Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Not ethics (Score 1) 53

Like most companies, Apple has been ethical when it suited their interests. There's always been a slimy side there - Jobs cheated Woz before Apple even existed.

No, What Apple lost was taste.

They used to profit from producing products they'd want to use. Now they make profit-maximizing devices.

I'd argue that the OSes are starting to suffer, too. I mean, bugs are up again, but that's always been cyclic. But I feel like they're losing coherence, too. And a lot of subsystems more technical users like are rotting or being made much more difficult to work with (Gatekeeper and shell scripts, for instance). (I also find it ugly now, but that's subjective and it has has ugly iterations before, too.)

Anyway, yeah, Apple will make a ton of money for a long time to come. But I'm pretty sure it is losing its sense of taste. It might make the most popular and most profitable phone, but they aren't trying to make the phone people want anymore.

Apple under Jobs was always sleaze city... it's just that it's now the Reality Distortion Field has broken down and people are seeing through it.

Just 10 years ago, Fanboys would be defending the idea of putting ads in as revolutionary, unprecedented, imaginative and groundbreaking whilst jerking themselves silly. Now days the Apple crowd are 40 yr old dads in socks and sandals (and not the fashionable style of hippy, no this is Derek from Accounts Receivable socks and sandals) that has too many kids so no MX-5. I remember when ./ would melt down over every apple rumour, now days a motoring forum I frequent has more attention given to major product releases from Apple and we're talking about one thread in a small "computers and stuff" section of a car forum.

Apple's always been a cult, hence the tolerance of sleeze but it's not the cool cult that Tom Cruise joins, it's the cult that your boring dad joins.

I am a 40 something, but have a 2 seater sports car and no Apple devices (hence I can afford the "kid free" ride).

Comment Re: Only the "flagships"? What a ripoff (Score 1) 66

Most budget phones you are used to buying are subsidized, either by your carrier, by the bundled crapplets, or both

Except that Motorola sells a huge range of phones with costs varying by more than a factor of 5, all with identical Android images and unlocked. The only difference is the hardware specs. The only possible way these phones are subsidized in a way the flagships aren't is if Motorola thinks of the entry-levels as a way to get customers "hooked" on the brand and start paying for the more expensive (and presumably higher-margin) flagships.

I have a Motorola Edge 60 Neo, it was a reasonably cheap phone at £300 when it was relatively new (I think it's around £250 now. I'm yet to find all that bundled crapware the GP speaks of... hell it didn't even come with Facebook. I've gone and disabled all the AI stuff so it's now a decent phone with quite good hardware for the 300 quid category.

I bought my mum a G56 and it was largely the same story, except no AI as that was an older and even cheaper model (about £150). She loved it as it weighed half as much as the ancient Samsung she was lugging around.

I'm not particularly brand loyal though, I previously bought Nokias (HMD Global) but nothing they make is remotely good any more.

What people forget is that hardware isn't particularly expensive when you're buying it in bulk, especially before the recent RAMAGEDDON (which makes the full 8GB in my 60 Neo even more amazing). So production of cheap and mid range phones isn't that expensive especially when you're not customising the software to the Nth degree to preserve your brand. Margins are probably razr thin on a sub £400 phone but they're not being sold as loss leaders in the hopes of selling £800 phones to people who want £200 phones... You deserve to go out of business if you think that'll happen.

Comment Re:Project, much? (Score 1) 216

This is *within Canada*, you dimwitted pillock. The Canadian government doesn't require Netflix to broadcast Canadian content or French-Canadian language *in the US*, but the US government is trying to get Canada to change the rules for *within Canada*.

Canada is not projecting soft power within Canada.

The softest thing round here is whatever you call the mush between your ears. Soft yet pompous. What an absolute bell-end.

And this is just how much power the US has lost due to the Republicans. 25 years ago, just after Clinton the idea that you'd say no to the US was absolutely unthinkable for a nation like Canada, Australia, Mexico, et al. anyone who was an ally of the west. The US used to literally put laws on the books of foreign countries via trade treaties, even the EU wasn't powerful enough to give an outright "no". This is how US drug laws and US copyright laws became "international". I watched it happen to Australia in the 90s and early 2000s but then the US elected Bush and that power began to wane. The Australian and UK prime ministers followed Bush into Iraq with tails wagging like the sycophantic little lap dogs they were. This was when the US started losing it's power because it became embroiled in a war it couldn't win despite Bush declaring it won (TBF he didn't do it 17 times).

Now Bush, to his credit, what little there is didn't abuse this power too much but countries were finding the new copyright laws to be... well, frankly retarded as the MPIAA tried to do speculative invoicing in Australia and constantly running up against judges who would actually apply the laws fairly and justly (you know, "activist" judges as they like to call them). This was the late 00s. Obama came in and realised he'd have to start negotiating because the power the US had lessened. Started building up good will. Then you had Trump that pissed all that away... the Republicans kept doing damage as best they could through Biden and now you've got Trump 2, you've got nations that were once willing lapdogs telling you to go do one.

