It would appear speaking into Siri or other applications that do speech to text hasn't been studied enough to make a final decision, but I think it's going to end up OK. This study is a piece of garbage though and falls into bad research, as the software wasn't used as intended in the car.
The only valid study would evaluate the software being used as it is typically used, regardless of the manufacturers intent.
The research is still valid in the sense that most people probably have no idea about "car mode" and "no-eyes" mode.
Hmmm, seems a little shallow to claim the research is valid when it blames the device for ignorance of the operator.
The real problem is something like 60 or 70% of the people have given up on SIRI all together because it just doesn't work all that well.
Except it doesn't blame the device for the ignorance of the operator. The ignorance of the operator is already a given -- they're texting while driving, or trying to do the equivalent thinking that the way they (mis)use Siri makes it safer to text. That they additionally are ignorant of the different modes only further supports the idea that texting while driving (regardless of how it is done) is generally less safer than not texting. At worst, they would simply need to modify it to say that "the way most people use voice-activated texting is no safer than typing" as opposed to just "voice-activated texting is no safer than typing." I would argue the former is rather redundant.
much appreciated; would mod up if i could =)
What the f*ck has happened to the moderators for post submissions? I could understand if there was something cool going on a quirky.com -- maybe a new product, or whatever. The summary has a single link to the front page -- I guess slashdot has become the new way to get free advertising -- and doesn't even mention what the hell "these two changes" are...
Seriously, if you want to send quirky.com your two grand ideas, use your own personal email. Or use their forums.
...how long it would take before Eric Schmidt said something that made me facepalm. Accidentally referring to TOR as "Thor" in the very first topic he brought up was bad, but not bad enough. Admitting right after that that he doesn't really understand what it is or how it works? In 2011? Just two months after stepping down as the CEO of Google? Facepalm.
The other simple explanation is that Eric, as an investigator, wants Assange to share as much information as possible. The best way to do that is to make your audience feel knowledgeable, as if he was an authority on the topic at hand. People do this all the time--not just investigators, but anyone who wants to have their audience participate in the fullest. Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People is an excellent read and may give you a different perspective as to why Eric behaved the way he did during the interview. It is very possible he does not know much about TOR, etc. Or, it may very well be the case that he is deferring authority to the person he wants to have speak freely in the interview.
> Maybe if we can do something about the "WE BUY GOLD" and check cashing places > we can start to clean up these communities.
Right and maybe if we can get fever under control, we can stop malaria.
We all know, afterall, the primary reason they are poor is that they are out there selling their gold and other hard assetts rather than hording them.
The "Check cashers" are pretty eggerious poverty profiteers, and I know people who have ended up fucked by those deals.
It's not the poor that the parent was necessarily referring to. These places often take in stolen goods, and rip off legitimate customers. Granted, a quick Google search would enable the customer to make a sound decision on whether to sell to such places, it does not change the fact that these places rip off customers. Here's a good read: