X-SpamDetect-Info: ------------- Start ASpam results ---------------
X-SpamDetect-Info: This message may be spam. This message BODY has been altered to show you the spam information
X-SpamDetect: *********: 9.0 sd=9.0 Close nspam=1 nok=0 1.00 0.99(X-Mash:sameip) $0.90(X-LangGuess:English) 0.87(X-NotAscii:utf) $0.20(X-Phrase:clean) 0.20(X-myrbl:Color=yellow) 0.20(dnswl_low) 0.27(X-PhraseHits:secret)
X-SpamDetect-Info: ------------- End ASpam results -----------------
I just love the way you to make "Mountains Out Of Molehills" and that's
exactly what you're doing with this.
Firstly regarding the method you use of taking the box and taking a
Your method is based purely on assumption given that these boxes of food
can be printed in many and varying styles and there's no guarantee that
your Blaze ET or whatever you're using will read the box the first time.
Indeed I would use your method if their was no other way of doing things.
Regarding time? Well there are other factors in the m method you're
using that - when considered - may slow down the process considerably
thus I think the issue of time is a non issue really.
Now as for your search and I'm not trying to pretend that i'm better
than anyone else here because with Google I'm not, I found cooking
instructions for your burgers.
Now they're not detailed I admit and perhaps I'm just used to cooking
all the time but the instructions state enough to enable me to cook
these, from frozen to cooked in 20 minutes grilled.
I don't know whether the footnote to my original message on this subject
made the list.
In that email I made the suggestion that - in your Samsung Galaxy S6 -
you had a hand-held miracle for this sort of thing.
I have the "Google Now" launcher as my default launcher and in the top
right hand corner of the screen - below the notification panel on the
home screen - is a "Voice Search" icon, double-tap this and your phone
will beep thus the phone expects voice commands, say "Cook beef burgers"
and see what Google and your phone will read to you, line by line <smile>.
On 15/10/2016 3:14 AM, Gordon Smith wrote:
Although this started off as a private one, I’m opening this up for
public discussion as I think it is an interesting topic on which
others might like to express their opinions and views.
Perhaps I'm looking at this from the wrong perspective, but it seems
to me rather like you’re putting the cart before the horse. Who said
anything about giving up on anything? All I said was that it’s
quicker and more convenient to simply look at the box or packaging.
Nobody can deny that fact! Why worry about Google if it isn’t
necessary? Why is it faster to lob into your computer and then take
all the time google finding stuff if you can simply whip a device out
of your pocket, turn it on and then read what you want to know? That
said, and maybe I should have made it clear before I started. Maybe
that’s the reason you’ve taken this a little out of context. I do not
for one moment dispute or contest the value of Google. It’s a
fantastic resource, and I totally and utterly agree with you that it’s
a mine of information just ready to be tapped into. I would never
dispute that for a second. But sometimes, just sometimes, there are
things which don’t appear on Google. For example, I just did a Google
search for Asda branded beaf and ham burgers and, goes what, I cam up
with nothing relevant at all. So, let’s put this into context. The
value of Google not being discounted, contested or disputed for a
moment. Let’s see. First, I need to wait while my machine boots. That
doesn’t take long, I grant you. Then I have to go on to the Google
website. Again, not particularly a lengthy process. In total we’re
probably talking about a couple of minutes. And yes, if the machine is
already turned on and ready for use, that cuts down the waiting time
by quite a bit. So let’s see, say maybe 60 seconds or so to go on to
Google and do the search. Then another minute or two to find the
presence of an item on screen. As you know, there are things like the
Item Chooser menu under OS Sierra, and there’s things like the JAWS
Search and I forgot what they call the NVDA equivalent. So yes, I
don’t dispute that it can be done quite quickly. If you find something
relevant, then great, you’re off and running.
But then again, I have my Blaze ET now, or my iReader+, my Sara CE and
if set up, my OpenBook and Pearl camera system. So let’s assume for
the sake of argument that I opt to go with the Blaze ET. I can quickly
take a snapshot of the box, then have the relevant information read
out to me. The suggested cooking time, temperature and any other
information I need is all there in front of me. I just don’t get your
point. Surely, the most convenient and quickest method is to simply
look at the box label’s contents.
Again, to be clear. I do not dispute or underestimate the value of
Google and Bing or whatever other search engines may be out there and
ready for use. Nor do I dispute the fact that most main stream items
are probably listed. It may be also that I just didn’t look hard
enough when I went on to Google. My only point here is that it’s
quickest and more convenient if you have access to it to simply go
directly to the information you want.
I don’t really understand why you’re disputing that fact. Nor do I get
it as to why, just because it isn’t your own way, everything else
seems to be ridiculous to you. But there again, maybe I am being
ridiculous, and just don’t understand that fact. I welcome any input
either from you yourself or from others. Am I really being so
ridiculous to suggest that looking at the packaging of a product
which, after all, is exactly what somebody with vision would do as the
first port of call, rather than trawling through Google’s undisputedly
extensive and exhaustive online resource, would significantly speed up
the process? If I have the ability or the technology right there in my
pocket, what’s the problem with using it? Sure, look on Google as
well, maybe you’ll find something relevant, t to your search. But I’m
sorry, I just don’t understand why you’d advocate doing things in
reverse. But I guess it’s horses for courses.