[DECtalk] new to the list

Brent Harding bharding at doorpi.net
Mon Feb 27 21:10:35 EST 2006


Archive.org keeps stuff indefinitely. There is no long distance for evoice 
to charge for, the secret to that free is getting phone from the cable 
company.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "tomi" <geczy at earthlink.net>
To: "DECtalk Discussions" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list


> Hey,
>
> Well if you have the e - mails of some of the people that were on e - 
> voice, we might be able to track them down and ask.  Unfortunately, e - 
> voice is gone! Just like tell me, e - voice is not good.  They don't 
> author free voice mail, all you can have is a number ( not toll free ) for 
> free that can give you fax and voice mail.  The number isn't free though, 
> they charge you for long disstance and all that crap now.  If you want 
> your own toll free number, pay 20 buks a month.
>
> Tell me sucks, it doesn't have those cool features anymore.  The world of 
> communication thrived 2 years ago.
>
> Anyways, you could only track them down if you know the names.  I don't 
> know if Google has a cash of the page of the list, but highly unlikely.  I 
> mean, evoice is gone for 3 years now, surely google erased the page.
>
> Regards:
>
> Tomi
>
>
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>From: Dectalk at aol.com
>>To: dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:10:51 EST
>>Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
>
>
>>I guess there is.  I spoke with Corine today and  she said Dennis use to 
>>give
>>out the codes.  So yes, the code is out there  somewhere.
>
>>Where is E-voice when you need it?  E-voice was a  free voice mail 
>>services
>>with tons of Dectalk groups on it.  Out of all  those people I bet someone 
>>knew
>>the codes.
>
>>How the heck do we track it  down?
>
>
>>SNOOPI
>
>
>
>>In a message dated 2/27/2006 1:33:50 P.M.  Pacific Standard Time,
>>ratguy at bellsouth.net writes:
>
>>Hi,
>>You mean, there is publicly available source code for  DECtalk?
>>Jayson.
>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Corine  Bickley" <corine.bickley at gallaudet.edu
>>To: "'DECtalk Discussions'"  <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:29  AM
>>Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
>
>
>>Thanks for the  encouragement, Snoopi, but unfortunately I have no 
>>influence
>>on Fonix  decisions.
>
>
>
>>I was thinking tho that we might be able to get  federal grant support
>>(NIH-NIDCD) for such a project.  Whoever thinks this  would be a good use 
>>of
>>OUR tax dollars, please reply.  If I can show enough  need for the project 
>>(to
>>take publicly-available source code for DECtalk  and update it to run with
>>current operating systems and be usable to  current screen readers and
>>accessible devices), then we can show the need.  I'll volunteer to write 
>>the
>>application, and have been able to get funding  for similar projects in 
>>the
>>past, and I'd be extremely interested in making  this happen - IF enough
>>users out there want it.  Please let me know what  you think.
>
>>corine
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From:  dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com
>>[mailto:dectalk-bounces at bluegrasspals.com]  On Behalf Of Dectalk at aol.com
>>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 11:02  AM
>>To: dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the  list
>
>
>
>>Well, Corine is on this list.  When she reads that  this can be done, 
>>she'll
>>probably call Fonix and scream for  permission.  I've been trying to tell 
>>her
>>that this could be done, but  Fonix says it can't.  I know it can, I had
>>friends crack and modify  other programs, even Windows professional. 
>>Illegal
>>as you can get,  but we did it.  So I laugh when Fonix says it can't be 
>>done,
>>I know it  can.
>
>
>
>>I hope we get the go ahead, it would put Fonix back on  track.
>
>
>
>
>
>>SNOOPI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>In a  message dated 2/27/2006 3:00:22 A.M.  Pacific Standard  Time,
>>shaun.e at xtra.co.nz writes:
>
>>What we could do is approach the  current owner of dectalk and ask them if 
>>we
>>could hack the old code out of  either the old dectalk synths, or out of 
>>old
>>software, say 4.3 and make  some open source mod bassed on that.
>>We couldn't call that dectalk  or  access 32.
>>Probably open dectalk simular to open office or whatever  though.
>>We could have  someone set up something on sf.net.
>>There  are loads of such opensource projects on linux, I don't see any
>>problem if  we get permission to, if we just hacked the code and based on
>>that made our  own synth.
>>After they will not sell olded out dated software.
>>At 09:52  p.m.  27/02/2006, you wrote:
>>>Hi,
>>>Let's not start World War III  about this, but here are a few more 
>>>thoughts
>>>on this.
>>>First, if  you've ever seen the darker side of the net, you doubtless 
>>>know
>>>there  are people out there who just love to take popular  commercial
>>software
>>>packages and crack them.  Copy protection  mechanisms are disabled,
>>>registration key systems are bypassed or, if  not bypassed, a key 
>>>generator
>>>program is included so you can make up  your own key out of thin air.  In
>>>some cases, the crackers may  even have to disable sanity checks built 
>>>into
>>>the programs designed to  prevent just this sort of happening.  Also 
>>>there
>>>are programs on  the market designed to encrypt executables so they can't 
