=!Working (197779) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971042)

Did they fix the bug that makes the bookmarks suck? You know, the one that makes you choose between the incredibly clunky bookmarks sidebar or the waste of space that is a bookmarks toolbar.

No?

I'll wait for Chrome 12 and hope they've fixed it by then.

Bookmarks are probably the best example of a drop down menu usage - a menu you occasionally want, and once you make a selection, it goes away.

I've seen so many people try Chrome and delete it because of it's stubborn idiocy in handling one of the most commonly used functions in a web browser.

Re:They're ignoring the largest bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971228)

Did they fix the bug that makes the bookmarks suck? You know, the one that makes you choose between the incredibly clunky bookmarks sidebar or the waste of space that is a bookmarks toolbar.

No?

I'll wait for Chrome 12 and hope they've fixed it by then.

Bookmarks are probably the best example of a drop down menu usage - a menu you occasionally want, and once you make a selection, it goes away.

I've seen so many people try Chrome and delete it because of it's stubborn idiocy in handling one of the most commonly used functions in a web browser.

Make the bookmark bar only appear on the new tab page. That's the only time you need to use them anyway. Problem solved.

Re:They're ignoring the largest bug (1)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971252)

As someone who doesn't mind using a toolbar for bookmarks, I can't say that I really identify with your reasoning for not using chrome. But to each his own. But maybe this can get you over the hate: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/nnancliccjabjjmipbpjkfbijifaainp# [google.com]

Re:They're ignoring the largest bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971988)

Ctrl+Shift+B

Still a shit browser (4, Informative)

Snaller (147050) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971312)

"Are you sure you wanna leave this page?"

Yes! Why the fuck can't I disable that crap?

Shitty browser. And you still can't zoom the font size, only the whole damn page as an image.

Re:Still a shit browser (1)

Asdanf (1281936) | more than 3 years ago | (#35971602)

And you still can't zoom the font size, only the whole damn page as an image.

Really? ctrl-+ is working fine for me.

Re:Still a shit browser (2)

PwnzerDragoon (2014464) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972070)

Which scales the entire page, not just the text - exactly what he was complaining about.

Re:Still a shit browser (1)

Asdanf (1281936) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972340)

Oh. He said "as an image", which is not the case and threw me off. Yes, it does scale the whole page, seemingly as if the developer had been a good person and specified their layout in ems instead of pixels. Seems like a really good feature to me.

Re:Still a shit browser (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972880)

Seems like a good feature to me, too. Just about every browser behaves this way, these days.

It's been awhile (long enough that I am perhaps showing my age), but IIRC some of the last useful versions of pre-AOL Netscape browser zoomed text alone, instead of text+images.

This may have even lasted into the next iteration: I seem to recall a special method or add-on for early Mozilla or Firefox which added the ability for the browser to zoom both text and images at the same time. (I also seem to recall installing such an addon, and preferring it.)

Perhaps the complaint is from a user from Way Back When.

To the OP: Would you mind if I borrow your time machine?

Re:Still a shit browser (1)

dOxxx (8571) | more than 3 years ago | (#35976164)

There are still designers who size text as if everybody has perfect 20/20 or better eyesight. The images are fine, I just want to make the damn text bigger so I don't have to squint.

Re:Still a shit browser (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35983494)

My eyesight is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20/300 on that scale. Corrective lenses (disposable contacts, in my case) work fine: I can see pixels on an iPhone 4 pretty plainly, despite what Steve Jobs might say about that. My vision has, pretty much, always been shit: I got glasses at around age 8, and contacts at 10. Perhaps I'm just lucky that my vision is usefully-correctable, but I digress:

I run my PC displays at absurdly-high resolutions (1920x1200 on a 15.4" laptop at the most extreme), and always have. I've even spent my share of time tweaking Modelines in XFree86 to get a few more lines out of a good CRT while maintaining a reasonable refresh rate and video quality, often to the extent that I found myself banging against the abilities of the RAMDAC in the video card to produce a good, clean waveform at such frequencies.

I wish I could afford a modern desktop display with higher DPI than the 20.3" 1600x1200 NEC IPS LCD before me, just so I could fit more pixels (and therefore more well-formed words) onto the screen.

These days, I often find myself making things smaller, instead of bigger, in web browsers. And, frankly, I haven't found much desire to make things bigger in many, many years -- ever since Windows XP started doing a reasonable job of configuring display resolution out of the box, Web designers have tended to use more reasonable layouts.

It used to be pretty bad, when Windows 98 would come up at 640x480 or 800x600 at default font size by default, even on a (then) big 17" monitor: Well-meaning designers/authors would shrink their font sizes on their pages to make the text and layout appear reasonable from the visual standpoint, just for themselves and without ever considering how it might look on a properly-configured display.

