- gutvol-d - lists.pglaf.org

Text to speech service
by Greg Newby 30 Sep '09

30 Sep '09

FYI. This is not free software, but seems interesting for folks looking to do online text to speech conversion: From: Joe messanella <j.messanella(a)gmail.com> To: gbnewby(a)pglaf.org Subject: Re: text to speech solution blurb The web is essential for most of us , unfortunately 20% of the US population have various reading issues! 2 years ago I experienced a racing bike accident, yes, over the handle bars and onto my head. For 6 weeks my balance was compromised, pronunciation was inconsistent, my world - gray! I had limited tolerance for "computers," 6 months later the effects could still be felt. Still, as unfortunate as that may seem, I may now a better person for it. At least my sense of purpose has been renewed. I will soon be working for ( www.voice-corp.com ), a small company that offers inexpensive "service based" text to speech solutions, web visitors just click on the listen icon and a player reads the web text or downloads it in mp3 format. I did not mention my accident during my interview however! Would it matter? joe.messanella(a)voice-corp.com

1 0

2 weeks in, princeton students hate kindle
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 30 Sep '09

30 Sep '09

princeton students have been using the kindle... > after two weeks of use in three classes, > the Daily Princetonian reports many are > "dissatisfied and uncomfortable" with their > e-readers, with one student calling it > "a poor excuse of an academic tool." > Most of the criticisms center around > the Kindle's weak annotation features, > which make things like highlighting and > margin notes almost impossible to use, > but even a simple thing like the lack of > true page numbers has caused problems, > since allowing students to cite the Kindle's > location numbers in their papers is > "meaningless for anyone working from > analog books." oops... -bowerbird

4 3

yolink add-on
by Greg Newby 29 Sep '09

29 Sep '09

Did I already forward this information? Sorry if so. This is a search add-on. The info is provided by the producers. I've tried it, and it worked well: Current search tools donât help you find and analyze information quickly. yolink is a unique and powerful free browser add-on which takes search to the next level: â¢ cut down search time by as much as 90% by reducing clicks â¢ analyze search results quickly â content is delivered to you with keywords highlighted â¢ enhance your search â yolink shines at searching through links and electronic documents for multiple terms and relationships â¢ understand information in context â unlike typical search results that present a couple of lines of information, yolink displays your keywords in its full context so you can identify and associate related information â¢ unlock the written word â use yolinkâs ability to search for and display multiple keywords in context to quickly analyze books for themes, relationships, and quotes The Web is all about hyperlinks and digital content. Todayâs search engines return lists of links that you need to click-through to find information. Below is a link to a short video using yolink on a Gutenberg.org electronic book http://www.yolink.com/yolink/media/gutenburglarge.jsp yolink also provides a hosted archiving and collaboration platform with its Save & Share feature. yolink Save & Share allows you to quickly organize and share information, including accessing the information from mobile devices such as the iPhone. Download yolink today at www.yolink.com

1 0

Re: 2 weeks in, princeton students hate kindle
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 29 Sep '09

29 Sep '09

michael said: > I tried out the new Sonys yesterday, can't say I liked them at all. the sony is no better than the kindle, for school use. but for your own use, michael, why didn't you like it? (i'm not surprised by that, but just would like specifics.) -bowerbird

2 1

Re: why the plain-text format is the most useful format for eliciting beauty (and more)
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 25 Sep '09

25 Sep '09

jim said: > I reject it not only because its ugly, it's not ugly. besides, it's a _file-format_, which means it's not even intended that you would look at it directly, any more than you are intended to look at an .html file directly, with its obtrusive angle-brackets. you're mixed up. > doesn’t have any decent tools to support it i have a whole slew of tools here, and am building more. further, the format is so simple, authors can build tools too. > isn’t supported or advocated by anyone world-wide > except an army of one, i'm not an army. i'm just one. > and will not be used by the other volunteers in any case won't be used by the d.p. people, that's for sure, not if they know it's from me, because they are so stubborn they don't know what's good for them... which tickles my funny-bone on a constant basis... > but more importantly because I find cases on a daily basis > cases of things I need to encode as a transcriber where I say > “well obviously there would be no good way to address > *this* issue using Bowerbird’s scheme.” well, that doesn't surprise me on bit, jim, because you don't know jack-shit about my little "scheme". but i am being quite sincere when i tell you that i would _love_ to hear about these so-called "cases." you should be told that i have put out many calls for such "cases", and nobody has ever been able to meet the challenge. so step up, jim, and be the first. > And then, having established one has to transcribe > into an ugly format, which I certainly think html, xml, > and TEI are also, one comes rapidly to the conclusion that > there is no way that an input transcription format and > an output rendered file format *ought* to be one and > the same thing because to do so needlessly subjects > the end reader to unnecessary ugliness. jim, you keep talking about "input" and "output", and you're just confusing yourself with that terminology... > Not to mention that PG is rendering to 80 different > output file formats in any case so why *insist* that there > be only one input transcription format “holy grail” > in the first place? the benefit of a "master" format is that you only have to store and maintain that one format. so it's cost-effective. but thanks for playing, we'll have a consolation gift for you. -bowerbird

2 1

Re: let's wind this down
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 25 Sep '09

