Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
OT.: net neutrality
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Theoretical corruption is not the problem here—it’s that profit (aka greed beyond a reasonable point) is the reliably self-evident motive of capitalism. In this case, we observe giant telecom companies pouring tens of millions of dollars into lobbying to get a federal regulatory agency to eliminate an “unnecessary” and “recently created” policy by a vote along strict party lines led by a former Verizon attorney while disregarding and dismissing a subverted mandatory public comment process, all against the will of the vast majority (maybe 80%, not a left/right issue) of the US citizenry...and how can we not realize there is more than a matter of principle involved for them? This was purely about money—unless you consider the failure of free market principles in huge areas of the US that don’t have a choice of ISP and the new potential to influence or control the messaging their subscribers receive to be a potential issue. Whatever, TV news was like that before the Internet back when the populace was easier to control through consistent messaging. At best, this turns the Internet back into a cable TV model. I’m not even saying that’s bad—I’ve no love for those social media corporations on the other side although at least we chose those masters—but you can rely on the fact that none of the players would be paying millions to affect this if they weren’t convinced of an enormous return on investment which you can be sure won’t benefit the average American. Regulatory agencies exist for the protection of the citizens, not the corporations. You can read that two ways and I mean both.
you disingenuous dipshit. this ain’t a left/right thing, EVERYONE hates this piece of shit, and it’s cause they’re smarter than the fuckers behind it give them credit for. you wanna partisanize it? try to spin it as socialism? good luck with all that, it’ll get shoved up yer ass sideways faster’n you can say “Bannon.” the politics of this issue are intertribal, which leaves you and your ilk shit out of luck so long as enough of us - red, blue, and everyone in between - do our part and keep fighting this fucking atrocity til the stake is in its heart.
Will my porn be slower?
This
Congrats! I've awarded you my first thumbs up. Don't tell me where you're going to put it, though.
They were not very subtle, and as a result, I find no fault with your own lack of subtlety. Besides...you're right.
Not true. And the reason why this law came to effect is because verizon and folks gave trump money during elections, just so that they can get this sort of laws that cripples competition(and alikely political ideas that someone with enough power doesent agree with), lets them get "ransoms" from websites etc. its just one of those corruption scams that companies play because of lack of regulative laws that would preven this from happening.
Ps. AT&T is also having a law suit trying to get rid of FTCs ability to give basic consumer protection on internet. Imagine internet ruled by ISPs and no consumer protection..
Companies already crossed the line pre the NN act, and continued to do so after (pre NN, Comcast, 2007, and others. Post NN act, Verizon AT&T... 2 mins of research. Rules come after the transgressions, that’s the point: state the limit, so it can be enforced.)
What first-worlders tend to forget in the parlor debate about net neutrality is that net neutrality isn’t only a first world issue. Yes, US households might pay an extra $70 a year to keep streaming Netflix and keep their Instagram Stories updated. But remember 85% percent of the worlds people live without sufficient food or potable water. Access to the web means something very different to this majority. Information is power, (to know the truth or to tell it) and derugulating the web will have the (unintended?) effect of throttling that power, or completely choking it off, from those most in need of it.
This. I dont get how people dont see that the whole aim of this sort of businesses is to grow profits. There is no top person in these companies to act as a moral guard. Its investors demanding maximum profits. All decisions are based on this idea. Usually it means fuk'n the consumer. And if you give them more power, they will just use it to make more profits. The way to get verizon etc to aim for developent is to offer good free(or cheap by regulation) internet for everyone, then they will have to lower costs for premium internet deals.
The way to get verizon etc to aim for developent is to offer good free(or cheap by regulation) internet for everyone, then they will have to lower costs for premium internet deals.
Oddly Nurseries are closing in the us due to the increase in Free hours. The profits from the previously premium hours were what was keeping them open.
Always good old fashioned 'hard copy'
@JeffChasteen
Ah, the wisdom of hindsight. Tim Berners-Lee should never have told America about his World Wide Web.
