[DECtalk] new to the list

shaun everiss shaun.e at xtra.co.nz
Tue Feb 28 22:43:51 EST 2006 

jayson should have the full version of dectalk 4.1 now I just sent him a file.
Weather he decides to upload the file is his business.
At 12:30 p.m. 1/03/2006, you wrote:
>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
>>
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>DECtalk mailing list
>DECtalk at bluegrasspals.com
>http://jaybird.no-ip.info/mailman/listinfo/dectalk

More information about the Dectalk mailing list