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!

Listen To Woz, And Perhaps Type Madly

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the beowulf-cluster-of-yourselves dept.

Apple 170

Shawn King of The Mac Show Live talked a few days ago with Apple co-founder and knowledge-omnivore Steve (The Woz) Wozniak. Shawn graciously agreed to post the interview, formerly Quicktime only (downloadable or streaming), as an MP3 file -- so now most anyone can listen. This is an interview worth listening to: Woz talks about his lifelong motivations, his years with Apple (up to the present), OS X, the Newton, and what the future holds for him. He also talks about building TV jammers and the only prank he got caught for in high school, one which might not fly so well right now. (The interview starts about 55 minutes into the show, and lasts for nearly an hour.) What's this got to do with typing madly? Well, since Shawn's program is all-audio (no pictures, and only the barest explanitory text), it's a lot less useful to those on text-only or just-plain-slow links than it could be. Read on below for your chance to change that with just a few minutes of your time. Update: 10/20 20:43 GMT by T : Thanks to everyone who's volunteered to transcribe, and to the several alternates who are already in line! No need for more voluneers right now :)

Transcribing an hour of text takes a long time. But if you (yes, you!) are willing to transcribe a 3-minute (well. 3:15) chunk of this interview, I will spend my putative day off gluing chunks of interview together. Shoot me an email with "WozScript" in the subject if you'd like to participate, and I'll give the first volunteers (it shouldn't take that many) a randomly-drawn three-minute segment to type up, as well as more instructions on how to format it. No compensation except your name in lights, and the knowledge that lynx users everywhere appreciate your efforts. I'll update this story if and when the transcription is complete. (And if anyone can suggest a good Quicktime audio --> .ogg converter, Shawn and I would both appreciate it.)

cancel ×

170 comments

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

WindowsFP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2454946)

yeah !

Vanilla ICE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2454959)

Eat my shortz, u sucka mcs!


VI


PS: Eminem's mom gives good head.

Suggestions (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2454963)


A) Go from the mp3 to a high-quality ogg file. There are plenty of mp3-->ogg converters. And don't bitch about the quality, it's a freaking interview, notMozart.

B) On a related note, this would be a fascinating job for a text-to-speech editor. I say, slap the
entire interview through one, and then just edit. I'll bet it takes less than half the time.

Quicktime - wav - ogg (2)

dvdeug (5033) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455019)

Or from Quicktime to wav to ogg.

Re:Suggestions (4, Informative)

damiam (409504) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455083)

Use Qucktime Pro [apple.com] , export to a .wav file, then encode the .wav as an ogg.
Or, if you're looking for an open source solution, try using Quicktime for XMMS [sourceforge.net] or other Quicktime players for Linux, redirecting the sound to a .wav file, and then encoding into Ogg.

Re:Suggestions (0)

All sporks are fags (528902) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455268)

Quicktime for Linux has some serious problems, at least when it's running on an 80x86 computer [cjb.net] .

Re:Suggestions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455319)

Warning - above is goatsex link.

Re:Suggestions (1)

btellier (126120) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455094)

The Wreck-A-Nice-Beach programs of today can't keep up with the hip jive of today's hep modern computer cats like Woz 'n' the Funky Bunch.

Speech-to-Text (1)

tommy (12973) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455204)

I say it takes four times as long.

"Text to speech editor" (2)

underwhelm (53409) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455241)

My girlfriend works here [captionmax.com] , they might have the job for you...

Re:Suggestions (0)

^me^ (129402) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455306)

Yep. It's not Mozart. It's WozArt. :-D

Mandrake suxx0rs (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2454967)

Mad propz to all my dead OOG THE OPEN SOURCE CAVEMANS

Steve Wozniak's Starting Capital (-1, Flamebait)

Spootnik (518145) | more than 12 years ago | (#2454970)

I'm much more impressed with Steve Wozniak, and his marketing assistant, Steve Jobs, working out of a garage, with spare parts and gleanings, coming up with a better little cruncher than the blue behemoth, then getting venture capital to put it into mass production (after being turned down by HP, TI, etc., when they offere to give the design to them). Of course, they owe a debt to XEROX for the Macintosh operating system, who, in turn, owe a debt to a quirky academic out east for the invention of the "mouse".

