pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) (01/08/89)
>>>Good speech recognition hardware can't be more than 5 or 10 >>>years away, can it? >>>-Peter Schachte >bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) writes: >> As far as I can tell it's only been 5 or 10 years away for the past >> decade or so, I'd imagine that figure is still correct. diamond@csl.sony.JUNET (Norman Diamond) writes: >Well, in 1956, in an advertisement on the back cover of Scientific >American, speech recognition equipment was only 4 years away. And 1989 - (1956 + 4) = *29* years. Now we're down to only 5 or 10. Say, that's progress! ;-D on ( My fish does speech recognition ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
kmont@hpindda.HP.COM (Kevin Montgomery) (01/18/89)
/ hpindda:comp.cog-eng / root@radar.UUCP (root) / 5:55 am Jan 16, 1989 / In article <69@poppy.warwick.ac.uk> maujt@warwick.ac.uk (Richard J Cox) writes: > >How about using some kind of DNA finger printing? - take a small sample > >of blood (ouch!) and check on this. This would be almost impossible to fool. > Be serious. Besides the invasiveness of the procedure, it's just too slow and > labor intensive using present technology. (opinion-on) not to mention foolable! You've got to get the sample somehow, and I'd think getting ahold of someone's blood would be a lot easier than a map of their retina. (opinion-off) kev