I believe this is about the time that browsers grew zoom functions. :)

But, as I said, that's been a lot better for a long time. Absurdly-small fonts still happen, to be sure, but so infrequently these days that I don't think about it much.

No offense, but: Is there something wrong with your eyes?

And meanwhile: Please check out Readability [readability.com] . I've got no relation to them, except that I've kept it on my Firefox toolbar for ages. AFAICT, it also works fine in Chrome. It turns horribly-designed web pages (hopefully with good information!) into completely-legible texts. I mostly use it to convert (the more modern trend of) pages that have light-grey text on a slightly-darker grey background into something other than mostly-invisible, but it also sanitizes font sizes/styles and (usually!) retains the important images in a page at a reasonable size.

It is also useful to me, even with my corrected vision, when I am either very tired, very drunk, or both, even on well-designed layouts.

Re:Still a shit browser (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972370)

you know the only way google could get a browser on the market that didn't have a one click disable for google ads..? exactly..

Re:Still a shit browser (1)

bheer (633842) | more than 3 years ago | (#35973210)

> you still can't zoom the font size, only the whole damn page as an image.

Indeed. That bug's been marked as WONTFIX [crbug.com] for 2 years now.

Re:Still a shit browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35975184)

Shitty browser. And you still can't zoom the font size, only the whole damn page as an image.

We had "text size only" zooming for some time in IE and Mozilla.
It sucked, it would destroy the layout of any page it was used on; so everyone has since switched to "whole page" zooming.

Re:Still a shit browser (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 3 years ago | (#35977694)

No usable AdBlock. No way to easily find all hidden ads and trackers. No way to sanely manage cookies. Slow like hell on slow machines (being faster without ads blocked doesn't mean shit to me). Crashing when the last tab is closed (with a "successful" return code). Self-DOSing once it sees several errors on a page in a row (ERR_TEMPORARILY_THROTTLED, currently "temporarily" fixed but they want to break this again).

chrome 11 - major version changes are a joke (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971552)

I have no idea how can google release a set of bugfixes and update the major version.

And when are they going to:

1. Allow stopping animated GIFs or make them play once. Makes my laptop drain much faster than firefox.
2. Fix tonnes of memory leaks which make it eat 2GiG of RAM with only few tabs open. Makes my system crawl because it goes low on memory.

You can search issues page to get more info on these issues.

Every time I install chrome and use it, I end up uninstalling it.

Re:chrome 11 - major version changes are a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35971940)

2GB of RAM? How many is "a few" tabs? Even with the worst of the memory leaks in Mozilla, I never had that much memory used by my browser. Keep in mind that Chrome is ostensibly more stable than the competition, because each tab has its own process. If you open a dozen tabs, it's really your own fault that it's using so much RAM. Try not opening every page on the internet at once.

Re:chrome 11 - major version changes are a joke (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972564)

"A dozen"? Sometimes I have 50+ tabs open, and Firefox doesn't use more than 700MB.

Chrome forces the use of tabs, thats a huge bug. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35972124)

Lots of people just love tabs in web browsers, but not everyone.

I tend to avoid Chrome for the simple reason that it forces me to use tabs.

But apparently while every other browser includes the ability to disable tabs, the developers of Chrome consider forcing you to use them to be a feature.

Now I'm sure that I'll get a whole lot of posts in response to this telling me what MY preferences "should" be. If you're tempted to make such a post, stop and think for a moment. Personal preferences are entirely subjective. I like Pink Floyd, I don't much care for country music. Meanwhile someone else might have the exact opposite preference structure. Which of us is right? Both Which of us is wrong? Neither. The same is true of anything that is entirely a personal preference, including the use of tabs. I've heard all the arguments (including the really bad ones) for why I should alter my preferences, but none have been convincing. I don't like tabs, end of story. Those people who do like them are free to use them. All I ask is the freedom to not have them shoved down my throat.

If google wants those of us who don't like tabs to use chrome then they'll have to include functionality to disable tabs. Otherwise I'm sticking to firefox and/or opera.

Re:Chrome forces the use of tabs, thats a huge bug (1)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972212)

Lots of people just love tabs in web browsers, but not everyone.

I'll bet your mouse only has one button, too.

Re:Chrome forces the use of tabs, thats a huge bug (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35972546)

I love that Firefox can open links in both new tabs and windows. I also love that it's possible to move tabs between windows.
Much more manageable to have 3+ windows with 10 tabs each instead of 1 window with 30+ tabs.

