Siri needs to be improved. It must be taken out of beta.
I have no idea why Apple released it in the first place as it was not ready.
To beat the copyists maybe? Hindsight has made this a moot point.
I think Apple should wait till Samsung brings out something innovative and blatantly copy it. Lets see how Samsung feels then. But heck, we will be waiting a very long time.
Nonsense. Siri was not perfect, nor does anyone expect it to be. But it works very well.
My posts are again being deleted.
I didn't know I was living in communist USSR.
My posts are my opinions just like others and yet are being removed.
Note that AI is not the government but a privately owned company that can do as it sees fit… unless you wish to actually defy argue that the democratic republic in which is was created is wrong for allowing it to conduct business as it sees fit.
Siri needs to be improved. It must be taken out of beta.
I have no idea why Apple released it in the first place as it was not ready.
To beat the copyists maybe? Hindsight has made this a moot point.
I think Apple should wait till Samsung brings out something innovative and blatantly copy it. Lets see how Samsung feels then. But heck, we will be waiting a very long time.
So it needs to be improved -AND- taken out of Beta? Your statement eludes to it being taken out of beta before it's improved to a point of not being beta. Why does that makes sense to you?
You do even know why Siri was released as a beta? Do you know how Siri will get out of an Apple perceived beta stage? It should be obvious for a service that relies a user's accent, speech patterns, intonations, cultural terms, and common requests that before it can be out of beta it needs to be tested by the masses. You can't do this in the lab because there simply aren't enough people in Cupertino to do the needed testing. You need to gather data over a significant period of time so you can teach Siri quickly and efficiently.
Why ignore the complexity that is Siri. You think it's just a search engine? You think it's just a voice-to-text system? No and no! It needs to record your e phonemes, then not only understand what you said but what you mean by what you said, then it can do a search for the appropriate results and reply back to the system appropriately, which may include leaving the conversation opened so that simple sentences stated afterwards will be followed. Apple bought and licensed a lot of tech to help this along but that's not enough.
Google ran GOOG-411 for over 3.5 years as a beta but Apple is somehow dropping the ball for having a beta service, too? WTF?!
Siri needs to be improved. It must be taken out of beta.
I have no idea why Apple released it in the first place as it was not ready.
To beat the copyists maybe? Hindsight has made this a moot point.
I think Apple should wait till Samsung brings out something innovative and blatantly copy it. Lets see how Samsung feels then. But heck, we will be waiting a very long time.
You complained about AI being like communists. Yet you want SIRI to be taken out of beta. Then you want Apple to copy Samsung. You really sound like a teenager.
Good thing we have you to explain things for us. It's nice to know we have a source of reliable, complete and non-biased information about these cases.
You could state your problem with the comment for once rather than write personal attacks in the form of sarcasm.
You could state your problem with the comment for once rather than write personal attacks in the form of sarcasm.
Not to known trolls who have a large number of posts that contribute little to the discussion at hand. Or spend time very carefully crafting their posts to pretend to be neutral while spouting half-truths.
Lots of people disagree with some things I say. I only poke fun at a few specific ones.
Nonsense. Siri was not perfect, nor does anyone expect it to be. But it works very well.
It makes too many mistakes, I suppose for beta this is acceptable. However it needs to be improved, most would agree here. it needs to have far greater integration with settings for instance.
It MUST not rely on google at all, tie it in with Yahoo or Bing when it cannot give a definitive answer and must resort to a search. I will not use it unless I can change this default setting somehow.
So it needs to be improved -AND- taken out of Beta? Your statement eludes to it being taken out of beta before it's improved to a point of not being beta. Why does that makes sense to you?
You do even know why Siri was released as a beta? Do you know how Siri will get out of an Apple perceived beta stage? It should be obvious for a service that relies a user's accent, speech patterns, intonations, cultural terms, and common requests that before it can be out of beta it needs to be tested by the masses. You can't do this in the lab because there simply aren't enough people in Cupertino to do the needed testing. You need to gather data over a significant period of time so you can teach Siri quickly and efficiently.
