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
>
This is true. Yet they rely on ordinary folk wanting to do business with them. That fact is their Achilles heel. As we have seen in the past, even Apple almost went bust when their natural contempt for the consumer got the better of them.
Yes, we all need the Interweb. There is no going back without becoming like digital Amish. But who we do business with remains our choice. Personally, I no longer use Google for searches, instead choosing Duck Duck Go, I don’t buy from Amazon, and my ISP is a highly competent award winning independent.
Okay, this is just one little man doing his bit. But this is also how (millions of) Davids beats the Goliaths, in the long run. Viva la revolution.
When we arrive at the future most people will not even recognise what freedoms we have lost.
>
I must admit that seems likely.
However, as recent turbulent politics proves, many millions of people want change. Whether they get the type of change they envisage is another question, but the appetite for maintaining corrupted systems is clearly in trouble.
It's old school hip-hop slang for agreement/approval.
That’s very interesting to hear. I’ve been doing some searches of statistic sites regarding the subject - highly interesting! Trying to find out how many people are putting similar ideals as yourself into motion, is difficult to determine from the information I’ve found so far. One thing that I’ve found difficult is that much of the sites I’ve found so far, are strongly influenced by stats that affect America. Considering America is not the largest user area of the net, nor seemingly that representative of the whole of the world, it’s making getting any meaningful information quite difficult.
Thanks for sharing
I hope they do then we might get out more. The average screen time of an average person is absolutely scary.
Yeah agree here lol. Can’t wait til the better weather, so I can get back fishing
Imagine how much it must piss off the big boys.
Finding those protesting overtly, for whatever cause, is easy for the likes of No Such Agency. But trying to determine the numbers of people whose resistance to the globalist agenda is both legal and subtle, is much harder. My hope is that if enough people chose to influence the systems in this manner, those systems will be forced by economic necessity to change.
Going back to my Apple example, they would have failed, catastrophically, had they not begged Steve Jobs to return. Not that Jobs was Mr Altruism. But what he could see was that success depended on the right products, not neccessarily what corporations wanted to sell.
Remember, also, that Bill Gates famously failed to see the rise of the Internet, and IBM thought the market for computers could be counted on one hand. My point being that none of these people back then - or those running the show today - are as smart or infallible as they like to think. IBM, Microsoft and Apple were all forced down roads they never envisaged.
That's why the big guys want control of the internet. They've got the rest of the media, the web is the last frontier of free speech.
It’s so difficult for myself to stay focused just on the one issue (in this case net neutrality) as it’s so easy to see from what you alone have written that there is so much more involved. I think I see some common ground in our thoughts and many here (and tell me if I’ve not hit the right nail) - it really is our own behaviours that hold the key to helping halt the problems that are coming about with corporate power over the net. I’m not sure how much help one countries law will be when corporations have the resources to find other ways around them.
I can see that changing our behaviour can make changes.
You mentioned Apple, but I can think of similar instances with Sony and other large companies that have had to change their thinking due to people just saying no with their buying power!
Well. We can always get out and talk to real people for now. Then host our private servers and nets to share our thoughts.We aren’t yet living in wall-e world, humans can still communicate each other without 3rd party components.
Looking at this decision from the UK, it seems almost unbelievable that it could have happened. What on Earth is going on in your country, guys?
I can’t really see that the UK is in any way not part of the larger problem here to be honest. I live in the UK
In Germany we only have 2 big internet provider (most of the other ones depend on the two big ones). This is a really bad market situation resulting for example in very high costs for mobile internet compared to other countries etc.
This low level of competition indeed does not (!) result in big investments to the internet infrastructure. Compared to other countries our internet provider invest less! In some parts of Germany it just have third world quality - or even below. Usually German internet is slow and shows a medium or even bad infrastructure. But we do have high costs for the customers!
Generally we can say: With a low competition levels markets don't work well. Oh, and this is NOT a way of thinking typically only for "left" people or Obama/Hillary fans (i am not fan). This description and argument is not part of a partisan view of the world. It is just true.
Changing the regulation regime and giving these two big companies more power will result in more profits for these companies. They would use the new power if it is given to them.
But surely they would not use it for "improving" something in the internet or investing into internet infrastructure, at least, if the competition level is low.
Maybe in the US the situation is quite different, but generally speaking, giving powerful big companies more power and lots of additional possibilities to AVOID competion:
Is just another bad idea. Imho.
Without net neutrality internet provider have a really lot of additional possibilities to make hidden and intransparent contracts with other companies.
I really don't think this is a good idea. I do prefer open and transparent markets with a high degree of fairness and competition.
The constitution of markets usually are underestimated, imho. I see things like this as a main theme - and so do big companies, too. This is the reason they invest lot of effort to influence the political game.