Can chrome do this?

Re:Chrome forces the use of tabs, thats a huge bug (1)

BlueScreenO'Life (1813666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972618)

Yes.

Re:Chrome forces the use of tabs, thats a huge bug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35972716)

Thanks. The 'original' AC made it sound like you had to use tabs for some reason, like not being able to open things in new windows or something.

Re:Chrome forces the use of tabs, thats a huge bug (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#35975400)

Lots of people just love tabs in web browsers, but not everyone.

I'll bet your mouse only has one button, too.

I use a Mac, you insensitive clod!

See-through flash still a problem? (1)

ldephil (868060) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972494)

Wonder if they have fixed their flash implementation so that it stops randomly turning that part of a web page into a window through to applications/windows behind Chrome.... This is my biggest problem with the browser on OS X, and I wish I could find a way to reproduce it reliably.

Re:See-through flash still a problem? (1)

Zebedeu (739988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35973124)

In Ubuntu, if I load a page in the background with a flash animation on it, I get a weird semi-transparent/screen corruption on the top left corner of whatever page I'm looking at, until I open the tab which contains the flash animation.
Then it all goes back to normal.

I've also had numerous instances of flash crashing every tab in the browser (but not the browser itself). I thought they'd found a way to sandbox the flash plugin, but apparently it's not perfect yet.
This is Chromium, so it might differ from the Google version.

I still love the browser, and you can't really blame the Chrome guys for the buggy POS that is flash, but those bugs are a bit annoying, and they've been there for a while now.

Re:See-through flash still a problem? (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#35975258)

Given that the Flash player has been built in to Chrome for the past several versions, you most definitely can blame them!

Re:See-through flash still a problem? (1)

Zebedeu (739988) | more than 3 years ago | (#35975362)

No, you can't, for the simple reason that they don't have access to the source code.
No amount of integration is going to fix the fact that flash sucks.

Besides, in Ubuntu 11.04 I got some "flash not found" errors and had to install the plugin separately. It might be that only Chrome has flash integrated and I'm using Chromium, or maybe the integration isn't working that well, but as far as I know, I'm currently using an external flash plugin.

I'm using the chromium-stable repository, so it should be the latest version.

11, only ? (1)

alnicodon (685283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35972916)

Emacs is at 23, with 24 in beta... and comes bundled with a text editor and an operating system. Still some way to go, Google !

the engine (2)

stewartjm (608296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35973040)

I was wondering what speech recognition engine they were using. So I dug around a bit. At first glance [google.com] , it appears they record some speech, convert it to flac, and then send the speech off to google servers to do the actual transcription.

There are some interesting privacy implications for this new feature, if it is indeed sending all of your speech to a server.

Does anyone have a clearer picture of how it works and/or what engine google is using?

Re:the engine (2)

stewartjm (608296) | more than 3 years ago | (#35973272)

To answer my own question, I found a post on ycombinator [ycombinator.com] it looks like they are sending the speech server side for transcription.

Please, continue with crappy speech recognition. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35973120)

It's hilarious, and gives the world gems like 'Steven Magnet'.

cheap true religion (0)

cheap true religion (2053288) | more than 3 years ago | (#35973276)

cheap true religion jeans [selljean.com] is a professional wholesaler online,you can find all kinds of jeans with reasonable price here, such as True religion [selljean.com] , RMC Jeans [selljean.com] , Armani [selljean.com] , Christian Audigier [selljean.com] , POLO jeans [selljean.com] and so on

That's nice, but what about PRINT PREVIEW? (1)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 3 years ago | (#35974140)

Is this the version where they finally, FINALLY, implement Print Preview [google.com] ?

Re:That's nice, but what about PRINT PREVIEW? (1)

Shad0wFyr3 (1335183) | more than 3 years ago | (#35975134)

I was able to use your link and in about 30 seconds find the following setting (write up here [thechromesource.com] ):

Type about:flags into the omnibar. Click Enable under Print Preview.

seriously chrome? (1)

aahpandasrun (948239) | more than 3 years ago | (#35975300)

Speech input? Is anyone going to use this? Still no way to customize the address bar btw.

Interpreted by the article: (1)

DaVince21 (1342819) | more than 3 years ago | (#35975492)

1 of the features of google translate that uses android mostest utility to listen to that accept just translated in audio form to play in audio version of translate text we use the speech synthesizer the computer algorithms that converts texting to speech today we apple on this new speech synthesizer voices

This is the first paragraph from the article linked in the link, translated through me saying it in the mic.

I must say, I didn't expect it to come up with Android and Apple when the original paragraph never contained those words.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?