Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Releases Chrome 25 With Voice Recognition Support

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the say-what-you-mean dept.

Chrome 93

An anonymous reader writes "Google on Thursday released Chrome version 25 for Windows, Mac, and Linux. While Chrome 24 was largely a stability release, Chrome 25 is all about features, including voice recognition support via the newly added Web Speech API and the blocking of silent extension installation. You can update to the latest release now using the browser's built-in silent updater, or download it directly from google.com/chrome." But if you're more interested in the growing raft of Google-branded hardware than running Google OSes, some good news (via Liliputing) about the newly released Pixel: Bill Richardson of Google posted on Thursday that the Pixel can boot Linux Mint, and explained how users can follow his example, by taking advantage of new support for a user-provided bootloader.

cancel ×

93 comments

Clever! (5, Funny)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987327)

I see what you did there, this is social engineering. Who is going to shout at their monitor "Natalie Portman grits petrified porn"?

Fappist: "Natalie Portman grits petrified porn"
            Chrome: "Madly norman sits petrified corn"
            Fappist: "NATALIE PORTMAN GRITS PETRIFIED PORN"
            Chrome: "Actually foreman knits electrified morn"
            FAPPIST: "GRRRRR! NATALIE PORTMAN GRITS PETRIFIED PORN!!!!"
           

Re:Clever! (0)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987369)

google is taking ideas from hollywood, but they're taking them literally

"start up computer"
"initiate auto destruct sequence, command authorisation alphi pi"
"compile virus to infect alien mothership"
"it's a unix system... i know this"

Re:Clever! (2, Funny)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987373)

There are worse sources for inspiration. "I see you're trying to 'die you fucking piece of shit,' would you like help with that?"

Where is voice recognition being done (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42987433)

Locally? Or on their servers?

Next time you go and search, will you start getting ads for sports illustrated's swimsuit edition and Quaker?

Re:Where is voice recognition being done (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987497)

The proposed API itself is agnostic, it just provides a way for a page to ask for mic access and a 'plz speech-to-text-this-audio' mechanism.

Google's implementation, unshockingly enough, phones right back home to the mothership for speech recognition services. I would assume that(if this proposal makes it out of the cradle) implementations will vary: Google will phone home, Apple will 'siri' home, Microsoft might be awfully tempted to phone home on consumer SKUs, but not on enterprise ones; copies of Dragon NaturallySpeaking will probably include a browser plugin that brings your existing recognition training over to web text-to-speech, etc.

Re:Where is voice recognition being done (1)

cbhacking (979169) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987561)

Considering that Windows has had built-in dictation support for many years now as part of their accessibility stuff. It needs to be trained or it sucks horribly, but it's there, and the training doesn't take that long. I wouldn't be surprised if the default MS implementation even on consumer SKUs just used that.

Re:Where is voice recognition being done (1)

symbolset (646467) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988353)

"Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all [wikipedia.org] "

Ah, as with Seinfeld getting Bill Gates to wag his tail for a commercial [youtube.com] , some things are priceless memories of marketing brilliance. They become artifacts of the culture, they are so memorable.

Re:Clever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42987443)

Brings back memories [youtube.com]

And STILL No 64 Bit (2)

joelleo (900926) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987363)

One of these days, I'll have a supported version of Chrome which can address more than 4GB of memory in my !Linux boxen...

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (3, Interesting)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987429)

Aside from being '64 bit clean', why would you care about RAM?

Doesn't each Chrome tab run in a separate process, i.e. say each tab addresses 2GB, if you're have 8 tabs open you're maxing out your 16GB workstation??

Running a 32bit browser on a 64bit OS can be a blessing - Running Chrome on Windows means I don't have to disable (for security reasons) the 64bit Java Plugin the JDK installs.

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987519)

Doesn't each Chrome tab run in a separate process, i.e. say each tab addresses 2GB, if you're have 8 tabs open you're maxing out your 16GB workstation??

Yes, each tab runs in a seperate process. Hell I can't even max out what I have with 8GB on my home machine, or my work machine sitting beside me with 32GB. It simply dumps the tab that's not being used to the pagefile, and with the pagefile on a SSD if I switch to it, I can't notice that there's even a difference in access time.