Why ignore the complexity that is Siri. You think it's just a search engine? You think it's just a voice-to-text system? No and no! It needs to record your e phonemes, then not only understand what you said but what you mean by what you said, then it can do a search for the appropriate results and reply back to the system appropriately, which may include leaving the conversation opened so that simple sentences stated afterwards will be followed. Apple bought and licensed a lot of tech to help this along but that's not enough.
Google ran GOOG-411 for over 3.5 years as a beta but Apple is somehow dropping the ball for having a beta service, too? WTF?!
How come I need to waste my precious time and spell things out.
It needs to be improved, and WHEN it does to an acceptable level then it won't be called a beta product.
I will come back to answer your other points
To be continued ...
You complained about AI being like communists. Yet you want SIRI to be taken out of beta. Then you want Apple to copy Samsung. You really sound like a teenager.
What waffle. Did you read my post at all? What are u on about? Putting worlds in my mouth.
Sounds like you're now on Samsung's side, because Apple still isn't complaining about the lack of time.
I'm on the side of Truth. I don't care who it benefits. Artificially limiting the number of arguments brought forward to find the truth sounds like it's against truth to me. Let the jury do the trimming. Preventing them from even hearing the information in the first place is disingenuous to the extreme.
For you to claim to be on the side of truth TS, is as credible as Hitler claiming to love Jews.
You know very well that I have called you out for lying, in this forum, about my Email address being a fake, but despite many requests to do so you have NEVER retracted this, despite knowing that you are wrong on the facts.
I also find it ironic that you are using the argument that it is disingenuous to the extreme to prevent a jury from even hearing the information in the first place, since this was exactly what Samsung objected to in the first Apple/Samsung litigation and which many believe was prejudicial to Samsung's ability to mount a defence.
You didn't find the court's decision to be disingenuous when it worked in apple's favour.
Note that AI is not the government but a privately owned company that can do as it sees fit… unless you wish to actually defy argue that the democratic republic in which is was created is wrong for allowing it to conduct business as it sees fit.
Well, when your posts call for the carpet-bombing of a country, which is the more totalitarian ideology?
No, it was just plain wrong.
It was a tongue in cheek comment in the context of the current political situation with regards to NK.
I would never advocate the killing of any body, let alone an entire country.
It was a means to show others that perhaps NK is not really the enemy here.
So it needs to be improved -AND- taken out of Beta? Your statement eludes to it being taken out of beta before it's improved to a point of not being beta. Why does that makes sense to you?
You do even know why Siri was released as a beta? Do you know how Siri will get out of an Apple perceived beta stage? It should be obvious for a service that relies a user's accent, speech patterns, intonations, cultural terms, and common requests that before it can be out of beta it needs to be tested by the masses. You can't do this in the lab because there simply aren't enough people in Cupertino to do the needed testing. You need to gather data over a significant period of time so you can teach Siri quickly and efficiently.
Why ignore the complexity that is Siri. You think it's just a search engine? You think it's just a voice-to-text system? No and no! It needs to record your e phonemes, then not only understand what you said but what you mean by what you said, then it can do a search for the appropriate results and reply back to the system appropriately, which may include leaving the conversation opened so that simple sentences stated afterwards will be followed. Apple bought and licensed a lot of tech to help this along but that's not enough.
Google ran GOOG-411 for over 3.5 years as a beta but Apple is somehow dropping the ball for having a beta service, too? WTF?!
I never painted Siri as a bad product as you assume, I think it was not ready for prime time.
I'm on the side of Truth. I don't care who it benefits. Artificially limiting the number of arguments brought forward to find the truth sounds like it's against truth to me. Let the jury do the trimming. Preventing them from even hearing the information in the first place is disingenuous to the extreme.
Every trial has a limitied amount of time and limited evidence that is allowed to be presented. She's telling them they have a 5 pound bag and they better put their best 5 pounds in it because no way are they going to cram 10 in it.
System could not work if they allowed 'everything.' Since our legal system generally runs on the 'innocent until proven guilty' premise, if you allowed the plaintiff unlimited accusations, you would also have to allow the defendent unlimited arguments in its defense or it would be unfair.
