I like how you touched that one up.
Those are very good points.
-James

"Jonathan Sachs" <xxxxxxx@earthlink.not> wrote in message
news:qf7i91tdt1t47kh8j3g3bjvbfag45422h2@4ax.com...
>I want to touch on a point that I missed in my previous message.
>
> Natural-language speech recognition programs rely heavily on
> word-sequence frequencies to achieve accuracy. For example, if the
> program hears you say something that sounds like "I doughnut," it is
> likely to conclude that you said "I do not," because that is a much
> more likely sequence of words.
>
> When you contemplate using speech recognition to enter authors' names,
> search strings, etc., you have not only passed beyond the scope of
> limited-vocabulary speech recognition; you have passed beyond the
> scope of natural-language speech recognition, too. You are asking the
> software to recognize speech that is not only drawn from an unlimited
> vocabulary, but also lacks reliable word-frequency clues. This is
> beyond the capability of any currently available commercial software,
> even running on a full-fledged personal computer with a high-quality
> boom microphone, used by an experienced operator under nearly ideal
> conditions.
>
> My email address is LLM041103 at earthlink dot net.