Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal
"zxcvbob" > wrote in message ... > me wrote: >> loser zxcvbob wrote: >>> If someone decides to dump their whole recipe collection to the group at >>> once, could they please send them all in one thread? (post each one as a >>> reply to the previous, without quoting it of course.) I really don't >>> mind people posting recipe. Honest! But it's disruptive (IMHO) to have >>> hundreds of new threads started, almost none of which ever receive any >>> replies. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Bob >> >> >> Of course you say thanks. Since this is most likely your way of getting a >> free version of it without having to have had spent the paltry sum of $11 >> or so Mr. cheapskate when it was originally released/published! >> >> me >> > > > Nope, I've looked at a few, haven't saved any of them. Pretty much been > trying to ignore them. When the cookbook originally came out, I didn't > want to support it because it was so divisive hurt too many people's > feeling. Don't see any reason to start now. (Remember "Grandma"?) > > I will give you credit for spelling "loser" correctly, loser. > > Not to mention that reproducing the rfc cookbook in its entirety or major portions thereof violates copywrite law. Since I have extras in mint condition, including inserted postcard, if anyone needs a copy I will make it availale this coming week only for the paltry sum of US$1,100 plus you pay S&H. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:26:45 -0500, zxcvbob >
wrote: > I didn't >want to support it because it was so divisive hurt too many people's >feeling. Don't see any reason to start now. (Remember "Grandma"?) Please remind us what happened as far as recipes and grandma. -- I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond. Mae West |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes
|
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:09:16 -0700, sf > wrote:
>On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:26:45 -0500, zxcvbob > >wrote: > >> I didn't >>want to support it because it was so divisive hurt too many people's >>feeling. Don't see any reason to start now. (Remember "Grandma"?) > >Please remind us what happened as far as recipes and grandma. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! -- Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes
Victor Sack > wrote in message
.. . > Of course, there was a text file (variously formatted). However, there > has been a lot of - sometimes rather heated - discussions as to which > form or format the Cook.Book was to be published and the consensus > of the time settled upon the conventional paper one. It was specifically > the PDF or other digital form that had been rejected. Personally, I see > no very good reason to revise that decision now, considering the > arguments brought forth at the time. Didn't you (or Nancy) summarize the discussion at one point, so that people could weigh in on the topic without having to dig through the entire thread? It's been too long and my gooja skills are insufficient to bring up the thread to verify this. The Ranger |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes
Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> Damn, damn, and damn! If I had remembered this, I would have asked > for a halt to the postings immediately. The group is archived all > over the internet. The PDF file, if it's made available on the RFC > site, will be mass distributed. Count on it. > > I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue > or not. > > What do people think? I think that the statute of limitations has run out on the rfc cookbook, not only don't I mind it being made available online, I've been enjoying seeing them revived here. nancy |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"
"Sky" > wrote in message
... > I wish had an official and authentic copy of the Unofficial RFC > Cookbook! I think it would be a good addition (heheh, almost typed > edition, but that applies too! <G>) to my collection of cookbooks. I > wonder how difficult it was to publish and what it took to accomplish? > Would a new edition be worthwhile? > > Sky > > -- > Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer! > Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice I have to agree with Victor somewhat about this. It may be somewhat advantageous to post something downloadable on the rfc site. The book is no longer in publication. There's no reason to hold it as a sacred object anymore. But lest anyone forget (or for those who weren't reading/posting to rfc at the time) the point of the cookbook was to raise money for charity. It was about raising money to benefit families of the victims of 9/11/2001. Publishing a new edition has been discussed here many times since you joined rfc. Creating cd's rather than books has been discussed many times over the years. How do you create a cd and still collect the money for each cd to benefit the charity? People can burn CD's with impunity, as is