25 Sep '09

jim said: > Yes, in the encoding of m-dash, ellipses, etc. i was being sarcastic, jim. just like you, i have railed about the way that d.p. (mis)handles things like em-dashes and ellipses. > First of all, again, if this is important to PG > then why do they not properly index it > to the PG site’s search engine? i dunno. you'll have to ask p.g., not me. but i agree their instructions suck. i get the impression that they don't even want individual digitizers to do books any more. they want to channel the labor over to d.p., which would be fine, except the d.p. workflow wastes _so_ much volunteer time and energy. > Secondly, you refuse to read the immediately > preceding section FAQ#V.93 which makes it clear that > different volunteers have different priorities about > what “plain text” means and how they will be willing > to support it and will be using different automatic > conversion tools and that some of the volunteers > (read: me) will be paying no weight to the desire of > other volunteers to make tools to do “automatic > prettyprinting” from the “plain text” whereas other > volunteers (yourself) are willing to insert “ugliness” > into the plain text (their words not mine) in order to > better support prettyprinters such as you are proposing. you can try and do all the doubletalk that you want, jim, but the fact remains that there is a policy, and it is clear: > Underscores are now the effective standard for italics in PG texts. your .txt version failed to meet the standard, jim. face it. > Finally, you and others at PG are forgetting to heed > the closing words given there: > > Getting a text on-line is the important thing; > > which choices you [meaning me] make in doing so > > is a matter of detail. do you think this gives you the ok to ignore the italics? not only did your .txt version fail to meet the standard, but now you're telling us you don't have to meet that? how about we get a ruling from the p.g. people on this? are your digitizers free to ignore the italics if they like? are your digitizers free to ignore any rule they dislike? > The choices *I* make as a volunteer are to put my > time and effort into doing ONE markup as well as I can > namely HTML, and as little time and effort as possible > on TXT files and because you're putting so little time and effort into your .txt files, they are coming out as inferior. again, how about a ruling from the p.g. powers-that-be? are digitizers free to make the .txt files as bad as they choose? i will keep asking this question until it is answered, so don't think that you can ignore it and it will just go away. -bowerbird

2 1

Re: why the plain-text format is the most useful format for eliciting beauty (and more)
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 25 Sep '09

25 Sep '09

jim said: > I have not heard a reasonable rational why PG REQUIRES me > to submit BOTH an HTML AND a PG TXT file if what I as a volunteer > really want to submit is just an HTML file. > If I were allowed to just submit an HTML file then I could reasonably > encode MOST of what I as a transcriber would like to transcribe, > and I could avoid the abuse that I currently receive from Bowerbird > when I don't put in the extraneous marks and spaces and smiley faces > not found in the author's work but which Bowerbird would like to see > in the PG TXT in order to support his pet theories about how > the input file format and the rendered file format need to be one > and the same thing. In turn Bowerbird could use his time and > energies in a positive manner transcribing my HTML input format file > into any particular flavor of PG TXT output file format that > Bowerbird likes and can and will in turn pat himself on the back for, > rather than abusing me of efforts that I didn't want to have to do > in the first place. i won't let you bait me into any more of this nonsense, jim. everyone paying attention -- and probably even most of those _not_ paying attention -- knows that i refuted your points deftly, and completely, except for those which i myself have already made. (but, um, gee, thanks for all your _support_ on those matters, jim; having you agreeing with them really bolstered up their credibility.) you come here looking for a master format. i handed you one. but because it doesn't look the way you thought it _would_ look, you don't recognize that it's exactly what you were looking for... there's a certain bit of humorous irony in all that... -bowerbird

2 1

Re: Once every 7 years a post of monumental stupidity comes along ...
by Joshua Hutchinson 25 Sep '09

25 Sep '09

3 4

Re: PG French text file #1500
by Joshua Hutchinson 24 Sep '09

24 Sep '09

5 5

Re: the wings of the dove -- 002
by Bowerbird＠aol.com 24 Sep '09

24 Sep '09

al said: > Re bowerbird - ignore him/it. i'm male, al. if you had been at the december 2003 meet-up, where we celebrated the first 10,000 p.g. e-texts, you would have met me, so you woulda known then. but i'm sure you probably knew that anyway, and were just using the "it" form as a mechanism of dehumanization. > Few, if any, aspects of PG (or DP) satisfy him/it, don't be ridiculous. i love michael hart, the soul of p.g., the man who birthed the project, nurtured it to adulthood. the man's a saint, and he's smart too, with his solid focus on the text format as the backbone, to ensure a lifelong viability. i love all the volunteers, who have generously donated so much of their time and energy and money to digitize these old books, and persisted in spite of the shitty schooling and tools they had, working inside workflows that wasted their time on terrible design. i love the world, who embraced the project gutenberg library early, making it the premiere cyberlibrary, beating back half-assed efforts by other people who were enamored of some gimmick or another, whether in the form of proprietary formats or open-source snake-oil. i love the faq, which lay down some good advice on the .txt format, even if the whitewashers don't do any checks to ensure compliance. i love david widger for all the hard work he's done over the years... i love greg newby for offering webspace to anyone who needs it... i love the d.p. people who give me support behind the enemy lines. i love the d.p. people (lucy!) who support me in _front_ of those lines. i love the d.p. people who keep working on improving the .html format. i love thundergnat, for giving the d.p. people a tool they can use... i love all the other programmers who said "phuck you" to d.p. because programmers shouldn't hang out in a place where we ain't appreciated. i love the guy who programmed "eucalyptus" and thereby proved that you can create _beautiful_ e-books on the iphone from p.g. e-texts. i love the guy who programmed "eucalyptus" because he left me room to prove that you can make those iphone e-books _powerful_ as well... i'm sure there's more, but that's probably enough off the noggin... > while little, if anything, that him/it does, satisfies anyone else. "that him does" -- didn't think that one through, did you al? -bowerbird

1 0