When something is preconfigured to use the same MIDI channels output by a massive array of control boards ranging from incredibly cheap to the highest-end of professional gear, plug and play actually does work quite well.
But anyway... Yes, I acknowledge that you could do everything this board does with a wide variety of vintage computers, and also with the proper software on a modern computer. You could also do everything this board does with... this board. Your call, really. It's still a cool device.
Where are you finding Amiga 500s for $50? Don't forget, you need the MIDI expansion unit too. And how much work/knowledge/software do you estimate it would take to integrate it into a modern MIDI workflow as a graphics generator controlled by the CC and Pitch Bend channels, compared to this plug-and-play device?
I'm not trying to be a jerk but, it just seems weird to point out that a machine whose explicit purpose is to reproduce vintage technology is... reproducing vintage technology. Of course it's not doing anything an Amiga couldn't - that's the entire point.
Indeed. That one looks quite nice - though, I still think there are some innovations that make this one worthy of note. The Griffin one seems to have quite complex configuration software - which is both a pro and a con, since it looks like it needs quite a lot of upfront work to get it performing all the functions you might want it to perform.
The nOb doesn't require any software-side configuration at all - it doesn't even have special drivers, it's just a standard USB serial human interface device like a mouse. By using a basic set of input types controlled by the two toggle switches, and targeting the input based on where your mouse cursor is, it allows really rapid on-the-fly use of lots of different controls with no upfront settings work.
There's also a pretty interesting stretch goal, which is integrating it with eye-tracking equipment, so that you can select what control it is mapped to by *looking* at it. I have no idea how good that would actually be in practice, but it's certainly a cool idea.
That's what the indictment says. Unfortunately, it's not true. The JSTOR terms said (and say to this day) that automatic downloading is only banned if it interferes with the operation of their services:
undertake any activity such as the use of computer programs that automatically download or export Content, commonly known as web robots, spiders, crawlers, wanderers or accelerators that may interfere with, disrupt or otherwise burden the JSTOR server(s) or any third-party server(s) being used or accessed in connection with JSTOR;
Now, it has been argued that Swartz did do just that — but if that's true, it was apparently not a big enough deal for either JSTOR or MIT to have any real beef with him. If there's anything false in the statement that "the license was clear anyone could download as much as they wanted" then it's the word "clear" - perhaps that should be, "strongly suggested with only vague caveats"
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually, it's really quite easy to record phone calls.
(and there are no such things as laws that apply to the whole Commonwealth of Nations - there's no legal obligation among members whatsoever. It's a purely voluntary organization at this point. There is a Charter but it just lays out shared "values".)
The "Commonwealth" part is misleading - we don't share any laws with Australia. Weirdly, the official full name of the country is "The Commonwealth of Australia" - so when they refer to "the Commonwealth" they generally just mean Australia and its federal laws, rather than "the Commonwealth of Nations", which they are also a part of along with Canada.
Re: Actually, it's really quite easy to record phone calls.
So you mean, using a separate microphone to actually record the audio coming out your mouth and the phone's speaker? That would work, but it's not really an elegant or convenient solution (requires two devices in addition to your phone) and is not going to be consistent for recording quality.
So, to clarify: would you argue that police shouldn't be able to follow a suspect, even with a warrant? Or stake out a location where they anticipate a suspected drug dealer will complete a transaction?
Should federal law enforcement be able to get a warrant to access the phone records of a corporation they suspect is breaking the law? Or a warrant to monitor the financial activity of a politician they suspect is taking bribes?
I've noticed an increasing number of extremist opinions on Techdirt lately.
What troubles me most is they don't seem to realize their opinions are extreme. Only in a fantasy land is "zero surveillance of any kind, end of discussion" a moderate position, much less the obvious position they pretend it is.
So for example, you think we need laws that stop law enforcement from monitoring public forums and social media? And there should no longer be any such thing as legal searches of devices with a judge-issued warrant?