IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Wash. Times take on the infamous speech.
[link|http://www.washtimes.com/national/20011109-125450.htm|Wesley Pruden swipes back on behalf of America]

Juicy excerpts:

Mr. Clinton went to Georgetown University the other day to relieve himself of his heaviest thoughts about terrorism, and he couldn't resist taking a few potshots at the nation that honored him with two terms in the White House. Every time we think that not even Bill Clinton could caricature Bill Clinton's shabbiness, he does...

He didn't say what the hundreds of foreigners killed at the World Trade Center were paying the price for, nor why any of the Americans slain on September 11 \ufffd none of whom ever owned a slave or so far as we know slew an Indian \ufffd owed a debt to anyone...

Mr. Clinton, muddling history to make a point of what a moral tyke he was in a sea of redneck scum, quickly achieved lift-off and was off on a riff, reminiscent of his famous yarn of how he was sickened as a boy in Arkansas by the sight of black churches in flames, torched by white klansmen. When this was too much even for his footmen, flunkeys and factotums back home, who reminded him that for all their sins the white folks in Arkansas had never burned anyone's church, black or white, the president confessed that well, yes, he had made up the story, but he was just trying to pander to an audience of carpetbaggers, scalawags and other Yankee trash.

I'll say one thing in Clinton's favor:

He probably didn't mean what he said. Or anything else he's ever said on any subject. His problem is he's not too picky who he panders to.

[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Sometimes "tolerance" is just a word for not dealing with things.
New OK, I'm about done replying to your "juicy" jingoistic crap.
I've seen a lot More of it than you have, and over a lot more years of cute-shadings. Your filter-glasses are evident: you think You Know *The Truth\ufffd* - no matter how complex and contradictory the topic and the limited sources.

Got news: The Truth does not exist 'here' - it is a Pop fantasy that it does. We only ever muddle through with 'truth-seeming' tiny pieces.

You couldn't even read C's speech with a Freshman's comprehension - too busy looking for a Flag to be waved over every phrase. IF NO-FLAG THEN COMMIE-PINKO + sex + sex + sex.

No Sale.
Dear Lord, please protect me from the wrath of those who Know (also from: your Followers).
New latest skank report! did she lie? her lips are moving! :)
Sorry Ash couldnt help it.
[link|http://www.drudgereport.com/mattch1.htm|earl]
****************************
Breaking her media silence once and for all -- Chelsea writes in great detail about her personal experience on the morning
of September 11.

But, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, her account now sharply conflicts with her mother's version of Chelsea's New York
adventure.
******************************
I bet she puts on her underwear one slither at a time
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
New Solution: never tell a journalist *anything* 24/7.
New OT you have experience with waveforms right?
trying to come up with an idea. Can language be determined by an examination of a recording of a voice conversation by using an examination of the sound wave. Instead of hundreds of linguists a single solitary chip could identify the language being spoken.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
New Don't know enough.
Spectrum analyzer is one view; FFT (Fourier) another. In real time - some phonemes are discernible by those who stare at lots of these, particularly the 'attack', start of a sibilant. There could well be a few noticeable characteristics, especially statistically over a lengthy message.

Whether this adds up to (anyone?) being capable of inferring accent? language..? can't say. If it's hard for a people to do, would have to be lots harder for a robot. It would be one big modelling and stat program (?)

Like say: grading diamonds via Tee Vee camera ?! in the visual sphere.

Sorry,

A.
New The idea is what the feds are asking help with
if the language can be identified, the recording can be shipped to a linguist for translation. The req is for identifying specific languages by machine and trigger a data point for further investigation.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
New I can appreciate the utility..
But in my friend trying to teach me a little of *correctly inflected* Russian (and I have a good ear for, voice for 'language sounds', generally) - you'd (maybe) not believe how Many ways you can (try to) say:

Tu\ufffd\ufffd grosnya kapitalistichiskaya sviny\ufffd!
You filthy capitalist swine!

I know that the scope display of just one of these words (storage scope that is) would show the nasal, throat qualities as lo-freq. waveforms, with the sibillants as hi-freq modulation at start.. but -

Now add-in the mumblers, the couth-less, the local acc\ufffdnts.. Perhaps Ben's suggestions below - can tell you how near we might be. I'd opine that: if voice-recog. is up to querying a truly International glossary of sounds VS a valid sample of a message of more than a few words: your accuracy would reflect the state of the (Office) art.

I do recall that (couple years ago I think) there were some algorithms better suited for one-shot guesstimates / others for (the 'training' approach). The latter produced much higher overall accuracy (99% for deliberate slow speech?).

You can bet the Feds have had a chat with IBM and Kurtzweill (?) already. Can also bet - further improvement will Not come from a Billy, "writing neat tight C+ code"* (the pompous, arrogant snivelling Lying bastard). You can't code without a productive algorithm (right?)