The Canadians, one of the, if not the nicest nations on the planet is telling you to fuck right off... if a British politician had done this we'd have quietly shuffled him off to the Svalbard consulate with an Apology to the Norwegians made on a copious quantity British vodka so that the worst he could do is offend Pingu.

Comment Re: It's about destroying privacy and security (Score 1) 80

This was widely criticised as an incredible atrocity and recognised as one of the darkest moments in American history. The fact of the matter is people are using this dark period of the past to excuse the acts of the present is a major issue which just shows that America has learned nothing.

American history is filled with such moments, trail of tears, Wounded Knee, et al. up to Mai Lai.

Kiwi history only has a few smudges in comparison.

Covering up such crimes is as American as selling beads to natives and then force marching them.

Comment Re:Uhoh (Score 1) 130

Can't wait to see the comments on this one!

H-1B abuse is Huge in the tech sector and traditionally lamented here. But on the other hand, Trump is the one doing the fixing.

Should be interesting to see how those displaced by H1B workers in the past try to justify more cheap H1B workers

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.... You think Trump is fixing this?

Nope, as per usual this will be ignored if you make a generous tithe... erm... donation... erm... gratuity in advance to the Trumpublican party.

It's a law that won't ever be enforced... unless you're a company the tangerine thundercunt doesn't like.

The end game is not to protect US workers, but strip what few rights they have down so that they're as cheap as the Indian workers.

Comment Re:He's right about one thing (Score 1) 124

I've told people generating same-ish AI images that are of decent technical quality, "if your prompt isn't a whole paragraph long, then chances are that someone has made the exact same request by now. If you want your images to look different, you have to provide those differences." Sometimes just repeating yourself with paraphrasing can be enough subtle information to get either the LLM front end (CLIP) or the diffusion model out of its rut, whichever one happens to be doing the railroading.

Comment Re:I bet he does it for 2 reasons (Score 1) 124

If the AI outputs individual instrument tracks (called "stems"), then the tools to automatically convert that stem into MIDI have existed for years now. I haven't played with many of the music AIs, and it has probably been a year since I last did, but even then about half of them would output stems.

Also, we don't know where in the process Dre is using AI. If it's at the mastering stage (as an example), it shouldn't have any adverse effect on the musical value at all—unless the operator is too lazy to actually listen and critique.

Comment Re:Good thing he wasn't in the UK... (Score 1) 311

What criminal charges can be levied against travelers to the UK who purposely destroy content on their electronic devices?

Schedule 7 Terrorism Act 2000 – Wilful failure to comply / obstruction
Under Schedule 7, examining officers (police or designated Border Force officers) at UK ports, airports, or the border area can stop, question, search, and detain travellers without suspicion to determine whether they appear to be involved in terrorism-related activity. This includes searching electronic devices and requiring access (including PINs/passwords or biometric unlocking).

A person commits an offence if they wilfully fail to comply with a duty imposed under Schedule 7 or wilfully obstruct a search or examination (paragraph 18 of Schedule 7).
Deliberately destroying, deleting, wiping, or otherwise rendering content inaccessible on a device during an examination (or after being required to produce/access it) can be treated as obstruction or non-compliance, especially if it prevents officers from examining the device as required.
Penalty: Up to 3 months’ imprisonment, a fine (level 4 on the standard scale), or both.
This is the most directly relevant statutory offence for actions taken while under examination at the border. Refusing to unlock has led to convictions for obstruction in past cases; active destruction of data would strengthen the case for the same charge.

The thing is, the UK are looking for anything terrorism related... Anything else is fine even if it technically violates another law and even if Border Force enforces that law. In the US they're on the look out for anything, drugs, sex, anything that can be used to hang you with.

Beyond that, anything they do needs to stand up in court and British judges don't give LEOs carte blanche in fact it's quite the opposite. There is a burden of evidence on the prosecution, the whole "I smelled liquor on his breath, I swear it" won't fly in a British court. An accusation requires evidence.

The problem in the US isn't with the written law, it's the immunity given to the enforcers. There's a saying Expats in the Philippines have, "the Philippines has an excellent legal system but a terrible justice system", this means the laws are sound as they were pretty much copied from developed countries back in the 50s and 60s but the courts and police are so corrupt that they never get applied with any kind of fairness. The US is descending into this.

Aslo having your phone searched by border force is rare, never even heard of it happening. In fact it's been years since I've even had to talk to someone whilst entering the UK, ever since they allowed Australian passports to use the E-Gates. there's been absolutely no need for me to interact with them at all and I'm usually kerbside within 30 mins of landing at Heathrow and that includes getting my luggage. You really should travel outside the US to see just how wrong the US has done air travel.

Slashdot Top Deals

All the simple programs have been written.

Working...