[DECtalk] new to the list

Tue Feb 28 18:30:11 EST 2006

where is the demo at?
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "shaun everiss" <shaun.e at xtra.co.nz>
To: "DECtalk Discussions" <dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 3:04 PM
Subject: Re: [DECtalk] new to the list


> there is a demo of dectalk 5.
> and aparently the voice is sort of back and the problem of the newer crap 
> voice was addressed.
> Aparently.
> There is still a split with some of the voices though.
> Some are better, others not.
> At 03:08 p.m. 28/02/2006, you wrote:
>>I heard it's sort of back. I heard about it in spam though. Whatever 
>>service it is ripping off the name.
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: <mailto:Dectalk at aol.com>Dectalk at aol.com
>>To: <mailto:dectalk at bluegrasspals.com>dectalk at bluegrasspals.com
>>Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 5:10 PM
>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>
> __________ NOD32 1.1410 (20060215) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>