From: cpd@cat.pan.net   
      
   "Tim McGaughy"  wrote in message   
   news:L8ydnT7-MfuilALQnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@posted.toastnet...   
   > catpandaddy wrote:   
   >   
   >>>> Look, even simple optical-character-recognition scanners don't perform   
   >>>> as well as humans.   
   >>>   
   >>> Maybe you should actually try it sometime. Not counting the time it took   
   >>> to do the actual scan, it just took my Mac about 10 seconds to visually   
   >>> recognize characters and write the results to a window in TextEdit.   
   >>>   
   >>> Even counting the scan, I can't copy a page of text nearly as fast as my   
   >>> computer can.   
   >>>   
   >>> And that's just basic commercial software with an off-the-shelf scanner.   
   >>> Not some robot system somebody just spent hundreds of thousands of   
   >>> dollars developing.   
   >>>   
   >>>> It took decades for OCR to get to where it is today, and even now it   
   >>>> ranges from no higher than 98% accuracy to below as 75% accuracy, and   
   >>>> that's with clear imaging of typewritten text as the source.   
   >>>   
   >>> You really should try it for yourself before you continue. I saw no   
   >>> mistakes in what the computer cranked out, and I frankly think you just   
   >>> pulled those numbers from your own ***   
   >>   
   >> Not necessary.   
   >   
   > You mean you have nothing to say. I gave you a real-life example of an   
   > experiment I conducted myself, and that you can also conduct yourself to   
   > make sure I'm not fibbing.   
   >   
   > You said optical character recognition doesn't perform as well as humans.   
   > I proved you wrong, as far as typewritten text, and all you have to offer   
   > up is, "Not necessary".   
      
   I was referring to the cussing.  Since I had not taken such a blunt tone   
   with you.   
      
   > I'll ask you straight out... Where did you get the 75% statistic from?   
      
   We crossed each other in traffic.  I was putting together my response and   
   posted it before seeing this one, so it will show up in the thread as   
   another reply to your previous message.  It will meet the burden of proof.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)