obvious by Rusty's OCR scanning and posting. I'd love to see the 2002 cookbook on the rfc web site since the book has been out of print for a long time. I don't see us doing another one anytime soon, though. It was a lot of work and a source of much contention as to how to do it, who should do what. I wanted several book copies because I prefer cookbooks in that format. But I also wanted one to send to my parents who never owned a computer in their life. Anyway, if you want to take on the project of a new cookbook... consult the old posts from 2001 and see what a hassle you'll be up against. Collect the recipes. IIRC they had to be limited to three recipes per person? Find people to edit the recipes (they had to be edited into European and US measurements IIRC). Find a publisher. Find someone willing to collect the funds (I'm pretty sure Nancy isn't willing to take on that task again). Divide up the shipping regions, U.S. vs. European vs. Asian and get the books mailed out. Just reading about all of it exhausted me. Jill |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote: >On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us... > >> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty >> > wrote: >> >>>I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now >>>switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on >>>each scan. Much easier than typing. >> >> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a simple snap. >> >> > >Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and the particular OCR >software. The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and also with my >Paperport software are surprisingly accurate. Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I ever owned. I think I'll get another one, I miss it. koko -- There is no love more sincere than the love of food George Bernard Shaw www.kokoscorner.typepad.com updated 03/07 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"
sf wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:02:59 -0600, Sky > > wrote: > >> Would a new edition be worthwhile? > > I seemed to be a lot of effort and I'm not interested anyway. Take > what's been posted lately and store in a file on your completer. I'm > sure if there are missing pages, the OP will post those. In fact, if > we ask her real nice, maybe Chatty Cathy will archive it on the web > site. > If posters have favorite recipes to submit to a cookbook, please just post them here instead with comments. That way there's no expense, no time lag, an readers can choose to save or ignore each recipe as it appears. (Wasn't that pretty much the original charter for rfc?) I bought quite a few of the cookbooks, gave them to people I knew would appreciate them, and was happy to do so. I don't know if I could stand all the sturm und drang that was involved in producing the original. If anyone desperately wants a copy of the original, I may be able to find one or two. Email me for details. gloria p |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 11:32:53 -0500, Damsel in dis Dress
> wrote: >I don't know if so much time has passed that it's become a non-issue >or not. It's a non-issue. I was watching from the sidelines (mainly) and don't remember a thing except it caused an entertaining tizzy in rfc. In fact, I would appreciate a rehash of the brouhaha to remind me of what happened. I want it blow by blow and the grandma incident is at the top of my list now. Seriously, I'll be glad to see the cookbook on the rfc website as a searchable file to pick and choose/copy recipes from... like our "signature dishes" are set up. -- I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond. Mae West |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 10:00:26 -0700, "The Ranger"
> wrote: >Didn't you (or Nancy) summarize the discussion at one point, so that people >could weigh in on the topic without having to dig through the entire thread? >It's been too long and my gooja skills are insufficient to bring up the >thread to verify this. Oh, oh... this is good. Somebody find it! -- I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond. Mae West |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal
koko wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright > > wrote: > >> On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us... >> >>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now >>>> switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on >>>> each scan. Much easier than typing. >>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a simple snap. >>> >>> >> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and the particular OCR >> software. The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and also with my >> Paperport software are surprisingly accurate. > > Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I ever owned. I > think I'll get another one, I miss it. > One used to be able to get just their OCR software. I don't know if one still can. -- Janet Wilder Way-the-heck-south-Texas |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes
