Can extra processing threads help in this case?
in [MFC]
|
From: Peter Olcott on 31 Mar 2010 19:19 "Pete Delgado" <Peter.Delgado(a)NoSpam.com> wrote in message news:OLmMYSS0KHA.5512(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > "Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message > news:6Z6dnbu7zLjhIi7WnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>> The spec would provide the answer that you were looking >>> for as would a search of this thread if memory serves me >>> correctly. Granted, neither method provides the answer >>> in the quick, concise format that you desire but then >>> again it seems to me that the vast majority of your >>> design decisions were made using a "Magic 8 Ball" >>> technique anyway and thus are not based upon anything >>> but fantasy to begin with. Why not cut out the step of >>> posting in this newsgroup and ask your question here? >>> http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi >>> >>> BTW: I asked the Magic Eight Ball if "Peter Olcott will >>> ever finish his OCR product" and the answer given was >>> "My sources say no." >>> >> >> Time will tell. I have 20,000 hours invested so far. > > Assuming that your 20,000 hours figure is correct, from my > calculations, if you had worked 8 hours a day, 7 days a > week, 365 days a year (not counting leap days which I will > give you as a holiday for your dilligent efforts) at a > *minimum* you have worked ~6.8 years on this *single* > project (more like 10 years though) and have *nothing* at > all to show for it!!! > And you presume that I have nothing merely because you have not seen the details of what I have? Formally this is known as the ad ignorantiam fallacy. Concluding Not(X) on the basis of the lack of evidence for X. > I'd say that time has already given you an answer, but > just like the answers you have been given in this > newsgroup, you aren't listening! > > > -Pete >
From: Hector Santos on 31 Mar 2010 19:26 Peter Olcott wrote to Peter Delgado: >> Peter Delgado wrote: >> >> Assuming that your 20,000 hours figure is correct, from my >> calculations, if you had worked 8 hours a day, 7 days a >> week, 365 days a year (not counting leap days which I will >> give you as a holiday for your dilligent efforts) at a >> *minimum* you have worked ~6.8 years on this *single* >> project (more like 10 years though) and have *nothing* at >> all to show for it!!! > And you presume that I have nothing merely because you have > not seen the details of what I have? Formally this is known > as the ad ignorantiam fallacy. > Concluding Not(X) on the basis of the lack of evidence for > X. Which is a pretty good conclusion given the evidence that none of your Xs do not exist according to your own words at your web sites! -- HLS
From: Peter Olcott on 31 Mar 2010 19:29 "Bill Snyder" <bsnyder(a)airmail.net> wrote in message news:gal7r5tisvpalig7s7685l0njq8m9vv7df(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:50:41 -0400, "Pete Delgado" > <Peter.Delgado(a)NoSpam.com> wrote: > >> >>"Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote in message >>news:6Z6dnbu7zLjhIi7WnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >>>> The spec would provide the answer that you were looking >>>> for as would a >>>> search of this thread if memory serves me correctly. >>>> Granted, neither >>>> method provides the answer in the quick, concise format >>>> that you desire >>>> but then again it seems to me that the vast majority of >>>> your design >>>> decisions were made using a "Magic 8 Ball" technique >>>> anyway and thus are >>>> not based upon anything but fantasy to begin with. Why >>>> not cut out the >>>> step of posting in this newsgroup and ask your question >>>> here? >>>> http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssanty/cgi-bin/eightball.cgi >>>> >>>> BTW: I asked the Magic Eight Ball if "Peter Olcott will >>>> ever finish his >>>> OCR product" and the answer given was "My sources say >>>> no." >>>> >>> >>> Time will tell. I have 20,000 hours invested so far. >> >>Assuming that your 20,000 hours figure is correct, from my >>calculations, if >>you had worked 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a >>year (not counting >>leap days which I will give you as a holiday for your >>dilligent efforts) at >>a *minimum* you have worked ~6.8 years on this *single* >>project (more like >>10 years though) and have *nothing* at all to show for >>it!!! >> >>I'd say that time has already given you an answer, but >>just like the answers >>you have been given in this newsgroup, you aren't >>listening! > > <de-lurk> > > He didn't say it was 20,000 hours of his *own* time, and a > look at > the total amount of effort devoted to these threads might > explain > a lot. 20,000 hours of my own time. > > Couldn't everybody just take it as established at this > point that > he'll