Though 64bit binaries would be nice, though we won't see that happening until OS's start to abandon 32bit like they did 8bit and 16bit.

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987699)

Turn off swap? Chrome can't write to what doesn't exist.

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

joelleo (900926) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988013)

It boils down to a "64 bit clean" system. I'd prefer nothing die due to artificially limited resources -memory, in this case - being exhausted.

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

Teckla (630646) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988987)

It boils down to a "64 bit clean" system. I'd prefer nothing die due to artificially limited resources -memory, in this case - being exhausted.

That would require a single Chrome tab using more than 2 gigabytes of memory.

That's not going to happen and not worth worrying about.

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988347)

Google is the only one still on 32-bit. I'm going to put that down to laziness. This is the company after all that relied on wine on Linux for some of their software. For such a bunch of intelligent people they're lazy and half assed a lot of the times, imo.

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988377)

I thought the default builds for Firefox were still 32 bit?

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988393)

(On windows)

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

dririan (1131339) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988707)

You are correct, Firefox is 32-bit on Windows. I believe Chrome may be more suitable for 64-bit on Windows than Firefox, as well (but I could be wrong here). Because of Chrome's multi-process model, compatibility with 32-bit plugins should be fairly trivial. The process running the plugin can be 32-bit (for plugins that are 32-bit only, such as Flash IIRC), but the rest of the browser's processes can be 64-bit. I know that Firefox does run plugins in a separate process (open Firefox, go to a site that uses some plugin, open Task Manager, and notice at least one "plugin-container.exe" process), but I don't know how easily plugin-container could be adapted to support 32-bit plugins on 64-bit Firefox.

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988611)

For Windows but that's the other thing. It's not so much that everyone else doesn't want to move on. It's that Microsoft is yet again very accommodating to people who want to stick in the past and Google seems to be just worrying about the lowest common denominator in the Microsoft world and the rest of us don't exist apparently. I'm sure some of it has to do with supporting XP too but if a company like Firefox or Opera can do a 32 and 64 bit release then one of the biggest companies in the world shouldn't have a problem. It's not like Webkit hasn't been done in 64-bit. Safari has it.

No, they just aren't into doing the 10% if the wor (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988687)

The difference between a Rolls Royce and a Volkswagen Beetle is in the 10% that costs 90% of the price/time. One of the reasons Apple did so well with its products is that it at least went for 5% at not to much extra. The "it just works" praise Apple often gets means a REALLY boring job for someone who doesn't get to build anything exciting and new but just has to fix small trivial bugs that only occur during a blue moon but are the difference between something working and NOT working.

Consider this: Java. No deb files just yum and rpm support.

Chrome has deb packages for ubuntu.

Opera has special deb packages for mint to.

Now which is the piece of software recommended to be removed and which is the browser that just resumes where it left off, has build in mouse support, multi-account password managment build in and works on the most number of environments?

Building so many packages is a boring task but it is the difference between a polished product and a cutting edge product.

There is a man at Rolls Royce whose only job is to hand paint a stripe on the car. Something tells me that from this you can conclude that the paint job on a rolls is better then that on an Brazilian build beetle. It takes a lot of people taking exceptional care in seemingly trivial detail to get a truly polished experience out the door.

It is one reason Americans make better entertainment movies. No European would think of putting fake scaffolding on top of a skyscraper to make it look taller. Americans do... it makes for better entertainment movies because some guy in props is spending time thinking how to make a sky scraper look even better.

Google releases a lot of stuff but they never ever really finish it because they all moved on to the next big thing. It "works". You won't see a cutting edge Rolls Royce long after other car makers have already implemented a new feature.

Make your choice, polish or cutting edge.

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year ago | (#43015757)

Google is the only one still on 32-bit. I'm going to put that down to laziness. This is the company after all that relied on wine on Linux for some of their software. For such a bunch of intelligent people they're lazy

Not doing extra work beyond that which is required for the goal you are attempting to achieve is efficient, not lazy (well, it isn't lazy-as-in-indolent, it is lazy-as-in-Haskell.)

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | about a year ago | (#43017375)

Will need doing and I'd say it can't be that much work. In fact it looks like they've actually done it. http://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/64-bit-support [chromium.org]

They're just not releasing it even though they claim it would take little to make it work on Windows.