The day-to-day travails of the IBM programmer are so amusing to most of us who are fortunate enough to avoid being one. It is like watching Charlie Chaplin trying to cook a shoe. $$$

Re:Steve Wozniak's Starting Capital (5, Insightful)

_damnit_ (1143) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455228)

who, in turn, owe a debt to a quirky academic out east for the invention of the "mouse".

The mouse and hypertext was invented by the Englebart team at SRI in Menlo Park, CA (on Ravenswood near a really good bar, coffee shop and book store).

The original 1968 presentation which includes the world's introduction to hypertext and windowing is available on video at: http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html [stanford.edu] . So, it might be safe to say Xerox owes their GUI to someone SRI who owes Turing who owes Grunt for discovering fire.

Quicktime audio -- .ogg converter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2454975)

Why?

Didn't you just post a link to the MP3 version?

MP3 -> Ogg should be trivial!

.ogg support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2454980)

Is in Audion [panic.com] , but I'm not usre if it can QT -> ogg.

Someone volunteer (-1)

Klerck (213193) | more than 12 years ago | (#2454982)

And insert small goatse.cx [goatse.cx] references throughout your segment. Try not to make it obvious, though!

First Dildo Post!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455002)

Janie's got a gun.

:o)

This guy has vision (5, Interesting)

CmdrTroll (412504) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455004)

I've always been impressed with Steve Wozniak - ever since I was a kid. I remember reading his autobiography several years ago, and he was frighteningly accurate in predicting many of the trends that have since hit the PC industry.

I found it interesting that in this interview, he acknowledges that the industry has shifted to cheap, commodity hardware and that Apple continues to suffer from it - but he was absolutely correct in pointing out that blind brand loyalty by "artsy types" was keeping them in business. Though Steve's strengths are obviously technical in nature, he possesses an innate understanding of a lot of issues on the business side of things that helped to keep him ahead of the curve.

-CT

Re:This guy has vision (1, Insightful)

onetrueking (413507) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455033)

I find it annoying that you think that just because a person is "artsy" that he doesn't know which computer is best for him/her. The reason Apple sells computers to these folks, (the people who write your books and movies, and design your graphics and webpages) is because they know that there time is better spent being creative and not dealing with upgrades and diagnostics and all the things Windows and Linux users have to deal with. Just because people are "artsy" doesn't mean that they're stupid.

Re:This guy has vision (0)

linzeal (197905) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455061)

um, blind brand loyalty !=stupid.

One of my dearest HS friends wouldn't touch a ford to save his life and drives chevrolet trucks exclusively that does not make him stupid.

I mean there are tons of christians out there with blind faith and that does not make them "stupid" either.

Re:This guy has vision (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455089)

Hardcore christians who drive around in pick up trucks, ya those are some real winners...

Sorry but they're stupid...

Re:This guy has vision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455176)

That really depends on who you ask

Re:This guy has vision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455362)

I mean there are tons of christians out there with blind faith and that does not make them "stupid" either.
You need some work coming up with your metaphores. Brand loyalty != stupid is an OK statement. But your metaphors does nothing to prove the point, rather the opposite.


If you ask me, Christians(or muslims for that sake) with blind faith are not stupid, but they are ignorant, which is a bigger sin in my eyes.
The only redeeming factor for someone following a religion in my eyes are people who tell them selves: "This is all bullshit, but I'll join this group because they do dome good work for humanity".
Any other reasons for adhering to a religion is hypocricy or stupidity.


Brand loyalty is driven by may factors: fear of the unknown, habit, repetition of a good experience, heavy marketing, following of the herd, lack of imagination, lack of knowledge.

Re:This guy has vision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455128)

Stupid in as much as they are blindly loyal. It might not be an overall measure of their intelligence, but it still is a measure in one particular area (product evaluation, perhaps? dunno).