be revolutionizing OCR at about the same time Arthur > T. > Murray revolutionizes AI, and move on? The reason that it is taking so long is that I did not envision much of a market for the OCR aspect of my technology, so I skipped over this part and went on to the second product. The second product requires 10,000 man hours of work. Now I am going back to the first product because if nothing else it may provide publicity to help get the word out about my second product. I still don't envision much of a market for the first product since it only recognizes machine generated character glyphs and there is not much of a call for that. The biggest call that there is for that is to provide an automated interface between two software systems where no other interface exists. The way that projects such as this typically works is the originator sells out to VC, VC takes 97% of the ownership and the product gets quickly to market. Home grown capital is a much more time consuming process. It take much more time for one man to do all of the work in his space time than a team of programmers working full time. > > <lurk> > > -- > Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
From: Hector Santos on 31 Mar 2010 19:56 Peter Olcott wrote: >> Couldn't everybody just take it as established at this >> point that he'll be revolutionizing OCR at about the same >> time Arthur T. Murray revolutionizes AI, and move on? > > The reason that it is taking so long is that I did not > envision much of a market for the OCR aspect of my > technology, so I skipped over this part and went on to the > second product. The second product requires 10,000 man hours > of work. Now I am going back to the first product because if > nothing else it may provide publicity to help get the word > out about my second product. Yup, this was always about you trying to get publicity out. > The way that projects such as this typically works is the > originator sells out to VC, VC takes 97% of the ownership > and the product gets quickly to market. Home grown capital > is a much more time consuming process. It take much more > time for one man to do all of the work in his space time > than a team of programmers working full time. Which goes back to: What is better? 100% of nothing or 3% of something. What you don't realize is that a VC is only looking for a 4-5 year payout period where you can obtain your ownership again. They are not there for the long run. So you wasted all these years and what do you have? 100% of NOTHING! I asked you if you had a business plan. You ignored the question which means you don't. That makes you a loser out of the gate. I learned this the hard way. As I said, the fact no VC took you up on your patent, not even established PATENT TROLLS, clearly means you had and have nothing and clearly nothing to enforce, and even if you thought you did and tried, you would immediately be challenged and your patent will CLEARLY be invalidated at that point. The problem with the USPTO is that after 1996, the BURDEN and COST was placed on others to prove how flawed a patent is. That responsibility was shifted from the USPTO examiners due to cuts. But the fact you used a public domain mathematical technique that alone will invalid the patent. You did not design your own math here! That is most likely what a VC saw if you had one review it. You really had nothing that would not survive a challenge and since you had no real product to demonstrate it, why bother? -- HLS
From: Liviu on 31 Mar 2010 22:03
"Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote... > "Bill Snyder" <bsnyder(a)airmail.net> wrote... >>>"Peter Olcott" <NoSpam(a)OCR4Screen.com> wrote... >>>> >>>> Time will tell. I have 20,000 hours invested so far. >>> >> He didn't say it was 20,000 hours of his *own* time > > 20,000 hours of my own time. Back in 2006, by your own count elsewhere, you had 18K hours "invested" and said "must have the commercial project complete within a maximum of six months". Now you are up to 20K hours and downgraded to "worst case is at about a year from now". One arrow points in the wrong direction. > I still don't envision much of a market for the first product since > it only recognizes machine generated character glyphs Yet, that's what you patented. Wonder why you artificially limited the scope to OCR and screens, rather than call it, say, "foolproof matching of arbitrary polygons in two-dimensional lattices". > The way that projects such as this typically works is the originator > sells out to VC, VC takes 97% of the ownership and the product gets > quickly to market. First, you need to have a product, then find VC to buy into your "read it on wikipedia, heard it on usenet" stories, and finally get everybody else to pay the 10-cent-per-pop, whatever "pop" is. Yes, it's that easy. Many happy returns of the April 1st day! |