In that situation if I were about to lose a $1billion verdict I would just find the worst bargain basement lawyer that was able to pass the bar and tell him to just go with the 'infinite defense' defense strategy. More effective than the Chewbacca defense! Just have him go to court every day for the rest of his life and say anything.... 'blah blah blah blah' or talk about the obscure theory of how weather patterns in South America affected the case. Over the course of his lifetime I *might* have to pay him 2 million bucks.
If the judge tells him to cut it short that would be unfair since he wasn't allowed to present *all* of his arguments where that luxury was provided to the accuser. We'd need a lot more courtrooms judges and taxes paid to support our newly full and accomplishing nothing legal system.
Every trial has a limitied amount of time and limited evidence that is allowed to be presented. She's telling them they have a 5 pound bag and they better put their best 5 pounds in it because no way are they going to cram 10 in it.
System could not work if they allowed 'everything.' Since our legal system generally runs on the 'innocent until proven guilty' premise, if you allowed the plaintiff unlimited accusations, you would also have to allow the defendent unlimited arguments in its defense or it would be unfair.
In that situation if I were about to lose a $1billion verdict I would just find the worst bargain basement lawyer that was able to pass the bar and tell him to just go with the 'infinite defense' defense strategy. More effective than the Chewbacca defense! Just have him go to court every day for the rest of his life and say anything.... 'blah blah blah blah' or talk about the obscure theory of how weather patterns in South America affected the case. Over the course of his lifetime I *might* have to pay him 2 million bucks.
If the judge tells him to cut it short that would be unfair since he wasn't allowed to present *all* of his arguments where that luxury was provided to the accuser. We'd need a lot more courtrooms judges and taxes paid to support our newly full and accomplishing nothing legal system.
There are several problems with your analogy.
1. If the attorney starts heading off into irrelevancies or repeating himself, the court already has the ability to stop him. So a trial would not go on indefinitely. As soon as he started talking about nonsense, the judge would stop him.
2. In that case, the person has the right to present his case, but the judge has the ability to keep him on topic. In this case, the court is blocking evidence before it even gets admitted.
3. There's an inherent bias created by this activity. By giving each side a 5 pound bag, the court is assuming that the two sides have equal evidence. That means that the weaker side gets to present everything they have while the stronger side has to drop perfectly valid arguments.
Oh, and btw, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in civil cases. Rather, civil cases are decided by a preponderance of the evidence determination. In fact, 'innocent' and 'guilty' technically don't exist at all in civil cases. The plaintiff either wins a judgment or not.
1. If the attorney starts heading off into irrelevancies or repeating himself, the court already has the ability to stop him. So a trial would not go on indefinitely. As soon as he started talking about nonsense, the judge would stop him.
2. In that case, the person has the right to present his case, but the judge has the ability to keep him on topic. In this case, the court is blocking evidence before it even gets admitted.
3. There's an inherent bias created by this activity. By giving each side a 5 pound bag, the court is assuming that the two sides have equal evidence. That means that the weaker side gets to present everything they have while the stronger side has to drop perfectly valid arguments.
Oh, and btw, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in civil cases. Rather, civil cases are decided by a preponderance of the evidence determination. In fact, 'innocent' and 'guilty' technically don't exist at all in civil cases. The plaintiff either wins a judgment or not.
So then is it your opinion there should be no court-imposed limits in this new Apple/Samsung case?
So then is it your opinion there should be no court-imposed limits in this new Apple/Samsung case?
The system is self-correcting. When someone drones on endlessly, they lose the jury's attention - and can even cause the jury to vote against them due to spite. Smart lawyers realize that.
I think the appropriate response would have been to simply ask each side how much time they needed (reminding them that dragging it out is counterproductive and that the judge will stop filibustering if it occurs). If the time guidance provided by the two sides was too long for a reasonable jury trial, then it should have been broken down into multiple trials (perhaps one or two patents per trial rather than 10 or 15) rather than arbitrarily limiting either side's right to present its case.
How come I need to waste my precious time and spell things out.
It needs to be improved, and WHEN it does to an acceptable level then it won't be called a beta product.