Re:This guy has vision (4, Insightful)

Apreche (239272) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455250)

The guy never said that only artsy people buy macs. Nor did he say that that artsy people don't know about computers. You are putting words in his mouth. The truth is that Macintosh comptuers and their operating system are extremely pretty. The one thing that macs do better than every other computer is 2d graphics and audio/video editing. Those are the things that artsy beatnik type people do with their computers. They buy macs not because they are stupid but because they know that this computer excels at the applications they use the most.
And the fact of the matter is that the mac is only still alive because it is really good at 2d graphics and audio/video editing. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't be around.

Re:This guy has vision (3, Interesting)

phillymjs (234426) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455115)

...but he was absolutely correct in pointing out that blind brand loyalty by "artsy types" was keeping them in business.

I'm not an "artsy" type in the least. I'm a system integrator. After a long day of work fixing the piece of shit that is Windows, for unappreciative clients that get mad at me because the software they chose is constantly getting fucked up, I want to come home, sit down, and use a computer that works right all the time. As long as Apple continues to make computers that fit that criteria, I will be loyal to them.

Once a month I rebuild my desktop, and I run Norton Disk Doctor quarterly as preventative maintenance. A virus? What's that? I saw one once on my Mac, in 1992. (MDEF, IIRC, a non-malicious virus that could be removed by a desktop rebuild).

Being artsy or not has little to do with why people choose Macs.

~Philly

Re:This guy has vision (2, Interesting)

AragornSonOfArathorn (454526) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455238)

I second this... I am a student (not for long, though... done in December! hell yeah) and for years I've been a PC guy, but then one day last year I just got sick of dealing with Windows crap after my PC died. (I have and still do use Linux but that can be a pain too) and bought a G4 tower and put OS X on it. (I never would have gone to the Other Side if it wasn't for OS X... I'm not a a huge fan of Mac OS < OSX, I need/prefer UNIX) I now also have a PowerBook G4 (bought a few weeks before Apple introduced the new PBG4s... should have checked those Mac rumor sites more carefully... D'oh! Oh well, not a big deal) and I love how everything "Just Works", even X windows when installed via fink and combined with OroborOSX windowmanager... Just my 2 cents, sorry if this is a little incomprehensible, I haven't had enough coffee yet today :-)

Re:This guy has vision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455285)

I come home to Mac too, but it crashes several times per evening.

Re: mac crashing (2)

green pizza (159161) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455346)

I have several machines at home (SGI Octane, Sun Ultra 2, several x86 PCs) though only two are Macs. One is an old PowerMac 8600, the other is a much newer iBook 500. I really haven't experienced the crashing so many folks are talking about. Back when my 8600 was running Mac OS 8.5 and Internet Explorer 4.0 it would freeze up on me every now and then, but overall both machines are very stable, even when running (gasp!) MS Mac Office 98, MS Mac Office 2001, and IE 5.0. Right now the 8600 is running Mac OS 8.6 and the iBook is running 9.1. My only real complaints right now are that IE 5.0 will sometimes stall for about 20 seconds while rendering a page. LPR printing to printers on my unix boxen is somewhat limited in flexibility. NFS clients for Mac OS 8.X/9.X are pricey. Hopefully OS X and OmniWeb will

I have heard, though, some major horror stories about iMac/iBook/G3/G4 stability with versions of Mac OS prior to 9.1, especially when using USB devices. Luckilly 9.1 and 9.2.1 are a free upgrade to 9.X. 8.6 is the free upgrade to 8.5.X. There is no free upgrade from 8.X to 9.X. :( But that's ok, I can't afford any more expensive ram for my 8600 anyway!

Woz on Digital Village Radio (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455009)

Woz was on Digital Village [digitalvillage.org] last week for the full hour. A good interview, especially his thoughts about M$.

Speech to text recognition (4, Insightful)

Spootnik (518145) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455010)

"Transcribing an hour of text takes a long time. But if you (yes, you!) are willing to transcribe a 3-minute (well. 3:15) chunk of this interview, I will spend my putative day off gluing chunks of interview together."

Which bring the question. What are the alternatives for a voice recognition application that sould take a sound sample and convert it to text? Sort of like OCR (Optical Character Recognition) softwares does with a scanned image?