* yeah the little prick actually Said that was "his hobby!" - got a link somewhere.

Luck,
A.

New how I would approach the problem
have a US groupie walk thru the bazaar in Quetta, Kabul, Medina with an open mike and record all the sounds. run software that will turn it into waves match these files against crowd noise in other countries. The aggregate will define those slop mouths, mumblers non native language speakers etc and hopefully an common identifier. If the general theory sounds interesting I will be putting in a bid. They have approached the usual suspects for this kind of thing but they have failed. It is now being presented to the garage inventors, the tinkeres, the IWETHEYers. If the one page concept will get flagged I will need a three page then the next step is a detailed outline followed by a contract for work. This is something we as a group could share in although not all might be in favor of that particular ability to pick out a language like that.
thanx,
bill
tshirt front "born to die before I get old"
thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
New It's a tough problem.
Current speech recognition software usually has to be trained (e.g. voice dictation stuff like IBM's Via Voice), and has a limited vocabulary.

[link|http://www.sensoryinc.com/|Sensory, Inc.] makes chips for voice activation and speech synthesis.

[link|http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.05/tpmap.html|Wired] has an article on universal translation issues.

And NSA and other government agencies probably have people working on this problem too...

In the problem you posed, you'd have to be able to distinguish between things like heavy dialects and sloppy grammar, and language differences. And just identifying the language is only the first step - after all you want to know what they're yammering, not just the language. :-)

I remember hearing a seminar from someone doing research for the Air Force in the late 1970s who was trying to figure out how to define "B-ness" as a first step toward designing a system to read printed text. Independent of the font. It's not trivial, but it's a problem that's pretty well solved now (for some values of "solved").

He also told of how people would say:

"Merry Mary got married" in different regions of the country. "Meery meery got meeried" and dozens of variations.

Think of the different ways people say "water".

I'm no expert, so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. :-)

Happy hunting!

Cheers,
Scott.
New Probably only generally
Voice recognition software at a more fundamental level takes speech and breaks it into recognizable phoenemes (ie specific chunks of sound that make up parts of syllables) and then puts them back together into syllables and words.

But you should be able to make a good guess as to what language is being spoken by just taking the raw phoenemes and doing a frequency analysis on them. That combined with some basic analysis of rhythmic patterns is probably what you do when you can tell that it sounds like someone you aren't listening to closely sounds like they are talking in German, Italian, etc.

Cheers,
Ben
New Thank you...
I will remember Wesley Pruden's name from now on.


What happened on September 11, he told the students, wouldn't surprise anyone as erudite as he is, because, well, America had it coming. The 5,000 innocents murdered on that day of infamy were paying the debt that America owes to the past. This is similar to the thoughtless remarks of the Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (who had the decency to apologize and clarify), except that Mr. Clinton inserted a different set of villains. We're all guilty, stupid.

"Here in the United States," he said, "we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery, and slaves quite frequently were killed even though they were innocent. This country once looked the other way when a significant number of Native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human. And we are still paying the price today."


Interesting. [link|http://www.georgetown.edu/admin/publicaffairs/protocol_events/events/clinton_glf110701.htm| Here's ] his speech according to Georgetown.


First, we have to win the fight we are in and in that I urge you to keep three things in mind. First of all, terror, the killing of noncombatants for economic, political, or religious reasons has a very long history as long as organized combat itself, and yet, it has never succeeded as a military strategy standing on its own, but it has been around a long time. Those of us who come from various European lineages are not blameless. Indeed, in the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it, and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was Muslim on the Temple mound. The contemporaneous descriptions of the event describe soldiers walking on the Temple mound, a holy place to Christians, with blood running up to their knees. I can tell you that that story is still being told to today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it. Here in the United States, we were founded as a nation that practiced slavery and slaves were, quite frequently, killed even though they were innocent. This country once looked the other way when significant numbers of Native Americans were dispossessed and killed to get their land or their mineral rights or because they were thought of as less than fully human and we are still paying the price today. Even in the 20th century in America people were terrorized or killed because of their race. And even today, though we have continued to walk, sometimes to stumble, in the right direction, we still have the occasional hate crime rooted in race, religion, or sexual orientation. So terror has a long history.

The second point I want to make is, in that long history, no terrorist campaign standing on its own has ever won, and conventional military strategies that have included terrorism with it have won because of conventional military power, and terrorism has normally been a negative. I will just give you one example from my childhood. In the Civil War, General Sherman waged a brilliant military campaign to cut through the South and go to Atlanta. It was significant and very helpful in bringing the Civil War to a close in a way to, thank God, save the Union. On the way, General Sherman practiced a relatively mild form of terrorism-he did not kill civilians, but he burned all the farms and then he burned Atlanta, trying to break the spirit of the Confederates. It had nothing whatever to do with winning the Civil War, but it was a story that was told for a hundred years later, and prevented America from coming together as we might otherwise have done. When I was a boy growing up in the segregated South, when we should have been thinking about how we were going to integrate the schools and give people equal opportunity, people were making excuses for unconscionable behavior by talking about what Sherman had done a hundred years ago. So, it is important to remember that normally terrorism has backfired and never has it succeeded on its own.