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

cronot (530669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988671)

I agree with this argument on Windows. On OSX though, 32-bit chrome is a problem incidentally because of Java: on recent updates (past year) the 32-bit Java plugin on OSX was disabled. You can say what you want about Java, its vulnerabilities and shortcomings as a platform, but the fact is that many sites (banks or such) still require it, and that means I have to use Safari for those sites. It's not a big problem, but it's incovenient, and OSX, compared to Windows, has a much higher ratio of software and system components with 64-bit binaries than Windows, so there's very little reason to keep Chrome clinging to a legacy binary format on that platform.

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#42997999)

2 gig is a virtual address space, not physical RAM. Where have all the nerds gone?

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987795)

One of these days, I'll have a supported version of Chrome which can address more than 4GB of memory in my !Linux boxen...

Well, maybe you could use an open source browser and build it for 64 bit instead of using Chrome.

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42987835)

What in the actual fuck are you talking about?

$ file /opt/google/chrome/chrome /opt/google/chrome/chrome: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.15, BuildID[sha1]=....
$ uname -om
x86_64 GNU/Linux

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

joelleo (900926) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988011)

*whoosh*

I was saying for all of my boxes that are NOT Linux. 64 bit Chrome is available for Linux as you are obviously aware.

For your edification, Mr. AC, because Wikipedia knows all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclamation_mark#Computers [wikipedia.org]

relevant snippet:
"Several computer languages use "!" for various meanings, most importantly for logical negation; e.g. A != B means "A is not equal to B", and !A means "the logical negation of A" (also called "not A")."

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42988359)

English is not a computer language moron.

Re:And STILL No 64 Bit (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | about a year and a half ago | (#42990079)

You really don't want 64 bit Chrom(e/ium). All it does is waste more memory. I've seen 64 bit Chromium use over 1 GiB for only 20 tabs. At the moment, any possible performance benefit of the extra registers is offset by the greater cache footprint of a 64 bit build. The future is the x32 ABI. AMD64 only makes sense for things that mmap large files and work with huge amounts of data.

voice recognition is a bad joke (2, Interesting)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987421)

It looks like they're making a marketing mistake: they make it sound as if they added recognition of arbitrary text.

There are only two things voice recognition is useful for:
* taking a small number of distinct commands
* producing nonsense poetry that keeps rhythm and rhyme with input voice

A small corpus of words can be distinguished between pretty easily -- as long as no two are similar to each other. In a real language, with many thousands of words, even a human has a hard time without understanding the subject matter and filling the gaps from context. In fact, what you hear is mostly gaps -- just try to transcribe a series of random words with any real speed. Or, for another example: in a written text, randomly permute all letters except the first and last in every word -- it will still be pretty understandable if you recognize its sense or not at all if you don't. And recognizing the sense is an AI-hard task.

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (4, Insightful)

Albanach (527650) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987453)

There are only two things voice recognition is useful for:
* taking a small number of distinct commands
* producing nonsense poetry that keeps rhythm and rhyme with input voice

That's funny, I used voice control of my Nexus 4 yesterday evening to open the email application, pick the correct contact and then dictate an email along the lines of:

Hi _name_,

I've just left work. I'll be home in about ten minutes.

See you then,

_my name_

That certainly seems to be more than a small number of commands. Okay, I'm not going to dictate War and Peace, but it's certainly functional.

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (1, Insightful)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987483)

Does it understand non-NorthAmericans yet?

The speech recognition was completely useless on my Android phone unless I delivered a fake US accent.

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (1, Funny)

Fastolfe (1470) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987545)

I'm not sure I understand. Are you talking about the Old World? I think Google has better things to do than get speech recognition working for fictional places and people.

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42987551)

I'm Scottish and it understands me remarkably well.

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (1, Troll)

isorox (205688) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988297)

I'm Scottish and it understands me remarkably well.

You live in Scotland, or are you a typical American that's decided because his great grandfather once read a book on kilts that he's Scottish?

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42991771)

You live in Scotland, or are you a typical American that's decided because his great grandfather once read a book on kilts that he's Scottish?

No true Scotsman lives in America?

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (1)

isorox (205688) | about a year ago | (#43019975)

You live in Scotland, or are you a typical American that's decided because his great grandfather once read a book on kilts that he's Scottish?