I will come back to answer your other points
To be continued ...
I never painted Siri as a bad product as you assume, I think it was not ready for prime time.
You did! You said it shouldn't have been released as a Beta while saying it needs to be better. Since you completely ignored the complexity of the service and that a dozen guys coding Siri in Cupertino can't possibly work the testing in a lab environment you foolishly overlooked how it needs to learn in your pooh-poohing of the service.
Note that once Siri is out of Beta it still won't be complete. It will never be complete! Language evolves too quickly for that to ever happen.
Comments
Nonsense. Siri was not perfect, nor does anyone expect it to be. But it works very well.
Note that AI is not the government but a privately owned company that can do as it sees fit… unless you wish to actually defy argue that the democratic republic in which is was created is wrong for allowing it to conduct business as it sees fit.
So it needs to be improved -AND- taken out of Beta? Your statement eludes to it being taken out of beta before it's improved to a point of not being beta. Why does that makes sense to you?
You do even know why Siri was released as a beta? Do you know how Siri will get out of an Apple perceived beta stage? It should be obvious for a service that relies a user's accent, speech patterns, intonations, cultural terms, and common requests that before it can be out of beta it needs to be tested by the masses. You can't do this in the lab because there simply aren't enough people in Cupertino to do the needed testing. You need to gather data over a significant period of time so you can teach Siri quickly and efficiently.
Why ignore the complexity that is Siri. You think it's just a search engine? You think it's just a voice-to-text system? No and no! It needs to record your e phonemes, then not only understand what you said but what you mean by what you said, then it can do a search for the appropriate results and reply back to the system appropriately, which may include leaving the conversation opened so that simple sentences stated afterwards will be followed. Apple bought and licensed a lot of tech to help this along but that's not enough.
Google ran GOOG-411 for over 3.5 years as a beta but Apple is somehow dropping the ball for having a beta service, too? WTF?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hfts
Siri needs to be improved. It must be taken out of beta.
I have no idea why Apple released it in the first place as it was not ready.
To beat the copyists maybe? Hindsight has made this a moot point.
I think Apple should wait till Samsung brings out something innovative and blatantly copy it. Lets see how Samsung feels then. But heck, we will be waiting a very long time.
You complained about AI being like communists. Yet you want SIRI to be taken out of beta. Then you want Apple to copy Samsung. You really sound like a teenager.
Originally Posted by hfts
My posts are again being deleted.
I didn't know I was living in communist USSR.
Well, when your posts call for the carpet-bombing of a country, which is the more totalitarian ideology?
My posts are my opinions…
No, it was just plain wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Good thing we have you to explain things for us. It's nice to know we have a source of reliable, complete and non-biased information about these cases.
You could state your problem with the comment for once rather than write personal attacks in the form of sarcasm.
Lots of people disagree with some things I say. I only poke fun at a few specific ones.
It MUST not rely on google at all, tie it in with Yahoo or Bing when it cannot give a definitive answer and must resort to a search. I will not use it unless I can change this default setting somehow.
It needs to be improved, and WHEN it does to an acceptable level then it won't be called a beta product.
I will come back to answer your other points
To be continued ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by KDarling
Sounds like you're now on Samsung's side, because Apple still isn't complaining about the lack of time.
I'm on the side of Truth. I don't care who it benefits. Artificially limiting the number of arguments brought forward to find the truth sounds like it's against truth to me. Let the jury do the trimming. Preventing them from even hearing the information in the first place is disingenuous to the extreme.
For you to claim to be on the side of truth TS, is as credible as Hitler claiming to love Jews.
You know very well that I have called you out for lying, in this forum, about my Email address being a fake, but despite many requests to do so you have NEVER retracted this, despite knowing that you are wrong on the facts.
I also find it ironic that you are using the argument that it is disingenuous to the extreme to prevent a jury from even hearing the information in the first place, since this was exactly what Samsung objected to in the first Apple/Samsung litigation and which many believe was prejudicial to Samsung's ability to mount a defence.
You didn't find the court's decision to be disingenuous when it worked in apple's favour.
