From: cpd@cat.pan.net   
      
   "Tim McGaughy"  wrote in message   
   news:gtqdnetf6Kf13lTQnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@posted.toastnet...   
   > catpandaddy wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "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?   
   >   
   > Sorry, didn't quite catch that. Where exactly did you say your experience   
   > was?   
   >   
   >>>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > No comment?   
   >   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >   
   > No comment?   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > No comment?   
   >   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > Ahh, finally a comment. But it's got nothing to do with any of the points   
   > in the post, and everything to do with being butt-hurt about a few   
   > four-letter words.   
   >   
   > Admission of defeat noted.   
   >   
      
   There you go again.  Saying "finally a comment" regarding things which have   
   been said multiple times; needing things repeated that you should be able to   
   review yourself; thinking the observation that you appear to get easily   
   upset is some kind of unfounded "objection over cusswords"; and continuing   
   to treat subjective matters of opinion as epic battles that must be won and   
   lost.  And you really do seem to be unable to get past the whole topic.   
   It's just like watching a modern-day Ahab on some misguided quest to follow   
   his white whale to the ends of the ocean.  I never thought I'd see the day   
   you got this hung up over something... like you've been taken over by   
   DaffyDuck, or Atlas Bugged.  Or Sadi even.   
      
   You're getting a little obsessive.  So someone thinks that your criteria for   
   evaluating something are not the end-all be-all.  You can't live with that?   
   This can't possibly be so important to you.  Not by half.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)