Re:Speech to text recognition (2)

Phroggy (441) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455048)

From what little I know, dictation software requires you to speak calmly, clearly, and not too fast. So, it wouldn't work too well on a pre-recorded presentation.

Re:Speech to text recognition (2, Interesting)

rcs2 (261027) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455088)

However, it does not have to operate in real time, so could it be just as (or even more) accurate as dictation software? Could you make up for crappy quality with longer analysis time?

Re:Speech to text recognition (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455051)

It's pretty easy as long as you're not using an app-poor environment like Linux or HURD.

Re:Speech to text recognition (1)

aka-ed (459608) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455059)

I can't think of a single voice recognition app that can't send audio input to a text file. Try this [google.com] .

Re:Speech to text recognition (3, Interesting)

Evro (18923) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455098)

Summer 2000 I worked for a company that was testing some software from IBM based on their ViaVoice voice recognition software that would allow you to feed in an mpeg (video or audio) stream and the program would output a transcript of it. Honestly it was pretty bad at the time, but that was a long time ago and I don't have any idea what kind of progress has been made since then. It also had some other features like taking snapshots of the video and indexing them to the text and all sorts of cool stuff.

Ahh, here it is: It's called CueVideo and it's aimed at Multimedia indexing: http://www.almaden.ibm.com/cs/cuevideo/ [ibm.com]

---

Here's an almost unrelated article: http://www-4.ibm.com/software/speech/news/20000825 -iw.html [ibm.com]

http://www.acm.org/sigs/sigmm/MM98/electronic_proc eedings/ponceleon/ [acm.org]

Re:Speech to text recognition (2)

Anthony Boyd (242971) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455288)

It's called CueVideo

Shouldn't that be Cue::Video?

sphinx: free GPL-incompatible(?) speech recognizer (3, Informative)

Adam J. Richter (17693) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455203)

At LinuxWorld in San Francisco, Geoff Harrison (sp?), co-author of the Enlightenment window manager, talked about text/speech conversion. If I recall his talk correctly, most proprietary voice recognition software is derived from the free sphinx [cmu.edu] system developed at Carnegie-Mellon University, which also has a sourceforge area [cmu.edu] . The web page at CMU talks about a sphinx3 program that is slower but more accurate, which sounds like a better fit for transcribing a previously recorded interview, but I did not see a link to the source code for it.

Geoff's employer, Cepstral [cepstral.com] , also claims to have released [cepstral.com] some related software under "relatively liberal" permissions. (Sorry, I could not find any download links or texts of the corresponding copying permissions.)

The sphinx2 copying permissions have an advertising restriction similar to the one that made the old BSD copying conditions GPL incompatible but "free" [fsf.org] in the opinion of the Free Software Foundation. I do not know about the situtation with sphinx, sphinx3 or any Cepstral contributions.

Correction on sphinx2 sourceforge link (3, Informative)

Adam J. Richter (17693) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455210)

Sorry, I thought I checked all of my links. The sphinx2 sourceforge links should be http://sourceforge.net/projects/cmusphinx/ [sourceforge.net] .

Re:sphinx: free GPL-incompatible(?) speech recogni (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455370)

Well that certainly scores a 5 on the Richter scale.

Need more Mice Buttons (-1, Troll)

Tom7 (102298) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455011)


OK, OK, but when is the mac going to get more mouse buttons??

Re:Need more Mice Buttons (1)

MissMyNewton (521420) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455023)

*sigh*

Are these comments trolls? Or are people just uninformed?

The answer is: whenever you plug in the multibutton mouse of your choice.

I'm using a cordless optical Logitech mouse that doesn't even "support" Mac in OS X 10.1, and the scroller scrolls and the second button brings up contextual menus.

--MMN

Re:Need more Mice Buttons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455044)

Serious question, because I don't know the answer. If you don't like the one-button Apple mice, can you order your Mac without one, or are you stuck paying for it anyway? (Thereby forcing you to have to buy *two* mice for each system you own.) If Apple doesn't give you a choice in the matter, I think people are totally correct to express their frustration on the matter, and especially with high prices that Apple is already charging them.

