From: cpd@cat.pan.net   
      
   "Tim McGaughy"  wrote in message   
   news:MZSdnZiIuK9wPF_QnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@posted.toastnet...   
   > catpandaddy wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "Tim McGaughy"  wrote in message   
   >> news:-uadnQLeEYCUPzjQnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@posted.toastnet...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> "Not necessary" did refer to the cussing.  There's nothing else it   
   >>>> /could/ have referred to.   
   >>>   
   >>> It could easily have referred to my suggestion that you try optical   
   >>> scanning for yourself.   
   >>   
   >> And as I /already/ stated, I have worked with it for decades,   
   >   
   > Where?   
   >   
   >>> Slightly off in left field from this, why exactly are you splitting   
   >>> posts? You replied to a single post twice on two occasions, creating   
   >>> three different discussion threads.   
   >>>   
   >>> Are you trying to be an annoying twat, or are you really so   
   >>> scatterbrained that you can't figure out what you want to say the first   
   >>> time through?   
   >>>   
   >>>>> Bullshit.   
   >>>   
   >>>> Again, *not necessary*,   
   >>>   
   >>> Stop being a fucking net nanny.   
   >>   
   >> 1) This from someone complaining about an addendum to a previous reply?   
   >   
   > Yes. Stop being a fucking net nanny AND stop splitting replies.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>> In other words, it can't read those in situations where a human /can/   
   >>>> read them.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's not what it said at all. In situations where the newspaper was   
   >>> new and in good condition, the OCR systems could read it just fine. You   
   >>> did not see the scans where they were in poor condition, so you cannot   
   >>> judge whether they were easily readable or not.   
   >>   
   >> If it can be corrected by human intervention, it's /trivially/ readable   
   >> by human beings.  There are many factors that can lead to OCR   
   >> misinterpretation even in source material that the average human would   
   >> not consider damaged enough to create a problem.  Contact the author with   
   >> any questions, the contact information is in the documented I cited by   
   >> ISSN number.   
   >   
   > I'm not talking to the author, I'm talking to you. And that article says   
   > nothing about it being trivially readable by humans. What it DOES say is   
   > that newsprint that is in good shape can be read by OCR with nearly   
   > complete accuracy, which is not at all how you represented it first time   
   > around.   
   >   
   >>> You're pretty adept at misinterpretation. I said nothing of the sort.   
   >>> What I said was that THIS PARTICULAR project wasn't getting very good   
   >>> results, and is behind what others have already done.   
   >>   
   >> And this brings it all back to just exactly *how* you measure just that,   
   >   
   > Let's go with response time. A machine that does not respond as quickly as   
   > a human is useless in most tasks.   
   >   
   > I'd also line to see your response to the fact that they're trying to make   
   > a system that is fooled by perceptive illusions.   
   >   
   >> Now, are you going to respond to diplomacy with more invective, or are   
   >> you able to get past this without getting all worked up?   
   >   
   > Fuck diplomacy. You don't deserve it.   
   >   
      
   ??   
      
   You're the one getting unhinged over a difference in perspective.  Get over   
   it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)