New Followup - by the Washington Times...

President Clinton is saying two things: First, that terror is a centuries-old tactic whose use has long-lasting implications; second, the United States is not unblemished when it comes to abuses of the human spirit and freedom. This is a far cry from acknowledging that the United States is to blame for Sept. 11.

[...]

It is not a great speech. Many of the policy recommendations he makes are flawed. And he diminishes what is good through several typically self-congratulatory points about events over which reasonable people do differ.

[...]

But President Clinton also states: "The terrorists killed people who came to America not to die, but dream, from every continent, from dozens of countries, most every religion on the face of the earth, including in large numbers Islam." This is a correct and profoundly moving statement.

While it is sensible to always parse a Bill Clinton speech down to the last comma, in this case he is getting a bum rap.


[link|http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/09112001-015809-2387r.htm| source ]
New thank You.
I wasn't willing to parse it for him. Good that you did.

My supposition is that, by now it is possible for most people who want to: to separate out a (perhaps unfamiliar and certainly uncomfortable) re-view, that famous 20/20 hindsight - of US actions in neighboring countries and elsewhere.

It is hardly a record of rapine and pillage, quite more the opposite - but with many naive and some stupid errors of judgment. Some of those caused such egregious harm as in Chile, and our complicity in the killing of Allende. Then there were the Contras: Freedom Fighters to a Patriot-Reagan; terrorists to those murdered by them and with our assistance. More and mere fucking with language. Keep it black & white for the simplistic minded, but things rarely are other than.. *grey*, with tissues of overlapping 'interests' and scheming and - agitprop for the masses on all multi-sides.

None (or all?) of these activities came close to the mass murder of thousands of 'pure civilians' as was 9/11. Calling that tit-for-tat is malevolent hyperbole, not of the same class as trying to face some of the sources of others' discontent with our periodic ignorant or even ugly behavior.

Power *does* corrupt and we are not immune from that 'law'. I'd settle for our simply recognizing generally: that indeed we do screw up, have screwed up and.. will again. It is human and it's a Gaussian - not White hats / Black hats nearly so often as our internal propaganda would ever portray any event.

Anyway.. to take Clinton's words out of context as being some "justification for 9/11" is at the juvenile rant level of a Rush and a Drudge - suitable for children you want to warp into little conspiracy theorists. But it makes adults puke.


A.
     Undead horse watch - (marlowe) - (30)
         NYC revival? He's on the job. - (marlowe)
         Clinton regrets not plunging us into disaster more promptly. - (marlowe)
         Only carrion watch dead horses. -NT - (Ashton) - (2)
             Err.. Carrion *eaters*... but yeah... -NT - (hnick) - (1)
                 Yes of course.. dazzled by The Reg's logo. :-\ufffd -NT - (Ashton)
         Clinton comes out and blames America for 911! - (marlowe) - (19)
             Clinton comes out and blames Clinton for 9/11! - (rsf) - (2)
                 About that point 3 - (marlowe) - (1)
                     I know - (rsf)
             If that's all you got out of that all.. - (Ashton) - (1)
                 Don't bother. It is a waste of time. -NT - (ben_tilly)
             Wash. Times take on the infamous speech. - (marlowe) - (13)
                 OK, I'm about done replying to your "juicy" jingoistic crap. - (Ashton) - (9)
                     latest skank report! did she lie? her lips are moving! :) - (boxley) - (8)
                         Solution: never tell a journalist *anything* 24/7. -NT - (Ashton) - (7)
                             OT you have experience with waveforms right? - (boxley) - (6)
                                 Don't know enough. - (Ashton) - (3)
                                     The idea is what the feds are asking help with - (boxley) - (2)
                                         I can appreciate the utility.. - (Ashton) - (1)
                                             how I would approach the problem - (boxley)
                                 It's a tough problem. - (Another Scott)
                                 Probably only generally - (ben_tilly)
                 Thank you... - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                     Followup - by the Washington Times... - (Simon_Jester)
                     thank You. - (Ashton)
         Presidential underdog breaks same old ground. - (marlowe)
         Ed: The Clinton Team\ufffds Betrayal - (marlowe)
         Ed: Clinton, leave well -- and bad -- enough alone - (marlowe) - (2)
             Not really possible, is it... - (Simon_Jester)
             Er umm: which president is it - censoring All previous - (Ashton)

Battling CRC is the honor of Viking combat!
164 ms