precisely why i called the bluff
benjamin said:
I'm afraid they weren't intending to say, bowerbird...
which is precisely why i called their bluff, benjamin... because "no fruitful conversation" is their _secret_code_, which translates best as "sour grapes" after "eating crow". but the thing about a secret code is you can't say it out loud. *** jim adcock said:
Good luck on all the good books you make and submit BB -- because fundamentally that's what it's all about.
this idea that "what it's all about" is to become a cog in the inefficient machine that has already been built is a big part of the problem which is why d.p. has now become stagnant, producing what has become its customary 2500 books/year. their traditional workflow will never be able to scale higher, which is exactly what many years ago i said would happen... the good thing about good old whatshisname, you know, the guy who _started_ this project, oh yeah, michael hart, is that he always had his eye on the horizon, he was always looking to ratchet things up; whenever he reached a height (and sometimes even before), he was immediately ready to look to the next horizon, and the next mountain, preparing to proclaim a new goal, giving everyone the next challenge. now the people in charge at p.g. and d.p. want you to march in lockstep with what they did yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that, and the year before that... oy vey... i sincerely hope michael pulls another rabbit out of his hat... -bowerbird
i sincerely hope michael pulls another rabbit out of his hat...
Not exactly sure what would be pulled by who where. But Google is making progress towards "reasonable" 100% human-free OCR translation of the body text of books, not including "the hard parts" such as TOC, Index, etc. and then only on relatively recent pubs such as circa 1900s. One could imagine a system that accepted such "good enough" OCRs and put them online immediately, and which allowed real-world readers to propose fixes as they read the book. You could still require PG volunteers to review the proposed fixes before accepting them.
That would be a thing of extreme coolness. (Wouldn’t it be like DP’s "smooth-reading," but relying on the readers/volunteers for the entire proofreading process?) -- b On Aug 31, 2011, at 4:58 PM, James Adcock wrote:
i sincerely hope michael pulls another rabbit out of his hat...
Not exactly sure what would be pulled by who where.
But Google is making progress towards “reasonable” 100% human-free OCR translation of the body text of books, not including “the hard parts” such as TOC, Index, etc. and then only on relatively recent pubs such as circa 1900s.
One could imagine a system that accepted such “good enough” OCRs and put them online immediately, and which allowed real-world readers to propose fixes as they read the book. You could still require PG volunteers to review the proposed fixes before accepting them.
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
participants (3)
-
Benjamin Klein -
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
James Adcock