I would never advocate the killing of any body, let alone an entire country.
It was a means to show others that perhaps NK is not really the enemy here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'm on the side of Truth. I don't care who it benefits. Artificially limiting the number of arguments brought forward to find the truth sounds like it's against truth to me. Let the jury do the trimming. Preventing them from even hearing the information in the first place is disingenuous to the extreme.
Every trial has a limitied amount of time and limited evidence that is allowed to be presented. She's telling them they have a 5 pound bag and they better put their best 5 pounds in it because no way are they going to cram 10 in it.
System could not work if they allowed 'everything.' Since our legal system generally runs on the 'innocent until proven guilty' premise, if you allowed the plaintiff unlimited accusations, you would also have to allow the defendent unlimited arguments in its defense or it would be unfair.
In that situation if I were about to lose a $1billion verdict I would just find the worst bargain basement lawyer that was able to pass the bar and tell him to just go with the 'infinite defense' defense strategy. More effective than the Chewbacca defense! Just have him go to court every day for the rest of his life and say anything.... 'blah blah blah blah' or talk about the obscure theory of how weather patterns in South America affected the case. Over the course of his lifetime I *might* have to pay him 2 million bucks.
If the judge tells him to cut it short that would be unfair since he wasn't allowed to present *all* of his arguments where that luxury was provided to the accuser. We'd need a lot more courtrooms judges and taxes paid to support our newly full and accomplishing nothing legal system.
There are several problems with your analogy.
1. If the attorney starts heading off into irrelevancies or repeating himself, the court already has the ability to stop him. So a trial would not go on indefinitely. As soon as he started talking about nonsense, the judge would stop him.
2. In that case, the person has the right to present his case, but the judge has the ability to keep him on topic. In this case, the court is blocking evidence before it even gets admitted.
3. There's an inherent bias created by this activity. By giving each side a 5 pound bag, the court is assuming that the two sides have equal evidence. That means that the weaker side gets to present everything they have while the stronger side has to drop perfectly valid arguments.
Oh, and btw, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in civil cases. Rather, civil cases are decided by a preponderance of the evidence determination. In fact, 'innocent' and 'guilty' technically don't exist at all in civil cases. The plaintiff either wins a judgment or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
There are several problems with your analogy.
1. If the attorney starts heading off into irrelevancies or repeating himself, the court already has the ability to stop him. So a trial would not go on indefinitely. As soon as he started talking about nonsense, the judge would stop him.
2. In that case, the person has the right to present his case, but the judge has the ability to keep him on topic. In this case, the court is blocking evidence before it even gets admitted.
3. There's an inherent bias created by this activity. By giving each side a 5 pound bag, the court is assuming that the two sides have equal evidence. That means that the weaker side gets to present everything they have while the stronger side has to drop perfectly valid arguments.
Oh, and btw, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in civil cases. Rather, civil cases are decided by a preponderance of the evidence determination. In fact, 'innocent' and 'guilty' technically don't exist at all in civil cases. The plaintiff either wins a judgment or not.
So then is it your opinion there should be no court-imposed limits in this new Apple/Samsung case?
The system is self-correcting. When someone drones on endlessly, they lose the jury's attention - and can even cause the jury to vote against them due to spite. Smart lawyers realize that.
I think the appropriate response would have been to simply ask each side how much time they needed (reminding them that dragging it out is counterproductive and that the judge will stop filibustering if it occurs). If the time guidance provided by the two sides was too long for a reasonable jury trial, then it should have been broken down into multiple trials (perhaps one or two patents per trial rather than 10 or 15) rather than arbitrarily limiting either side's right to present its case.
You did! You said it shouldn't have been released as a Beta while saying it needs to be better. Since you completely ignored the complexity of the service and that a dozen guys coding Siri in Cupertino can't possibly work the testing in a lab environment you foolishly overlooked how it needs to learn in your pooh-poohing of the service.
Note that once Siri is out of Beta it still won't be complete. It will never be complete! Language evolves too quickly for that to ever happen.
When you run a business you can chose how it operates… or do you want to state again how you are against a free market system?
deleted