No true Scotsman lives in America?

Someone defining themselves as French would presumably be raised in France.
Someone defining themselves as Canadian would presumably be raised in Canada.
Someone defining themselves as Scotland would presumably be raised in Scotland.

Someone who's "1/4 French" is not French. They have a French grandparent.

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (2)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987803)

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (1)

Guignol (159087) | about a year and a half ago | (#42991377)

Thanks Zemran ! that was hilarious

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (2)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987599)

Not sure if you're joking or you actually managed to get some text through, but my experience with Every. Single. Recognition. Program. is same as the Frist Psot on this very article. And it's not just me: when some version of ViaVoice came out with much hype, I and a bunch of friends wasted a good part of a day trying to get a single sentence intact. With no luck -- even getting a single word through was a cause for celebration.

Things have improved since then but not by much.

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988161)

There are bad voice recognition progs out there. Google's is not one of them. Really, try it out in an phone store some time.

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42988451)

Moreover, if you speak carefully (take care to enunciate clearly and leave discernible gaps between words) it's scarily good.

I recently hurt my back, and Apple's version of voice dictation has been an absolute godsend: for those times when I've had to lie down for periods to relieve the pain, I've been able to dtime te all of my work emails. And I'm not talking about short emails - long multi-paragraph ones at times, with accurate punctuation and recognition of medical terminology. I reckon it's >95 percent accurate.

Take the time to learn how to speak to it, and you could find it pretty revolutionary.

(I'm now praying for Google to speech-enable Gmail.)

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42988483)

According to your comment history you either work for google or are their biggest fanboy. Defending everything from Chrome to Chromebook to Google Glass. In any case you assist corrupted ad sellers who lobby away our privacy. While in the meantime posing as an ordinary slashdot person. You nasty corrupted cunt. Why don't you crawl back where you came from, which presumably is Brin's ass.

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988549)

You sent an email to tell _name_ you will see them in 10 minutes?

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (1)

dissy (172727) | about a year and a half ago | (#42989969)

You sent an email to tell _name_ you will see them in 10 minutes?

You never know how late he was already running before sending that email.

I've dictated similar emails when running late for work due to bad weather. If I'm already 30 minutes late, letting them know I will be there in another 10 minutes is not only polite but could be a stress reliever if someone has been waiting on you for anything important.

We've had a lot of ice storms and snow these past few weeks, an annoying one just yesterday in fact.
It started raining ice pellets around 2-3am Friday and by 7am my car was entombed with ice. It took a little longer than expected to unearth it before I could head to work.

I've also had the reverse, where there was only some snow on the ground in the morning, but by the time I left work the parking lot and all the cars in it were coated with an ice sheet, and I ended up getting home an hour or more late.
If there was someone at home expecting me, I would probably not want them to worry either.

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987461)

I'd heard the original purpose of this was to help people search for things that they had no idea how to spell.

Re:voice recognition is a bad joke (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988159)

Your post is about 5 years outdated. Google 411 when it still existed was remarkably good at acting like "siri" before siri existed. Since then google's voice recognition has become quite good-- it is about 95% accurate on my android phone, and is REALLY useful with google maps ("directions to [place of work]", "gas"), texting on the go ("Text [contact]; im on my way and will be there in 5 minutes period see you soon"), etc.

You should give it a try rather than speculating, if you really want to comment.

How do you (1)

hemp (36945) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987451)

How do you pronounce "Goatse" anyhow?

Re:How do you (3, Funny)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987505)

It's explained in this video [youtube.com]

Re:How do you (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42987509)

It's just a Goat, see? I vaguely considered trying this on my tablet which already has the Google voice recognition courtesy of Cyanogen Mod, but I'd rather Google not associate that with me forever.

Stability Release?! (1)

xushi (740195) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987455)

Not to sound like a rant but I've almost had it with their countless bugs with password saving.. I tried every trick on the net short of abandoning it for another browser.. it won't save my passwords anymore, it never updates my existing passwords, and the ones I delete won't ask me to add them anymore.. And googling around I see countless others who have the same problems since 2009.