"Victor Sack" > wrote in message
.. . > ChattyCathy > wrote: > >> BTW, does anybody (Nancy, Damsel, Victor?) know what happened to the >> original file(s) they were compiled in (e.g. text file(s) or in some >> sort of word processing format - whatever?) > > Of course, there was a text file (variously formatted). However, there > has been a lot of - sometimes rather heated - discussions as to which > form or format the Cook.Book was to be published and the consensus of > the time settled upon the conventional paper one. It was specifically > the PDF or other digital form that had been rejected. Personally, I see > no very good reason to revise that decision now, considering the > arguments brought forth at the time. > > A new rfc Cook.Book is always a possibility - and changing the "rules," > particularly those of the financial - hopefully charitable kind - should > not be taken lightly. I can imagine that some - may be a lot - of > people would forgo paying for a copy if they can reasonably hope to get > one for free in the future. > (snippage) > > Victor The charity aspect was precisely why an electronic option of the 2002 book was rejected way back then. We were collecting funds for charity. Offering up a CD would have allowed anyone who purchased a single copy to then burn a million (heh) copies for free, thus skipping the charity. Like others, however, I believe the "statute of limitations" has run out on the 2002 cookbook. Many, if not all, of the recipes have already been posted here many times over the years (even without the RFC Cookbook designation in the subject line). So why not put them on the rfc web site? If Cathy is willing to deal with it... I'm not sure what format would be best for most people. I have the original book so I don't care about downloading it. Jill |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal
Rusty wrote:
> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now > switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on > each scan. Much easier than typing. > > Rusty Do a Google search for "rfc cookbook" + "online recipe links" (with quotes). At least one of the hits will be what *appears to be* the RFC cookbook index page with live links to the original post of the recipe on RFC. Several recipes are missing or substituted and there is no editing or conversion to European units. I don't have the original cook book to compare it to, so I could be wrong (it's happened once or twice before). ObFood: take with a grain of salt. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"
In article >,
sf > wrote: > I seemed to be a lot of effort and I'm not interested anyway. Take > what's been posted lately and store in a file on your completer. I'm > sure if there are missing pages, the OP will post those. In fact, if > we ask her real nice, maybe Chatty Cathy will archive it on the web > site. Various suggestions have been made over the years. Believe it or not, there has been much anguish about it posted here. I don't believe that legal action was threatened, but it was pretty much that level of anger. I suspect that most submissions were electronic, and that when all of those people all over the world worked on standardizing the recipes, that they didn't mail pieces of paper back and forth. -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal
On Mar 8, 12:01*pm, Janet Wilder > wrote:
> koko wrote: > > >>>> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now > >>>> switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on > >>>> each scan. Much easier than typing. > >>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. *OCR clean up isn't a simple snap. > > >> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and the particular OCR > >> software. *The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and also with my > >> Paperport software are surprisingly accurate. * > > > Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I ever owned. I > > think I'll get another one, I miss it. > > One used to be able to get just their OCR software. I don't know if one > still can. > > -- > Janet Wilder > Way-the-heck-south-Texas I'm using a freeware OCR software called "FreeOCR". I downloaded it from CNET's Download.com: http://www.download.com/FreeOCR/3000...html?tag=mncol It will accept picture files directly from a scanner or it will process picture files to text. I seems to be about 99% accurate. It will export directly into Microsoft Word or as a standard text file. Rusty |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes
Victor Sack wrote:
> > A new rfc Cook.Book is always a possibility - and changing the "rules," > particularly those of the financial - hopefully charitable kind - should > not be taken lightly. I can imagine that some - may be a lot - of > people would forgo paying for a copy if they can reasonably hope to get > one for free in the future. Even if "in the future" was the 8 years or so that have passed? > However, were that decision changed now by consensus - which I > personally would regret - I'd argue for a PDF file containing scanned > but *not OCR-ed* (that is graphic, rather than text) content, so that > the Cook.Book, *as a whole*, is not searchable or otherwise capable of > being taken advantage of by unrelated entities, so to say. > > As to posting individual recipes, it is mostly wasting one's time, as > most of them have been posted before, some of them multiple times. > I do not argue with your premise, Victor, but we do have new readers here rather frequently, don't we? (Although we seem to do a fair job of scaring some of them away.) In the long run, I bow to your experience. A new cookbook would be fun for some of us but, I fear, a tremendous task for anyone who chooses to play a large part. gloria p |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal
On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:01:25 -0500, Janet Wilder
> wrote: >koko wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright >> > wrote: >> >>> On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us... >>> >>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now >>>>> switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on >>>>> each scan. Much easier than typing. >>>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a simple snap. >>>> >>>> >>> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and the particular OCR >>> software. The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and also with my >>> Paperport software are surprisingly accurate. >> >> Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I ever owned. I >> think I'll get another one, I miss it. >> > >One used to be able to get just their OCR software. I don't know if one >still can. Thanks, that's worth looking into. koko -- There is no love more sincere than the love of food George Bernard Shaw www.kokoscorner.typepad.com updated 03/07 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"
Those of us who were here when the cookbook idea arose will remember that it was prompted as a charitable undertaking after 9/11 with the proceeds going to a food charity, Second Harvest. We raised more money than anyone hoped for, IIRC. The need is certainly not less in these economic times but could we agree on a charity or even a country? My major hesitation comes from not wanting to make the project a burden for anyone. gloria p |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"
Gloria P wrote:
> Those of us who were here when the cookbook idea arose will remember > that it was prompted as a charitable undertaking after 9/11 with the > proceeds going to a food charity, Second Harvest. We raised more > money than anyone hoped for, IIRC. > > The need is certainly not less in these economic times but could we > agree on a charity or even a country? > > My major hesitation comes from not wanting to make the project a > burden for anyone. Every time it's come up since, the interest level is at about 5% of what it would take to sustain the project. I'm not feeling it, though I'd be happy to help out if it did happen. nancy, not holding breath |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal
On Sun 08 Mar 2009 12:32:33p, koko told us...
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:01:25 -0500, Janet Wilder > > wrote: > >>koko wrote: >>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us... >>>> >>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now >>>>>> switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on >>>>>> each scan. Much easier than typing. >>>>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a simple >>>>> snap. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and the particular >>>> OCR software. The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and >>>> also with my Paperport software are surprisingly accurate. >>> >>> Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I ever owned. I >>> think I'll get another one, I miss it. >>> >> >>One used to be able to get just their OCR software. I don't know if one >>still can. > > Thanks, that's worth looking into. > > koko > -- My first scanner was a PaperPort and I loved it. My second one was problematic and I switched to HP. However, I do have the latest PaperPort software that can be used with any scanner. It also has the capability of storing and/or converting document into PDF files. It also creates PDF options in various Microsoft product; e.g., Word. -- Wayne Boatwright "One man's meat is another man's poison" - Oswald Dykes, English writer, 1709. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OCR software (was: A modest proposal)
Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sun 08 Mar 2009 12:32:33p, koko told us... > >> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:01:25 -0500, Janet Wilder >> > wrote: >> >>> koko wrote: >>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us... >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. ;-) I've now >>>>>>> switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a little cleanup on >>>>>>> each scan. Much easier than typing. >>>>>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a simple >>>>>> snap. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and the particular >>>>> OCR software. The OCR software that came with my HP all-in-one and >>>>> also with my Paperport software are surprisingly accurate. >>>> Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I ever owned. I >>>> think I'll get another one, I miss it. >>>> >>> One used to be able to get just their OCR software. I don't know if one >>> still can. >> Thanks, that's worth looking into. >> >> koko >> -- > > My first scanner was a PaperPort and I loved it. My second one was > problematic and I switched to HP. However, I do have the latest PaperPort > software that can be used with any scanner. It also has the capability of > storing and/or converting document into PDF files. It also creates PDF > options in various Microsoft product; e.g., Word. > > The OCR package that came bundled with my Epson scanner a few years ago is remarkable. It's very accurate (unless you use a *lot* of symbols) and reasonably fast. It even detects multiple font changes and tries picks ones it thinks are the same type. Bob |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal
Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:09:16 -0700, sf > wrote: > >> Please remind us what happened as far as recipes and grandma. Just the name is enough for those that remember; no need to dredge it all up again for those that don't. The cookbook project sort of took on a life of its own, and it wasn't necessarily a happy life, I'll just leave it at that. > > NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! > ;-) Bob |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes
ChattyCathy > wrote:
> IMHO, there must have been > something like that in order to have the cookbook printed in the first > place. If we could find those, it would save a lot of > typing/scanning... It was done in troff using MS's notepad.exe -sw |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal
Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> My first scanner was a PaperPort and I loved it. My second one was > problematic and I switched to HP. However, I do have the latest PaperPort > software that can be used with any scanner. It also has the capability of > storing and/or converting document into PDF files. It also creates PDF > options in various Microsoft product; e.g., Word. > > My first scanner was a Visioneer and it used PaperPort software. Is your software the regular or the "Pro" The regular gets some evil revues. -- Janet Wilder Way-the-heck-south-Texas |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes
sf > wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 00:27:54 -0800 (PST), Rusty > > wrote: > >>I'm scanning the cookbook pages and saving each to a Windows >>Wordpad.rft file. I'm using this simple processor as I don't need all >>the bells and whistles of MS Word for these simple documents. I have >>completed 25 out of about 150 pages so far. When completed, I could >>dump all 150 pages into a PDF file, or zip all of the individual page >>files in one large file and send them to you. I have time to process 5 >>or 10 pages a day. >> >>Rusty > > Thanks, Rusty... what was your posting name back then? Rusty. I remember him, and his intentions to do this a few years ago. I remember contributing .... something towards that effort. I I may have even started the collection by rounding up the recipes that had already been published on Usenet, and Rusty was going to finish it. Or something like that. IIRC, The idea met with a fair amount of resistance even back then. Which is probably whey I felt the need to compile the list int he first place ;-) -sw |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes
Rusty > wrote:
> I'm scanning the cookbook pages and saving each to a Windows > Wordpad.rft file. I'm using this simple processor as I don't need all > the bells and whistles of MS Word for these simple documents. I have > completed 25 out of about 150 pages so far. When completed, I could > dump all 150 pages into a PDF file, or zip all of the individual page > files in one large file and send them to you. I have time to process 5 > or 10 pages a day. I'm fairly y impressed with my $130 Brother scanner/printer/fax/phone and the OCR sofware that comes with it. I started out using OCR software in it's infancy and Itw as shit compared to what's available nowadays. Something like that would male quick work out of 150 pages. -sw |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:30:06 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote: >Rusty. I remember him, and his intentions to do this a few years >ago. I remember contributing .... something towards that effort. I >I may have even started the collection by rounding up the recipes >that had already been published on Usenet, and Rusty was going to >finish it. Or something like that. > >IIRC, The idea met with a fair amount of resistance even back then. >Which is probably whey I felt the need to compile the list int he >first place ;-) My passive-aggressive little buddy! Carol -- Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes
Victor Sack wrote:
> ChattyCathy > wrote: > >> BTW, does anybody (Nancy, Damsel, Victor?) know what happened to the >> original file(s) they were compiled in (e.g. text file(s) or in some >> sort of word processing format - whatever?) > > Of course, there was a text file (variously formatted). However, > there has been a lot of - sometimes rather heated - discussions as to > which form or format the Cook.Book was to be published and the > consensus of > the time settled upon the conventional paper one. It was specifically > the PDF or other digital form that had been rejected. Personally, I > see no very good reason to revise that decision now, considering the > arguments brought forth at the time. > > A new rfc Cook.Book is always a possibility - and changing the > "rules," particularly those of the financial - hopefully charitable > kind - should > not be taken lightly. I can imagine that some - may be a lot - of > people would forgo paying for a copy if they can reasonably hope to > get one for free in the future. Well, in the last four years I've been subscribed to r.f.c., I've seen quite a bit of enthusiasm for doing another RFC cookbook, but nothing much has actually *happened*. IMHO, it's one of those "As long as I don't have to do anything except buy it, I'm for it" things. Surprise, surprise. So... I'm not holding my breath for 'The RFC Cookbook, Vol II' to be published (on paper?) anytime soon. > > However, were that decision changed now by consensus - which I > personally would regret - I'd argue for a PDF file containing scanned > but *not OCR-ed* (that is graphic, rather than text) content, so that > the Cook.Book, *as a whole*, is not searchable or otherwise capable of > being taken advantage of by unrelated entities, so to say. OK. Hear what you're saying... > > As to posting individual recipes, it is mostly wasting one's time, as > most of them have been posted before, some of them multiple times. Have to say this... in view of the above: how do we know that somebody (or more than one somebody) hasn't already saved most of the recipes posted here to some recipe software/master file of their own? -- Cheers Chatty Cathy |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OCR software
zxcvbob wrote:
> The OCR package that came bundled with my Epson scanner a few years ago > is remarkable. It's very accurate (unless you use a *lot* of symbols) > and reasonably fast. It even detects multiple font changes and tries > picks ones it thinks are the same type. I have an Epson, too, and I agree the OCR software is pretty darned good. It will permit me to import scanned material to Word Perfect, which many programs will not. I believe it's "ABBYY Fine Reader" I scanned a very old cookbook a few months ago that used an obscure font for fractions and had the recipes with the ingredients in two columns and the directions in one column and the software did a remarkable job. -- Janet Wilder Way-the-heck-south-Texas |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OCR software (was: A modest proposal)
zxcvbob wrote on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:29:08 -0500:
> Wayne Boatwright wrote: >> On Sun 08 Mar 2009 12:32:33p, koko told us... >> >>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:01:25 -0500, Janet Wilder >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> koko wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us... >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. >>>>>>>> ;-) I've now switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a >>>>>>>> little cleanup on each scan. Much easier than >>>>>>>> typing. >>>>>>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a >>>>>>> simple snap. >>>>>> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and >>>>>> the particular OCR software. The OCR software that came with my >>>>>> HP all-in-one and also with my Paperport software >>>>>> are surprisingly accurate. >>>>> Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I >>>>> ever owned. I think I'll get another one, I miss it. >>>> One used to be able to get just their OCR software. I don't >>>> know if one still can. >>> Thanks, that's worth looking into. koko >>> -- >> >> My first scanner was a PaperPort and I loved it. My second >> one was problematic and I switched to HP. However, I do have >> the latest PaperPort software that can be used with any >> scanner. It also has the capability of storing and/or >> converting document into PDF files. It also creates PDF >> options in various Microsoft product; e.g., Word. >> > The OCR package that came bundled with my Epson scanner a few years > ago is remarkable. It's very accurate (unless you use a > *lot* of symbols) and reasonably fast. It even detects > multiple font changes and tries picks ones it thinks are the > same type. In general, I've found OCR, even the MS 2002 variety, works quite well with recipes except those that have 2 columns of ingredients. The characters are recognized but not the formatting. -- James Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"