In the long run decisions like this could eventually even degrade free speech opportunities in the internet. It will help the big companies (like Facebook or such) to stay big and to avoid competition. Combine things like this with "Artifical Intelligence" and the growing powers to get people buying "the right things" and get "the right information", so that they then act how the big companies think it would be helpful.
Things like this always are dangerous. This is not the "end of the internet", but bad. Really bad.
This is the right response.
He that is without CCTV among you, let him cast the first stone...
That i agree with the opinions made in this post.
We don't all live in cities....some of us folks are out in the wilds...
Yeah but you can't unless they letcha. You still have to hook up to an ISP to connect to the web, and if that's monitored/controlled/restricted with some good old fashioned IP blocking then your private server will be connected to nothing, and the folks in the wilds won't even know you're there. Unless you're planning to build a completely separate, secure, global telecommunications system as well?
Infrastructure just can't be left to the market, because the market is unable to provide universal coverage. Markets cherry-pick, and competition only works where profits are high.
There isn't a single country in the world that leaves their road infrastructure up to the market. Why? Because it would be catastrophic. Densely populated areas would have great roads, and rural areas would have very bad roads.
Another example: I lived in Manchester in the late 80's when the bus service was deregulated. Result: busy routes were over-serviced, with a bus every couple of minutes, and the suburbs had a terrible service where 40 minute waits were common. The London bus service is run by private operators, but they are very heavily regulated to ensure a consistent service and to avoid cherry-picking.
I think it's fair to say these days that the internet is as much a part of infrastructure as the transportation network. To think that the market can provide a decent universal service is deluded. But more importantly it's also really bad for the economy. Countries that have fast universal internet will be more competitive and productive than those that have patchy, slow, and potentially tiered internet. In the end that will make those market-fundamentalist countries poorer.
+1
I was just pointing out that if the free speech was the concern humans will, for the foreseeable future, have tools to circumvent restrictions, probably at a cost(reach, reliability over time, sources reliability, spreading speed).
Well....... when I was in Laos the roads were actually really bad in most of the country, except for one part where the Chinese were doing 'proper' road construction. Main aim here was to connect some of the more important cities with the Chinese border to make transport of Chinese goods into the country more efficient - so that actually supports your point
>
Interesting and insidious how they’re going about it, too. For example, YouTube demonetising any channel whose politics they don’t agree with. And I’m taking about ordinary, decent right of centre thinkers, NOT extremists.
Then there’s like likes of Facebook and Twitter, actively preventing people having honest, open, robust debates - like in a democracy - if such debates might possibly offend someone. Usually someone incapable of defending their position in an intelligent manner.
As folks in the UK may know we now also have ridiculous laws which prevent exploration of history, facts and open debate. The former with reference to the Holocaust, the latter concerning Islam. For example, if someone were to say they believed more Jews were executed by the Nazi’s than claimed, that person could be charged with Holocaust Denial, for challenging the official version. Similarly, anyone wanting to debate the aims and origins of Islam and activities of the prophet, could be charged with hate crimes. Just for wanting to find the truth.
>
Absolutely.
No matter how big a company gets, what inticements they offer, or how we are manipulated by advertising. Who to buy from remains our choice.
Exactly - the market depends on good infrastructure, it's good for business.
yeah right, but the point is each time it reaches the stage where 'they' lose control of things, they batton down the hatches. It's difficult to image having anything better than the web for free global communication, and it's taken massive amounts of technological advances and infrastructure to achieve it, but now even that s at risk of censorship.
I'm pre-internet, so I remember the days when a copper could walk up to you and smash your teeth out with his fist because you had long hair. Wotcha gonna do about it hippy? Tell your mum?
The only way to stop it is to say no, walk away and stop buying their products and services. But mom+dad+buddy+sis want their All-new Amazon Echo (2nd generation) in Heather Grey Fabric, their iPhone Xwith all-new 5.8-inch Super Retina screen. Their Facebook. Their Google Search. Their BBC.....
They gotcha by the balls, and the funny thing is most people don't even realise they're being played.
Oh dear
But mom+dad+buddy+sis want their All-new Amazon Echo (2nd generation) in Heather Grey Fabric.
>
Well, if I’d known they came in Heather grey...
Seriously, I am surprised that more people have not cottoned on to the risk - again, voluntarily - of devices that sit in our homes and listen to us. Madness.
It’s like someone said ‘the cult of the AU’ - the largest cult we know is the forever evolving cult of the mainstream. But while it is hard to imagine all our technology gone, mankind would survive and probably prosper. If the net went we would adapt.
As it is, it’s not resignation that the mainstream homogenisation of the internet is happening and feeling like there is nothing one can do, it’s more that in some ways, I would like to see it fail. Similar in sense to how much I love fast food, but would love to see it disappear as an option that eclipses more healthy options.
Net Neutrality has a complex set of factors, most of which are particular to its codification in U.S. telecommunications law. A few years back I authored a grad school program, so I'll share some notes here from a section on Net Neutrality. Good discussion!