No I don't want to use another plugin, I'd prefer to stick to google's own as much as possible and not replicate features.. I just would have thought Google would put more effort into this seeing as how large they are and how anal they were when it came to interviewing for a job there. I expected better...

Let's hope the message gets through..

Hey! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42987467)

What's with the releases every couple months? What's with the bloat? Why don't they address speed and stability bugs that have been open for two years?

Oh wait. This is a Chrome thread. Google gets a pass. Never mind.

Re:Hey! (0)

fluffy99 (870997) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987515)

What's with the releases every couple months? What's with the bloat? Why don't they address speed and stability bugs that have been open for two years?

Oh wait. This is a Chrome thread. Google gets a pass. Never mind.

They're trying real hard to keep up with the bloat and stability issues of Mozilla? Google Chrome wanted to add features rapidly like Mozilla, and Mozilla envied the rapid release of Chrome. Not sure who's winning that battle. IE10 maybe, but it depends on your definition of 'winning' (no, not the Charlie Sheen drug induced euphoria definition).

Re:Hey! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42987635)

It's the hypocrisy of the posters he's referring to.

Re:Hey! (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year ago | (#43016177)

What's with the releases every couple months?

Eliminating waste -- costs that have been incurred (e.g., by investing programmer-hours in development) that are not delivering value (e.g., by being incorporated in a shipping product) are a form of waste. Basic application of Lean principles.

What's with the bloat?

One user's bloat is lots of other users' value.

Why don't they address speed and stability bugs that have been open for two years?

Probably because for those particular issues, the expected value of the fix (given the severity and the conditions which trigger them) divided by the expected cost is lower than for other fixes and features, and Google is focussed on doing the work that matters most (highest value for cost) first.

I hope they fix it. (1)

YoungHack (36385) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987529)

Since this morning's update on Ubuntu I can't pull up Gmail. It's pretty darned annoying and now I've gone back to Firefox to wait for the next update to fix whatever is really busted.

Re:I hope they fix it. (1)

metamatic (202216) | about a year ago | (#43006367)

Are you getting lots of ERR_NETWORK_CHANGED errors? There's a Chromium ticket about that [google.com] ...

Does it have decent ad blocking yet? (1)

waspleg (316038) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987605)

No? Wake me if it ever does.

Re:Does it have decent ad blocking yet? (4, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987669)

Since Google is an ad company, you are going to sleep for a looong time dude.

Re:Does it have decent ad blocking yet? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42987917)

Ahem. With google, you are the product.

Re:Does it have decent ad blocking yet? (2)

ctid (449118) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988121)

What is wrong with a third-party ad-blocking extension?

Re:Does it have decent ad blocking yet? (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988177)

https://www.google.com/search?q=adblock+chrome [google.com]
https://www.google.com/search?q=cross+domain+request+filter [google.com]
https://www.google.com/search?q=notscripts [google.com]

Youre welcome. Dont let that stop you from trotting that out every few releases, even tho these have existed for, oh, a few years now.

Re:Does it have decent ad blocking yet? (2)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988309)

I prefer Chrome's adblock to Firefox's. What's the problem?

Re:Does it have decent ad blocking yet? (1)

thermal_7 (929308) | about a year ago | (#42998541)

Er yes, it has Adblock Plus from the same people who make the Firefox Adblock Plus. They are not quite at feature parity, but the Chrome one has been good enough for a couple of years now.

Non-standard features a go-go (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42987609)

Oh boy, time for Chrome to get a pass for implementing new non-standard features instead of not fixing their broken bits. After all, only Firefox and IE deserve such scathing criticism, because they're not the cool new kid on the block. /sarcasm

Good idea, though. I'll bet if Google and Mozilla teamed up on a browser, it would end world hunger and save the dolphins.

speech recognition. (2)

ouachiski (835136) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987839)

I'm 31 and I am the current generation of consumerists...I can type faster than I can talk (I am special because I was taught to type when I was 7). I was in high school before computers where common. kids now have been typing as long as they have been writing. I don't see speech recognition as being to terribly important, but it does have its use cases.

Re:speech recognition. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42987971)

It's the same for me. I grew up with computers in the house and for roughly 80% of that time I was either learning programming/scripting languages or using them. It's gotten to the point where typing is every bit as natural as talking, even on poor interfaces like a touch screen keyboard.