Nancy Young > wrote:
> Every time it's come up since, the interest level is at about 5% > of what it would take to sustain the project. I'm not feeling it, > though I'd be happy to help out if it did happen. The second edition has already been published as: http://recfoodcooking.com/signature.php Of course we needf to weed out all the recipes that were int he first edition. -sw |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:49:21 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote: >The second edition has already been published as: > >http://recfoodcooking.com/signature.php > >Of course we needf to weed out all the recipes that were int he >first edition. Hey, that's pretty easy! Carol -- Change "invalid" to JamesBond's agent number to reply. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"
Sqwertz wrote:
> Nancy Young > wrote: > >> Every time it's come up since, the interest level is at about 5% >> of what it would take to sustain the project. I'm not feeling it, >> though I'd be happy to help out if it did happen. > > The second edition has already been published as: > > http://recfoodcooking.com/signature.php > > Of course we needf to weed out all the recipes that were int he > first edition. > > -sw <g> You might have a point there. And <gasp> I'm willing to bet that quite a few of the RFC Cookbook recipes can also be found on some of the "Cook-in" pages - the contents of which I inherited from the original RFC site (that Damsel started in 19-dot). -- Cheers Chatty Cathy |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal
In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote: > Heh.... Weren't all the recipes in the cookbook posted here before the > cookbook was assembled? I'm not aware of any that are *only* in the > cookbook. Prepare to die, Bob. There were some *extremely* valuable recipes that were never posted anywhere, and that were contributed with the understanding that they will never be posted. Personally, I think it's horse puckey, but it's just a fact that some people are very protective of their recipes. -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
RFC Cookbook (p. 2002?) - was "A modest proposal"
Damsel in dis Dress wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:49:21 -0500, Sqwertz > > wrote: > > >> The second edition has already been published as: >> >> http://recfoodcooking.com/signature.php >> >> Of course we needf to weed out all the recipes that were int he >> first edition. >> > > Hey, that's pretty easy! > > Carol Carol, you found an error in one of my recipes, so I remember that you working on the cookbook project. Becca |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes
Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article >, > (Victor Sack) wrote: >> >> As to posting individual recipes, it is mostly wasting one's time, as >> most of them have been posted before, some of them multiple times. >> >> Victor > > Hear, hear!! I dunno. I thought this was worth a repost. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.f...e?dmode=source From: (Victor Sack) Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking Subject: rfc Cook.Book: A messed-up recipe Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 08:40:14 +0100 Organization: infinite loop Lines: 52 Message-ID: > NNTP-Posting-Host: p508d1a54.dip.t-dialin.net (80.141.26.84) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1041406815 10775584 80.141.26.84 (16 [5537]) X-Orig-Path: sackv X-Face: $dO4505L-bM3\Iz"(V=y.bL/7 {5ys3:B[-aPBQvs*Z%fdBqFhvc85hmZN4j1kwRzwvY*R4 nvQ/#/+kWXH((aXWh\%mvG1V()Z0k:NwZAIu\S0d1%,nv`^ User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.4.6 Unfortunately, one of the recipes included in the rfc cook.book is hideously screwed-up. :-(( I'm the one to blame for this, as well as for any other faults of the book. The recipe in question is Barb Schaller's Mango-Strawberry Jam with Kiwifruit on page 148. It is the last recipe in the book. I'm very sorry and I hope Barb and everyone else will accept my heartfelt apologies. Since it appears impractical to ask the printers to re-print the last sheet (pages 147-148) and then have it sent to all who ordered the book, I suggest you do the following: Print your own sheet, using #60 paper and Arial font, and cut the rectangular holes using an exacto knife or something. The sheet can be replaced easily. Victor Now, here is the correct recipe: BARB SCHALLER'S BARB SCHALLER MANGO-STRAWBERRY JAM Minnesota, USA WITH KIWIFRUIT Made it up for 1996 State Fair. Best stuff I made all summer; it didn't win a thing at the Fair. Humbug! But it did win First Place in 1997!! But not in 1998. A couple of preservers on rec.food.preserving have won blue ribbons with this recipe in their fairs on the west coast! What a kick! 2 