Re:Need more Mice Buttons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455063)

No, they (Apple) don't. But so is any other name brand PC vendors (like Dell). If a PC user wants to use a Trackball instead, they also need to pay extra for it.

Re:Need more Mice Buttons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455096)

So if you're annoyed that Dell is doing that, just go to a different computer maker than Dell. Plenty will sell you a system with whatever mouse you want or even no mouse at all. Choice is good.

Re:Need more Mice Buttons (1)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455389)

The answer is: whenever you plug in the multibutton mouse of your choice.

It's only recently such a simple answer. This wasn't a cheap nor easy thing to do when Macs had just ADB ports. There weren't many multibutton ADB pointing devices out there, and they weren't cheap, either. (Then again, most Mac peripherals aren't cheap.)

I did find a cool driver that'd let you plug in a PC mouse into one of the serial ports (with appropriate adapter) and use that it.

Re:Need more Mice Buttons (1, Informative)

BOFslime (178524) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455024)

interstingly.. though off toppic.. OS X nativly supports 3 button scroll wheel mice.

mmm... contextual menus..

Re:Need more Mice Buttons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455029)

just as soon as you get your ass to the store to buy a multi-button usb mouse

Re:Need more Mice Buttons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455266)

They could also buy said mouse from an online mail-order distributor such as MacConnection [macconnection.com] or MacZone [maczone.com] .

is it just me or.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455015)

Is it just me or are people using the phrase "Make no mistake" waaay to much ever since the terorist attacks, sheesh.

"Make no mistake! i WILL order a pizza for lunch!"

"I am going to the store to get a cup of coffee! Make no mistake about it!!!"

"MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT!! I WILL TAKE A NAP AND THEN WATCH THE YANKESS GAME!!!!"

way for people to overuse a phrase...

"Make no mistake about it! this formkey is invalid!"

(-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455016)

This post is dedicated to the Ku Klux Klan.

Lynx users everywhere... (-1, Flamebait)

disc-chord (232893) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455020)

"No compensation except your name in lights, and the knowledge that lynx users everywhere appreciate your efforts."

Well tell both of those two remaining lynx users to get with the program and install IE.

I sware to christ, if this is the best use of your time for a saturday afternoon nowonder Linux development is stagnating...

Re:Lynx users everywhere... (2, Funny)

hackerhue (182083) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455032)

And deaf users should get with the program and install a new pair of ears, right?

Text is good because nearly everyone can use it one way or another.

Re:Lynx users everywhere... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455042)

oh so blind users should isntall a new pair of eyes then?

Re:Lynx users everywhere... (1)

hackerhue (182083) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455052)

So you've never heard of Braille, or text-to-speach, then?

Re:Lynx users everywhere... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455064)

geee let's write a text transcript of some audio so we can listen to it in text to speech, great idea.

Re:Lynx users everywhere... (1)

fossa (212602) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455097)

If I have a slow link and were blind I might rather download a text version and use a text to speech program.

His point is that text is a good universal format, useable by nearly everyone. The existence of a single example where the audio-to-text is not so useful does not make a text file any less universal

Time index of interview (5, Informative)

cDarwin (161053) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455034)

The interview with Woz starts at T = 55:27

I am butt buddies with CmdrTaco. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455040)

I am a fucking nigger.

Re:I am butt buddies with CmdrTaco. (-1, Offtopic)

Fucky the troll (528068) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455141)

thanks, really.

Good Idea, But... (0, Troll)

Hacker Cracker (204131) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455043)

I would gladly give you a 3:15 chunk of my time, but it's not going to do any good without knowing exactly what chunk to do. We need a list of what's being worked on so we don't end up with say, 1,000 copies of the first/last ten minutes!

Shouldn't be that hard to put up a dynamic page that shows what still needs to be transcribed...

-- Shamus

Bleah!

Re:Good Idea, But... (1, Redundant)

Hacker Cracker (204131) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455050)

Jeez, you'd think I would have taken the time to read the damn post...

Never mind...