National Broadband Policy & Spectrum analysis are critical for policy-makers to understand. While just 15 years ago Broadband was almost entirely subsumed to traditional telecommunications or POTS (Plain Old Telephone Service) with the advent of VOIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol) what was once an electronic medium of transference has now merged with a packet switching environment. As we’ll see the development of Policy in light of this merging has been complex – and is still being written. Spectrum Analysis as well – the concept of the natural resource of Spectrum, has long been a complex issue but is now further complicated as data based companies have increasing needs for Spectrum to deploy wireless technologies. Along with the policy and technical aspects of Broadband and Spectrum it is important to look at these issues through the lens of Social Welfare. The Digital Divide – broadband penetration into rural areas and adoption of broadband as an educational enabler in social situations has nationwide economic ramifications. And of course, securing spectrum and and digitized telecommunications infrastructure requires technical expertise and so a solid understanding of these architectures is important for both policy-makers and the technical community.
Topic 3: National Broadband Policy
Screen 3: Telecommunications Policy History
The Communications Act of 1934 instantiated the FCC, which was to implement and administer the economic regulation of the interstate activities of the telephone monopolies and the licensing of spectrum used for broadcast and other purposes. For some 60 years telecommunications services were a controlled monopoly with services provided by AT&T. Even telephones were not a consumer choice and were issued by the telephone company as a rental. This ended in the early 1980’s when AT&T was broken up in 1982 in a lawsuit initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice v. AT&T. The lawsuit was won and in return for the break-up of AT&T into the seven “baby bells” or RBOC’s (Regional Bell Operating Companies) AT&T was allowed to enter the computer industry.
Screen 4: Telecommunications Act of 1996
Following The Communications Act of 1934 It was not for another 60+ years that another significant piece of telecommunications legislation was passed, The Telecommunications Act of 1996. The bill came on the heels of the breaking up of AT&T in the 1980’s – one of the first deregulatory measures in the industry. The Act sought to increase competition amongst traditional telephone carriers, and created separate systems of regulations for carriers who also provided other services like carrying cable signals. The bill also allowed the federal government to preempt state level regulations that were considered a hindrance to competition. This was because an important provision of the Communications Act of 1934 allowed states to dictate pricing and policy on inter-state communications i.e. long distance services.
Screen 5: Important Provisions of the 1996 Act
There were several key provisions of the 1996 Act. Interconnectedness was one key aspect the legislation dealt with. Policy-makers were trying to open up this largely closed market place. Due to the fact that entering the telecommunications market previously required a nation wide physical infrastructure that would cost billions to install, new players in the market were prohibited from entering. The Act required incumbent Telco’s to allow new market entrants to pass traffic on their networks. Additionally, the Act contained further provisions ensuring the incumbent Telco’s didn’t make it cost prohibitive for new entrants by charging exhorbitant rates and conditions that would stifle competition. Additionally, the Act provisioned for another potential issue to new market entrants, intercarrier compensation. Historically, when you placed a long-distance call the calling party would pay the costs of the receiving party’s carrier for the cost of completing the call. So the costs of completing the call would be billed to the caller’s telco company, who would then recover those costs by adjusting its caller base’s bills accordingly. The 1996 act broke from this tradition by requiring that intercarrier rates amongst competing carriers to be measured by the specific cost of terminiating phone calls. The companies who exchange calls are called CLEC’s or Competing Local Exchang Carriers.
As mentioned earlier, the AT&T companies were broken up in the 1980’s. One of the provisions of the lawsuit breaking the companies up was that the RBOC’s (Regional Bell Operating Companies) were not allowed to offer long distance services. Since these companies would now be required to allow competitors to use their physical networks the Act allowed the RBOC’s to offer long distance service, provided they adhere to the pricing regulations of the Act that fostered competition. The major drawback of the legislation was its inability to account for new technology. VOIP & Wireless communications and other IP based services would have adverse affects on the intramodal competition the Act sought to foster.
Screen 6: Network Effects:
Network effects are also important to understanding telecommunications markets (both traditional and IP based). When a telecommunications provider launches – it has very few subscribers. Therefore, the costs of installing infrastructure are great, and the value to subscribers is low. However, with each additional subscriber positive, or supply-side network effects are created as the new subscribers help distrbute the infrastructure costs and allow for increased intercommunication between subscribers. It’s also easy to understand how rural users don’t provide nearly as much supply-side effects. Infrastructure costs to reach rural users are not recoverable by positive supply-side effects as such, telco’s historically charged a tax to all users on the network to recover these costs. This effect has carried through to the digital divide with broadband implementation. Eventually, the subscriber base reaches a critical mass and then negative effects occur – either the existing infrastructure cannot handle the amount of subscribers and vendor lock-in occurs. Vendor lock in creates monopolistic states as subscribers do not have any choices for alternative sources. Because no choices exist, prices can be increased by the service provider.
(Continued next post)...