cups (475 ml) diced mango 1 teaspoon citric acid 1 3/4 cups (415 ml) mashed 7 1/2 cups (1.4 kg) granulated strawberries sugar 3/4 cup (180 ml) diced kiwifruit 2 pouches Certo brand liquid fruit 1/4 cup (60 ml) lemon juice pectin (6 oz/170 g total) Prepare 12 half-pint jars and metal lids: Bring jars to boil in large quantity of water. Keep hot in water until ready to fill. Prepare lids as instructed by manufacturer (preparation may vary from brand to brand.) Use Certo instructions for cooked Strawberry Jam using the measures above for the quantity of fruit: Place prepared fruit into a large (6-quart/6 l) heavy saucepot. Add the lemon juice and citric acid. Stir in the sugar and bring mixture to a full rolling boil (a boil that doesn't stop bubbling when stirred) on high heat, stirring constantly. The mixture will be very thick and sugary until it heats, so stir it carefully and constantly to prevent scorching. Quickly stir in the pectin and return to a full rolling boil. Boil exactly one minute, stirring constantly. Remove from heat, remove foam with a metal spoon, stir slowly for 3-5 minutes then pour into prepared jars and seal with metal lids and rings. Process in a boiling water bath for 5 minutes. Remove from water and let cool, undisturbed. Jars are sealed when the lid is concave. After 24 hours, remove metal ring from jars and wipe inside rings dry. Replace loosely and store in a cool dark place. Best used within a year; realistically 2-3 years is okay, though quality and appearance may suffer. -- Cheers Chatty Cathy |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
A modest proposal - RFC Cookbook recipes
ChattyCathy wrote:
> I dunno. I thought this was worth a repost. > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.f...e?dmode=source There is a whole correction list. I have no idea how some recipes changed from the originator to the final product. The second printing was corrected, but anyone with the first printing had to print off a list. The funniest one was a recipe for coleslaw where the ingredient was Tabasco, not tatas! (laugh) Here's the list: http://tinyurl.com/bjglon nancy |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
OCR software (was: A modest proposal)
On Sun 08 Mar 2009 02:42:58p, James Silverton told us...
> zxcvbob wrote on Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:29:08 -0500: > >> Wayne Boatwright wrote: >>> On Sun 08 Mar 2009 12:32:33p, koko told us... >>> >>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:01:25 -0500, Janet Wilder >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> koko wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:10:45 GMT, Wayne Boatwright >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat 07 Mar 2009 10:08:20p, sf told us... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:37:18 -0800 (PST), Rusty >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I did type some of the early pages, but I got tired. >>>>>>>>> ;-) I've now switched to scanning and OCR. I just have to do a >>>>>>>>> little cleanup on each scan. Much easier than typing. >>>>>>>> Thanks for all your effort, Rusty. OCR clean up isn't a simple >>>>>>>> snap. >>>>>>> Often it isn't, but it depends largely on the font and >>>>>>> the particular OCR software. The OCR software that came with my >>>>>>> HP all-in-one and also with my Paperport software are >>>>>>> surprisingly accurate. >>>>>> Paperport was the cheapest and most accurate scanner I ever owned. >>>>>> I think I'll get another one, I miss it. >>>>> One used to be able to get just their OCR software. I don't know if >>>>> one still can. >>>> Thanks, that's worth looking into. koko -- >>> >>> My first scanner was a PaperPort and I loved it. My second >>> one was problematic and I switched to HP. However, I do have >>> the latest PaperPort software that can be used with any >>> scanner. It also has the capability of storing and/or >>> converting document into PDF files. It also creates PDF >>> options in various Microsoft product; e.g., Word. >>> >> The OCR package that came bundled with my Epson scanner a few years >> ago is remarkable. It's very accurate (unless you use a >> *lot* of symbols) and reasonably fast. It even detects >> multiple font changes and tries picks ones it thinks are the same >> type. > > In general, I've found OCR, even the MS 2002 variety, works quite well > with recipes except those that have 2 columns of ingredients. The > characters are recognized but not the formatting. > > Jim, some OCR software, like that made by PaperPort, supports columns quite well. The feature can also be disabled. -- Wayne Boatwright "One man's meat is another man's poison" - Oswald Dykes, English writer, 1709. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
a modest proposal for Dale W., and others... | Wine | |||
Proposal. | Vegan | |||
A Modest Proposal was Chung's insanity redux WAS: How t | General Cooking | |||
A Modest Proposal | General Cooking | |||
A Modest Proposal. [That has nothing to do with eating the Irish] | Tea |