-- Shamus

Re:Good Idea, But... (1)

sulli (195030) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455090)

RTFA:

Shoot me an email with "WozScript" in the subject if you'd like to participate, and I'll give the first volunteers (it shouldn't take that many) a randomly-drawn three-minute segment to type up, as well as more instructions on how to format it.

How about algorithmic voice transcription? (5, Funny)

Knobby (71829) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455060)

I thought we were suppsed to be geeks? Come on guys. Transcribing an hour of audio into text should take one line to fire up a voice recognition code, and no more time than the wall time required to listen to the interview..

There's a huge group of people hear who would love to see a free variant of *NIX that can compete with windows for the desktop market. I think that before this happens you're going to need to sit down, spend some time in your local technical library researching voice, image, pattern recognition algorithms.. I'd love to be able to type:

voice2text -mp3 woz.mp3 woz_interview.text
and get a transcribed version of a speech, or lecture notes.. How about combining this with an answering machine app to record and transcribe messages then send those messages to the IMAP server or atleast place them in a searchable database for future reference..

This is way off-topic but it's something I started thinking about when rumors bagan floating around concerning Apple's iPhoto app.. I thought it would be pretty incredible if Apple could piece together an app to project photos onto an empirical basis set and then use the coefficients from that projection to sort images.. Think of it like a generalized face recognition routine only more useful..

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that gnome and kde are nice, but to take over the desktop market you we really need to crawl out of the box, and burn it to the ground!

Re:How about algorithmic voice transcription? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455171)

There are limits to what a person will do when they know they aren't going to get paid for it.

Re:How about algorithmic voice transcription? (2, Funny)

Shabazz Rabbinowitz (103670) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455335)

Anonymous Coward on 03:39 PM October 20th, 2001:

"There are limits to what a person will do when they know they aren't going to get paid for it." Like create an OS, perhaps?

Re:How about algorithmic voice transcription? (2)

Knobby (71829) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455342)

What?

I'm confused? No one will develop an OS unless they can make money on it, right? No one will bother workng on something as mundane as office software unless they can make money on it, right?.. Wrong! And not only are you wrong, but your arguement is irrelevant because what I'm talking about is something that could be very interesting (the kind of thing some people enjoy studying as hobbies) and useful (think reporter, folklorists, historians, etc)...

Online voice transcription (4, Funny)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455189)

Just 4 easy steps:

1) Pick up your phone and dial the voice transcription service (any number will do)

2) Give the transcription start command: "bin laden"

3) Play the sample to be transcribed

4) E-mail carnivore@fbi.gov to receive your free transcript!

Re:How about algorithmic voice transcription? (1)

jonesvery (121897) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455347)

I think that before this happens you're going to need to sit down, spend some time in your local technical library researching voice, image, pattern recognition algorithms.. I'd love to be able to type:

[...]
I'd love to be able to type:

voice2text -mp3 woz.mp3 woz_interview.text and get a transcribed version of a speech, or lecture notes..

I'd love that too, but I also think that it's going to take a *lot* of time and reasearch before voice2text even gets to the alpha stage...the last time I checked, speech recognition was still a buggy proposition at the best of times. Most solutions required a significant amount of "training" with the user who's speech they are to recognize -- a pretty large step away from recognizing, interpreting, and correctly attributing the speech of two (or more) people during a recorded interview.

When you add in the editing issues (on the most basic level, is your program even smart enough to consistently determine from context whether the speaker said "there," their," or "they're"), you've got a project that is rather chunky to say the least.

Very interesting, yes, but it reminds me a lot of the meetings with my CEO that start with the words "I've had a really exciting new idea, and your guys are all going to be really excited about it..."

Re:How about algorithmic voice transcription? (2)

Knobby (71829) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455367)

Very interesting, yes, but it reminds me a lot of the meetings with my CEO that start with the words "I've had a really exciting new idea, and your guys are all going to be really excited about it..."

*grin* ... I completely understand the time and research problems involved in doing this right. I'm not suggesting that a voice2text utility would be as easy to construct.. I'm merely tossing this idea out there for the /. readers to ponder..