>>>be
>>>cracked so  easily.  E.G.  you write a program that's going to bring  in
>>>millions, run it through an encrypter program before putting it on  the
>>>market so crackers either can't crack it at all or have to do lots  of 
>>>extra
>>>work to get the job done.
>>>Also, I'm not saying that by  disassembling a program you get the 
>>>original
>>>source.  You  don't.  What you'd get is the machine code, probably 
>>>something
>>>like assembly language for whatever microprocesser the  program was 
>>>designed
>>>for.  Let's say you took the Apple II  Textalker program and disassembled
>>it.
>>>You'd most likely get 6502  machine code.  Now Textalker may well have 
>>>been
>>>written in  Assembly, but the original source would probably have 
>>>meaningful
>>>label  names if not comments, and the developers of the original program
>>>would  know, or would have known, how to make changes to their  version.
>>With
>>>a disassembled program you wouldn't get the meaningful  label names,
>>comments
>>>or anything, and you wouldn't have the  knowledge of the program's 
>>>internal
>>>structure that the original  developer had.  But still, if you knew what 
>>>you
>>>were doing you  could probably modify the software, and you could 
>>>certainly
>>>find out  how certain things were done.  In fact, the author of Cider 
>>>Press
>>>did disassemble some copy protection code on some old Apple II  cassette
>>>tapes to find out how it worked and how to circumvent  it.
>>>As for the DECtalk software itself, I seem to recall that the  DECtalk PC
>>>uses an 80186 processor and the Express uses an 80386.   Both have some 
>>>type
>>>of digital to analog convertor.  So it might  not have been that 
>>>difficult
>>>for Digital to modify the software to run  under Windows, since I don't
>>>assume they're emulating an old  board.
>>>Jayson.
>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From:  "Tony Baechler" <tony at baechler.net
>>>To: "DECtalk Discussions"  <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 3:22  AM
>>>Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list
>
>
>>>>  Hi.  I'm sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you here.  First,  the
>>>> point of compiling a program in the first place is so that the  source
>>>> isn't easily apparent.  If it was possible to just  randomly
>>>> disassemble software, we wouldn't need the GPL, BSD,  Linux or any
>>>> other open source project.  I could just take  the Windows kernel,
>>>> crack it, invent my own version and release it  as the free kernel or
>>>> something.  It obviously doesn't work  that way.  Also, remember a
>>>> previous discussion about  emulating the Echo on the Apple II?  The
>>>> problem is the same  in both cases.  The Echo is a chip on a card that
>>>> goes into  the computer.  The DEC-Talk is a separate
>>>> computer.   According to the manual, it has its own
>>>> microprocessor.  So,  even if they had the firmware, it wouldn't do
>>>> them much  good.  It's a nice thought though.  Considering that it
>>>>  keeps getting sold, it's no surprise to me that they don't have  the
>>>> 4.40 source, or won't release it if they do.  Personally  I would like
>>>> to see a good, high quality open source synthesizer,  either using
>>>> already existing hardware such as the DEC-Talk or  easily programmable
>>>> software with good speech quality.  I'm  not interested in what's
>>>> already out there for free, it all sounds  like crap and won't sing
>>>> very well if at  all.
>
>>>> At 08:12 PM 2/26/2006, you wrote:
>>>>>I also don't understand how Fonix could have lost the code.  If the 
>>>>>only
>>>>>copy is on a dead hard drive obviously they could send  the drive in to 
>>>>>a
>>>>>data recovery company if they still have it,  but those places are
>>>expensive.
>>>>>I mean, with the move  from Digital to Force and then from Force to
>>Fonix,
>>>>>you'd  think somebody somewhere would have something laying around.   I
>>>have
>>>>>the firmware version 4.2CD for the Express as  well as the DECtalk PC
>>>drivers
>>>>>which as I understand it  actually contain the DECtalk code which is
>>>loaded
>>>>>onto  the board at startup.  And of course the 4.3 demo is available 
>>>>>at
>>>the
>>>>>archive.  I don't know how to disassemble  the software, but bet the
>>right
>>>>>person who knew what they  were doing could do it and create machine 
>>>>>code
>>>>>from which new  equivalent source code for the lost versions could be
>>>>>recreated.
>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>> DECtalk mailing  list
>>>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>>>  http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>DECtalk  mailing  list
>>>DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>>http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>DECtalk  mailing  list
>>DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>----
>
>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> DECtalk mailing  list
>>> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>>  http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
>
>>_______________________________________________
>>DECtalk  mailing  list
>>DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
>
>
>
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> DECtalk mailing list
> DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
> http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk
> 




More information about the Dectalk mailing list