Honestly I like the idea of speech recognition, have tried many solutions, hated them all. The dictation variants almost always lack any serious attempt at inferring grammar, which leaves us saying "period", "comma", "semi-colon"; it just doesn't feel natural and waste time. The control variants always boil down to speaking very specific commands in very specific orders, again it doesn't feel natural.

For me to seriously adopt a speech recognition it needs to understand what I say, not just the words I say. The way modern OSes and modern programs are set up a lot can be derived just from the words used and a thesaurus. For example: "play random songs by Metallica". 'Play' narrows it down to game, music, or video. 'Songs' narrows it down to music, at this point it should know to look into my music library. 'by Metallica' implies an artist so it should filter out everything in the music library that doesn't have the artist tag set to 'Metallica'. Random is a function of just about every media player out there, it doesn't even need to decode that I mean "in random order", it just needs to find the UI widget with 'random' in the name. I didn't specific which player to use, so it should default to whatever I have set in my OS as the preferred music player.

I'm not saying everything will be so easy to decode the meaning of. But start with the easy stuff to get people interested in it. Spark a fire under the asses of more hardcore developers that will put in the time and effort to come up with reliable and efficient algorithms to decode more complex phrases.

Re:speech recognition. (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988043)

Yup, a while ago I wondered when Google would bring Google now and search to a PC until I realised what's the point.

It's something I use all the time on my phone because (even for an English accent) it can be quicker for certain tasks than a soft keyboard. However typing on a proper keyboard will always be faster for me.

Re:speech recognition. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42988327)

Do you still type as fast on a tiny touch screen keyboard?

Also, voice recognition is kind of CLI for the masses: instead of going through the start menu, picking the application, getting to the right sub-menu...etc you just input your command with parameters and get the result without all the intermediate waiting and searching through menus. "Computer, set alarm for 8AM repeats on workdays." seems to me much easier than the way I currently set an alarm on my android phone.

chrome 25, who cares? I have Firefox 22! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42987861)

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/

Oy, I'm in trouble now (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42987903)

One of my favourite spontaneous epithets being, "Bite me!"

I'm sure inventive Slashdotters can devise even more entertaining variations.

Re:Oy, I'm in trouble now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42989607)

"Oh Bob Saget!"

This voice command doesn't work... (1)

emgarf (727623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988273)

"Display bookmark sidebar."

I've Lost Interest In Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42988389)

Google has joined the ranks of Microsoft. If it's Google, I no longer want it.

Re:I've Lost Interest In Google (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42989043)

Apple fanboi?

No MathML? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42988499)

Chrome 24 hat reasonable support for MathML.
In Chrome 25 beta the rendering was even better.
The final version has no support for MathML at all.
Is this progress?

Re:No MathML? (1)

gniv (600835) | about a year and a half ago | (#42991313)

From the press release: "We’ve also resolved a high severity security issue by disabling MathML in this release. The WebKit MathML implementation isn’t quite ready for prime time yet but we are excited to enable it again in a future release once the security issues have been addressed."

Has anyone looked at this implementation in depth? (1)

Cyric (15624) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988839)

I have not had the opportunity, but is voice disabled by default and the user can selectively turn it on? I don't mean is the checkbox checked to turn it off ... is it actually off and not phoning home?

Re:Has anyone looked at this implementation in dep (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42989517)

Trying the demo is instructive in this case. It asked (in the bar at the top of the browser) whether you wanted to allow the page to use the microphone. So unless you allow it, no mic. This seems wise. The recognition was pretty good, but continues to have problems mapping pauses and inflections into things like commas and periods. You still have to actually say those words. So, for example, to complete this sentence you would say: So comma for example comma to complete this sentence you would say colon Not exactly the way I would want to say it. Especially since trying to get this:

Sometimes, you have to actually say the word "comma" and you have to actually say the word period

ends up as this:Sometimes, you have to actually say the word quote, unquote and you have to actually say the word.

In other words - the recog for comma and period is set to ALWAYS treat them as punctuation. They need to do this more naturally. Most people know how to pause for a moment when a comma or period should be inserted. Make this work.