More seriously, it is the relentless all consuming greed and control freak ethos of Apple, Google, Verizon, Microsoft, Facebook, etc that is behind current events. And, I am reliably informed, our American friends may be offered a choice of Mark Cuban or Mark Zuckerbeg for President. God help us all.
Most of the material on the net is being supplied from fewer sources as time goes by anyway. The large corporations already have control pretty much anyway.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke
So how many of the people supporting net neutrality in this thread knows how it actually works on a technical level? Because Google, Netflix, Facebook etc. have already been doing exactly what those clickbait headlines claim will happen, for a long time
https://code.facebook.com/posts/1653074404941839/under-the-hood-broadcasting-live-video-to-millions/
https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/
https://peering.google.com/#/infrastructure
nyiix.net/members/
https://linx.net/about/member-list?letter=G
So why are Google, FB etc supporting net neutrality? Well, since they don't rely on a single ISP to deliver content to consumers, what better way to stifle potential competition than to bury them in regulations? My general rule of thumb is that if Google, FB, Amazon et al are for it, it's not a good thing for consumers
That’s fair comment, yet this is part of a larger problem involving the whole Capitlist affect on society IMO. So while I do actively discuss politics in other domains and try my best to change people’s perceptions. Stating what I did above does not mean I ‘do nothing’ - it means that I don’t believe the situation is as simple as fighting for net neutrality will solve the problems coming.
I didn't say or imply otherwise, I don't think. People sometimes read into stuff. I must be guilty of it, too, because the 2nd sentence of your previous post sounds rather defeatist.
That’s down to ad-blockers and affiliate revenue throttling. Ads are the life-blood of independent content providers, and revenues have been decimated over the last few years, so many have closed down.
There are many subtle ‘tweaks’ going on in the background to make life harder for the little guys. I predict in a few years time the web will be a very different, corporate controlled space.
Making simple statements directed at another implies it means them, otherwise you would have made it as a simple statement in the thread timeline without link to myself. Then saying you see what I say as defeatist just comes across as a cheap dig
Yes, you are pretty spot on there IMO.
I replied to a general statement with a general statement.
Mine was a general statement of opinion of the subject and not aimed at you. So far, you have come across as being passive aggressive in your comments to myself. I see this going nowhere fast, so consider that unless you just want to discuss the topic at hand and not if you think I’m being defeatist- then this conversation is over on my part
And you always fall back to your passive-aggressive accusations and smiley faces. I'm done here.
Of course, it will affect us.
When you are big enough you will use your power to change the rules. This is exactly what happened here. When the rules of the markets get changed, the markets change, too. The new rules helps big business and slow down competition from small and medium companies. This will slow down innovation. All in all it also helps to form the society as they like it.
They have spend so much effort to get the FCC into the "right" direction. Yes, they are stronger, they are successful in the political game. Now it is easier for the big companies to achieve economic success and to avoid competition.
It is a big change.
Generally i appreciate it very much when someone has a complete different point of view, especially when it is not "the common line".
I have to admit, i just don't understand your arguments. When we took away your considerations about "the" left (or such): Why do you think that the decision of the FCC don't influence the outcome of market processes?
Why do you think it is good?
Don't you think that fair competition and fair market regulations (regardless of the influence and bigness of a company) are needless? Or do you think that this change of the regulation don't affect the internet markets at all?
@ all
I think it is absolutely neccessary to stay friendly when we have differing point of views. I would go even so far to say, the more different our views are, the more it is helpful to stay strictly (!) friendly and (!) interested to the arguments of the "other" side.
I’m gonna be the DEVILS ADVOCATE for a moment here...
I dunno, but net neutrality written in stone, has only been implemented for two years.
I’ve watched the net grow from 1995, when I sat with a modem, to fiber, because isp’s have upgraded it.
I had a very good life indeed before Netflix ruined my trips to the video store.
Sry for my ignorance, but what the phrase “Word” mean in this context?