MP3 Format? (0)

Aurelfell (520560) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455069)

At the risk of being called a Troll, shouldn't anyone who is really interested in hearing The Woz talk about Apple have Quicktime installed? Maybe they're trying to win over us Linux geeks.

Want to help Lynx users? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455075)

Kindly ask them to join the rest of us in the 21st century. Failing that, euthanize them. In all seriousness, you know the world would be a much better place if that were to happen.

Woz is a true 'hacker' in every sense of the word (5, Insightful)

Anton Anatopopov (529711) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455079)

The fact that he was shafted by Jobs, and doesn't lead a multi-millionaire lifestyle is testament to this. He did it for the love.

He is almost the exact opposite of William Gates III. He is the Anti-Gates! :-)

Its good to see he's still around.

Re:Woz is a true 'hacker' in every sense of the wo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455293)

"...doesn't lead a multi-millionaire lifestyle"

Well he does drive a Hummer and likes to pay for things in stacks of two dollar bills...

My e-mail to Timmothy: (4, Funny)

Soko (17987) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455081)

Tmiothy,

OK, I'll tpye. ;-)

How long do I have, BTW?

TIA

Soko

File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (5, Interesting)

paulywog (114255) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455092)

OK. So someone explain why the MP3 file is 20MB of audio only, where as the QuickTime is 17MB of audio AND video...

a) Quick Time quality sucks.
b) MP3 compression sucks.
c) Cowboy Neal sucks.

Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (1)

billvinson (135790) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455116)

The MacShow Live does not contain video, but I guess QT compresses audio a little better in this case? This is mostly voice. I would say probably a lower bit rate.

Bill

Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (2)

TotallyUseless (157895) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455123)

I didn't get the quicktime file, but my guess is that it is audio only as well. I don't think the mac show broadcasts video, just audio quicktime. Besides, a phone interview doesn't make for compelling video, know what I mean?

Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (1)

hexix (9514) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455129)

You're jumping to conclusion. Quicktime can be just audio, it doesn't need to be audio and video. In this case, it is just audio, no video.

Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (1)

mlc (16290) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455140)

The quicktime has no video.

Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (2)

paulywog (114255) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455295)

Oops.

There I go jumping the gun...

(Thanks for not flaming my butt.)

Re:File Sizes - Slashdot Poll (2)

mcc (14761) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455317)

OK, i'll byte. The correct answer is:

d) The offered mp3 file was arbitrarily encoded at a higher bitrate than the offered quicktime file was.

Just in case someone would like me to continue stating the obvious: According to the "Movie Info" dialog in my copy of Quicktime Player, the quicktime file used the QDesign Music 2 codec and was encoded at 22.05 kHz and a bitrate of 2.4 kilobytes per second of sound (19.2 Kbps), and the mp3 file was encoded at 11.025 kHz and a bitrate of 2.9 kilobytes per second of sound (23.2 Kbps). Also for some unclear reason the mp3 version is about a minute longer, although given they're both just over two hours that probably wouldn't have much effect on the file size.

I personally think the (smaller) QDesign encoding sounds much clearer, but i'd definitely rather listen to the mp3 version-- the QDesign version seems kind of higher-pitched and grating for some reason. That, however, doesn't really reflect much on either codec, since the quality of files of this sort tends to vary wildly depending on how good a job the specific encoder program does of, um, encoding, and different formats have different ranges of bitrates where they perform better than other ranges..

And of course it probably isn't quite fair to compare QDesign directly to mp3, seeing as as far as i can gather QDesign was designed much more as a format for being flexibly streamed than it was as a format for good storage quality. The QDesign codec, for the record, is probably a more advanced codec than mp3 (if i remember correctly, it's a couple years newer than mp3 is), but i've no idea how it would stack up against mp3pro or ogg.

Hey, you asked.

QDesign Music 2 CODEC.. (2)

Knobby (71829) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455320)

The Quicktime clip was encoded using the QDesign Music 2 codec as a16 bit Mono recording at 22.05kHz.

