Too bad for those persecuted and arrested unjustly by the Government, no?
That's part of it, but it's also about those justly arrested and convicted.
I mean look, I'm not overflowing with sympathy for murderers, and there are certain breeds of human monster that make me feel they deserve any horrors they must endure. But it isn't all about sympathy or what anyone "deserves" — it's about what our treatment of the guilty does to us. It's not healthy for a human being to be able to throw someone in a hole to suffer and die, to stand over a starving wretch and feel nothing, to hurl stones with glee and cheer when they draw blood. It's not healthy for a society to condone those things, or to ignore them. Perhaps one can personally believe that certain people deserve those treatments, because their actions have rendered their humanity forfeit — but there is no way to dish them out without sacrificing your own humanity to do so.
Well, for me, it's what exactly you mean by "murderers should have no rights." Leaving the encryption thing aside momentarily, that statement by itself is either (a) poorly thought through, or (b) quite radical and monstrous.
Are you saying convicted murderers shouldn't have the rights that protect them from cruel and unusual punishment, for example? What about their ongoing right to due process, including their right to appeal their conviction? Or their right to access the parole process?
What about the right under the 14th Amendment to not be treated unequally based on race, sex or creed? Prisoners retain that right. Should they lose that, so we're free to punish murders more or less based on their race? Do they lose their right to medical care? Do disabled prisoner's lose their right to accessible prison facilities?
Debate the encryption aspect all you want - but "murderers should have no rights" is a barbaric starting point.
(And for the record, tracking down a working Atari 5200 is not easy nor necessarily cheap, and it doesn't look easy to get a 7800 for less than $150 either)
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.
"Liberal policies" are not the problem. Wrongheaded and shortsighted attempts to improperly regulate technology come from all points on the political spectrum.
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?
On the post: No, A Judge Did Not Just Order Apple To Break Encryption On San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone, But To Create A New Backdoor
Re: Re: Re: Hmmmmm
That's part of it, but it's also about those justly arrested and convicted.
I mean look, I'm not overflowing with sympathy for murderers, and there are certain breeds of human monster that make me feel they deserve any horrors they must endure. But it isn't all about sympathy or what anyone "deserves" — it's about what our treatment of the guilty does to us. It's not healthy for a human being to be able to throw someone in a hole to suffer and die, to stand over a starving wretch and feel nothing, to hurl stones with glee and cheer when they draw blood. It's not healthy for a society to condone those things, or to ignore them. Perhaps one can personally believe that certain people deserve those treatments, because their actions have rendered their humanity forfeit — but there is no way to dish them out without sacrificing your own humanity to do so.
On the post: No, A Judge Did Not Just Order Apple To Break Encryption On San Bernardino Shooter's iPhone, But To Create A New Backdoor
Re: Hmmmmm
Well, for me, it's what exactly you mean by "murderers should have no rights." Leaving the encryption thing aside momentarily, that statement by itself is either (a) poorly thought through, or (b) quite radical and monstrous.
Are you saying convicted murderers shouldn't have the rights that protect them from cruel and unusual punishment, for example? What about their ongoing right to due process, including their right to appeal their conviction? Or their right to access the parole process?
What about the right under the 14th Amendment to not be treated unequally based on race, sex or creed? Prisoners retain that right. Should they lose that, so we're free to punish murders more or less based on their race? Do they lose their right to medical care? Do disabled prisoner's lose their right to accessible prison facilities?
Debate the encryption aspect all you want - but "murderers should have no rights" is a barbaric starting point.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Beyond Chiptunes
Re: Re: Re: Hate to say this..
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Beyond Chiptunes
Re: Re: Re: Hate to say this..
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.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Beyond Chiptunes
Re: Hate to say this..
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.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Beyond Chiptunes
Re: elitist ass
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: January 24th - 30th
Re:
On the post: Awesome Stuff: One Great Knob
Re: Re: Re: Pretentious
Um, not according to the words he typed.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: One Great Knob
Re: Pretentious
The creators are in Dusseldorf...
On the post: Awesome Stuff: One Great Knob
Re: No idea is new
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.
On the post: Techdirt Reading Club: The Boy Who Could Change The World: The Writings Of Aaron Swartz
Re: Re: Re:
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"
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2015 At Techdirt
Re:
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Gadgets For The New Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually, it's really quite easy to record phone calls.
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Gadgets For The New Year
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually, it's really quite easy to record phone calls.
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.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: December 27th - 31st
Re:
On the post: Awesome Stuff: Gadgets For The New Year
Re: Actually, it's really quite easy to record phone calls.
On the post: Your New Years Resolution: Tell The EU Not To Undermine The Foundations Of The Internet
Re: The natural flow of government...
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 55: How Much Surveillance Is Acceptable?
Re: Total Surveillance Under the Guise of Safety
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?
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 55: How Much Surveillance Is Acceptable?
Re:
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.
On the post: Techdirt Podcast Episode 55: How Much Surveillance Is Acceptable?
Re:
Next >>