Soo innovative, only 10 years after Opera! (1)

citizenr (871508) | about a year and a half ago | (#42988873)

Google - the front runner of innovation :)
Btw I think this has something to do with Google Glass - those glasses will be just an aux display for the phone. Phone needs to have good voice recognition integration. To get there in time they are starting with pc browser (10 years too late).

Re:Soo innovative, only 10 years after Opera! (2)

I-am-a-Banana (940550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42991311)

That was what my thoughts were... Why does everyone wet themselves like a puppy with a new chew toy when Google and Apple announce "something new and innovative" when it has been on the market by other companies for so long already?!? Weird.....

Voice command (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42989467)

Computer, Stop AutoScroll

One can Dream...

Can't Use Voice Recognition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42989479)

Imagine searching for porn using voice recognition.

Re:Can't Use Voice Recognition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42990807)

Easy, just scan for heavy breathing and the sound of tissues..

Why can't we have grammar support? (1)

ubertopf (693957) | about a year and a half ago | (#42989489)

I don't know whether this has been mentioned before, but the big problem with Google's approach is that it won't allow me to define a formal grammar as the "set of things the user might reasonably say". Dictionary recognition, as is employed here and on the Android phones, has the big disadvantage that I would need some kind of natural language understanding on the (already error-prone result) for anything but dictating text.

It is in essence a projection of voice to an N-Best list of recognition results. No if I could specify a grammar (e.g. per SRGS), I could have semantic annotation per SSML and use voice to actually control an application.

Re:Why can't we have grammar support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42992031)

Because it's being run on their server, so unless they want to host everyone's grammars and keep them straight, you're boned.

We actually implemented voice nav in our website years ago for tablet xp users using Windows's recognition, by having a bunch of people read the menu entries over and over and making a list of everything that the computer spat out. Probably could have done passable using soundex or the like but eh.

Re:Why can't we have grammar support? (1)

ubertopf (693957) | about a year and a half ago | (#42996357)

Meant to say SISR, not SSML.

It would be perfectly reasonable to send the SRGS grammar along with the voice data. It would even help Google with speech recognition as the search graph (assuming HMMs here), would be way smaller as opposed to those employing a full-blown dictionary grammar. Not accepting a grammar and only returning an N-Best list makes it pretty much unusable for anything non-trivial. What happened to all those concepts developed as part of EMMA/VoiceXML? It seems like the Web Speech API ignores everything that came before and went for the most naive approach.

Lack of consensus on grammar formats (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year ago | (#43016385)

I don't know whether this has been mentioned before, but the big problem with Google's approach is that it won't allow me to define a formal grammar as the "set of things the user might reasonably say".

AFAICT from reading the API spec and surrounding information is that's not a problem with "Google's approach", its a problem with the fact that the W3C Speech API Community Group couldn't come to a consensus on the grammar format(s) to support in the Web Speech API, so that while the API adopted in the group's final report specifies containers for grammars and how to attach them to recognition requests, it doesn't specify any actual formats for grammars.

Since the mission of the group was to come up with a consensus limited-subset specification as a step on the road to a specification that would meet the full set of use cases set out by the Final Report of the Speech Incubator Group's final report, it makes sense for an implementation of the Web Speech API not to adopt an approach on grammars that would fail to be forward-compatible with the anticipated future specification, since that would encourage building applications that would be broken under the expected follow-on full-featured speech API, which can be expected to retain compatibility with the limited-subset API in the areas covered by that API, but is less likely to do so in areas not covered by the limited-subset API.

Linux download? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42990255)

I'm running slackware, so I download the rpm and convert it to a tgz. I've just done that with the 64 bit rpm version, but it's only chrome 24, not 25. Has anyone else been able to download version 25?

meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42992217)

can it be set up so we can say fuck off chrome and it will uninstall?

Yeah Yeah Yeah (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42993029)

Let me know when the geniuses over at Google finally figure out how to release a version of Chrome that has a fucking menu bar. Until then, I'll stick to FireFox and Opera.

LK

Voice recognition and privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42995065)

Why does everyone get worked up about face recognition, linguistics applied to posts, etc. as an invasion of privacy but not one comments on the implications for privacy of this kind of technology?

The New Is Old Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43047787)

Seems like for the past ten years I'm constantly reading: "New feature in product X" where new_feature is something that's been around and usable for years already.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...