Note: the sound is a little hollow.. I imagine the mp3 file sounds about the same, and the compression could probably be better if the signal had not been compressed on the fly, i.e. off-line compression can be better because the whole track is known and the optimization routine could be tuned to minimize the file size.

The Woz (3, Informative)

Ace905 (163071) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455100)

I actually found some info on the Woz [eggforge.net] just the other day. I thought it was kinda cool, but the same thing he discusses on his website.

Eggplants! [eggforge.net]


As I Listen... (1)

dbCooper0 (398528) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455109)

I can't help but wonder about the people in CBM and Atari - who probably did not have someone like Woz who was a sole engineer in the development of the first two Apple boxen.

I know that Nolan Bushnell [thetech.org] was a key player in Atari's early years, and that the Amiga and Atari ST were actually "swapped" between companies where execs "jumped ship" - but what about Commodore's early years?

I took a quick look for historical links, and came up pretty much empty-handed. Anyone have better resources?

Re:As I Listen... (1)

aka-ed (459608) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455144)

Did you look here [commodorehistory.com] ?

Re:As I Listen... (1)

dbCooper0 (398528) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455245)

Just did look. Thanks.

Re:As I Listen... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455183)

Hardware-wise, Commodore's VIC-20 and C64 were mostly the effort of Bob Yannes. He left CBM soon after that to found Ensoniq, to implement the audio hardware that because of time constraints he only partially managed to cram in the C64's SID (which at the time was anyway the best audio processor for a home computer, making a lot of memorable music possible). Ensoniq was recently bought by Creative.

Re:As I Listen... (1)

dbCooper0 (398528) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455236)

Thanks - I happen to own an Ensoniq Mirage (which went for about $1300 in the 80's) as well as plenty of Creative and Ensoniq sound cards. I subscribe to a Mirage mail list. I did not know the connection to Bob Yannes...

Re:As I Listen... (1)

Craig Davison (37723) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455267)

Ah, so that's why the //gs sounded so good.

formkeys test (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2455133)

slashdot is fucked

Another Interview (4, Informative)

dbCooper0 (398528) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455136)

can be found at The Guardian's Article [guardian.co.uk] that I got off Woz' site [woz.org] .

Plenty of other references on Steve's site, as well...

On Listening (3, Interesting)

sakusha (441986) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455150)

I'm listening to the interview right now, and I can assure you that much will be lost if you convert it to text. You can't hear Woz's tone, as he gets excited about some things, and his serious tone on others. Come on, listen to the man's words, this is a guy who is talking about his youth when he could barely stand to speak to people from sheer shyness, and now millions of people can listen to his voice all across the world through the personal computers that he popularized. It's worth hearing his voice.

Re:On Listening (1)

GiMP (10923) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455253)

Yeah, assuming you *can* hear.

Re:On Listening (1)

CamelTrader (311519) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455353)

Very interesting. I volunteered to transcribe some of this interview, and was assigned my segment. I did the whole shebang, stuttering, laughs, ers and ahs. It certainly won't bring Woz to life on your screen, but I thought it would be neat, and I kinda enjoyed it. But Timothy told me he was going to edit out the stuttering for readability. I don't mind having my 'extra detail' edited out, but I'm reassured to know that some people are thinking along the same line (well...kinda.) as I am.

That was fun :) (1)

thesolo (131008) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455284)

Thanks for the opportunity to transcribe, Tim! Here is to hoping no one finds any glaring problems with my section!!

The Question is... (3, Funny)

rbeattie (43187) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455360)


If a hundred Slashdotters spend a thousand minutes typing out 20 million bytes worth of audio, will it be Shakespeare?

Or something like that...

-R

perhaps it would be more cost effective (1, Offtopic)

linuxpng (314861) | more than 12 years ago | (#2455382)

if they offered a trade in program for those who are interested. I mean, not everyone is going to want a computer, but those who do can trade up their computer and Ford can give those unwanted computers to charity. That gives Ford a nice tax write off. Furthermore, you look good to everyone. I mean, you are give to charity, you are upgrading your workforce's computers, and you make a little money back in the form of tax savings. Seems a little smarter to me. I wish my employer at least made the effort that Ford did.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?