Wifi also needs exclusive spectrum to work properly: try setting two APs to the same frequency and putting them side by side. Most people get a serious reduction in Wifi throughput, of the order of 50-90%, if their neighbor has an AP on the same frequency, and that's despite walls and others obstacles reducing the competing AP's signal to a level that you can't connect to it directly.
LTE and Wifi both use OFDM which is an air interface technology that tolerates a certain amount of noise. So it's unlikely LTE will be unusable in situations where Wifi is usable.
I don't see this as a problem. I'm more concerned that this isn't what the summary says it is: being able to independently implement LTE sounds good to me, but IIRC the major push is for LTE that requires a combination of licensed and unlicensed spectrum, rather than exclusively unlicensed. If they're also working on the latter, then awesome, it'd be nice to see how well an alternative to Wifi works, and something whose security is based upon physical SIM cards rather than passwords could be a big improvement, in theory.
OS/2 Warp was an OS released by IBM to compete with Microsoft DOS in the late eighties
Not... really. OS/2 Warp was the name given to the third version of OS/2. OS/2 was originally Microsoft and IBM's jointly developed successor to MS DOS/PC DOS. The history went like this:
1. OS/2 1.0 was co-developed by Microsoft and IBM as the successor to DOS (not a competitor.) It was not very good, the first version didn't even have a GUI although later versions in the 1.x series had a limited GUI not unlike Windows 3.x
2. Both parties hated the arrangement, and Microsoft and IBM had different ideas as to what the next version of OS/2 should be like. The two initially agreed to work on two more versions, with IBM releasing a short term 32 bit version of the OS called OS/2 2.0, and Microsoft working on a longer term version that would end up being the version after OS/2 2.0.
3. IBM released OS/2 2.0, which was generally praised but not widely adopted; but at this point Microsoft and IBM were completed divided on the future. What Microsoft had developed was clearly so far removed from OS/2 that it wasn't going to be OS/2 2.0's successor. It became Windows NT, and in the mean time Microsoft started selling DOS with Windows 3.x as the true successor to plain old DOS.
4. At this point - the early 1990s - IBM and Microsoft were at war. IBM revamped OS/2 2.0 producing OS/2 3.0 Warp, which it heavily marketed as a better Windows than Windows. PC manufacturers, with a handful of exceptions, completely ignored it, bundling Windows 3.x with their PCs, partially because IBM was considered a major competitor, and, after the MicroChannel debacle, not a company to be trusted.
5. OS/2 4.0 came out about the same time as Windows 95. Microsoft blacklisted IBM and refused to provide them with Windows 95 even for testing on their PCs until literally the night before release. IBM, knowing it had no chance of selling PCs without Windows 95, promptly dropped all development and marketing of OS/2.
Was it any good? Opinions differ. I thought it had some nice features, but it was hampered by poor technology choices from the beginning. It was a better system than 16 bit Windows, but that's not much of a complement.
I think he was saying it was something like:
1. File ridiculous number of patents
There's alternative firmware out there for most Chomebooks, but the more you replace (it's modular) the less likely it is you'll be able to run ChromeOS. I believe the procedure is reversible but I've only ever patched, not replaced, the firmware.
I find running anything other than locked down ChromeOS on a Chromebook awkward and clumsy enough not to do it except experimentally. I can understand circumstances where you'd want to anyway, but after playing with the idea, and even repartitioning and adding Ubuntu, I just found I didn't want to explore it further, even despite the price of Chromebooks these days.
ArcaOS isn't open source. From the point of view of most Slashdotters it's just another proprietary operating system, and not even a particularly significant one. I suspect most of us would be more excited by an update to AmigaOS, but even that wouldn't make the cut these days here.
Merkel recently endorsed Macron
And Putin did rather more than endorse Trump.
I wonder, seriously, if Iran had endorsed Clinton and hacked the Republicans and revealed all their dirty laundry (and made routine business look like dirty laundry) if you'd be so complacent.
That report is a summary of the consensus of the various intelligence agencies of the US. It doesn't back up its claims with evidence because (1) it's a summary, and (2) US intelligence agencies don't just share evidence in public, that puts lives in danger. It has not been "debunked", the only way to debunk it is to ask the CIA, FBI, etc, whether they disagree with it, and none have.
Could it be based on nothing? Possibly, but it's exceedingly unlikely. To believe it is based on nothing and entirely made up you'd have to assume that virtually every US intelligence agency has gone partisan and rogue. Even the FBI, which isn't exactly known for being sympathetic to liberal causes and the Democrats would, in your world, have to be entirely run by people who make shit up to damage the Republicans.
That's just not credible.
Of course there's a "deep state", but the notion it's (1) organized and (2) any actions committed by people who are a part of it are against the interests of everyone else is what's dubious.
It is entirely reasonable to suppose that a large number of people in government right now want to see Trump out of power, and are willing to use their power to do so. It's also entirely reasonable to suppose that this is because he's an existential threat to the United States, rather than because they're worried he might take away their power to approve more H1Bs.
The quote is:
And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.
I don't think it's a smoking gun. But it's still a bizarrely stupid thing to say when everyone is pretty convinced you fired someone for investigating you.
You're saying Liberals don't want a bright, articulate, politician who happens to disagree with them on a handful of issues, and would rather have someone completely incompetent whose politics are beyond most definitions of extreme?
Assuming Pence doesn't take the fall with Trump, I see no reason to fear him more. We're less likely to get into a Nuclear War. We're more likely to see humane immigration policies. We're less likely to swell the ranks of terrorist groups with people convinced we're at war on their religion.
With Pence we'd be back, essentially, to having George W. Bush in charge. Nobody likes Bush, but I'd have him back in a heartbeat if it meant Trump was out of power.
The problem with you Trumpists right now is you have no idea what liberals believe because you've spent your entire lives in echo chambers and refused to listen to us or even believe what we say about us. Some other idiot in this thread is actually claiming liberals were upset not over Trump getting the presidency, but over Clinton losing it. Do you guys have any idea how unpopular Clinton was with liberals? Some of us talk about her winning the popular vote, but she was unpopular enough that she only got a plurality, she didn't even get 50% of the vote. We voted for her because it was her or Trump. At best we could at least say we voted for the first woman president, and we knew she was qualified, but we also knew she was essentially a neo-con with a few centrist views on social issues.
Her real defining quality was that she wasn't blaming vulnerable minorities for all of America's problems, she wasn't advocating violence against those who protested against her, she wasn't advocating abusing the law to imprison her opponents. Insofar as she was corrupt, it was no more than any other politician, she didn't boast about being corrupt. And she wasn't stupid and impulsive.
That's it. That's something you can say about almost every politician who's won office in the last 100 years. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement. But here we are.
Yes, if Pence isn't tainted by Russian involvement, let him be President. Nobody's going to like it, but the country at least can survive his presidency.
At least one significant member of Trump's administration had to resign almost as soon as he was appointed because he was found to be working with the Russians, and he's being investigated. I'm not sure where you're getting it from that anyone independent at all in a position to know has suggested there's no links between the Trump campaign and Russia - if that were known, there wouldn't have been multiple FBI investigations to begin with.
And if there weren't multiple FBI investigations into Trump's team's connections with Russia, Comey would still have a job.
"Your stupidity, Allen, is simply not up to par." -- Dave Mack (mack@inco.UUCP) "Yours is." -- Allen Gwinn (firstname.lastname@example.org), in alt.flame