No, it didn't. The word CDMA can be two things: a mobile phone standard (IS-95 and its successors), and a type of technology.
GSM is a family of mobile phone standards.
So if GSM and CDMA got into a war, you must be comparing GSM with IS-95 and its successors. IS-95 is mostly dead. Sprint and Verizon still operate legacy networks, but they're transitioning to the latest version of GSM, which is called LTE.
GSM used TDMA..
The first iteration of GSM originally used TDMA. Version "3", UMTS, used W-CDMA, whose low level protocols (not high level protocols) are similar to IS-95 (etc)'s low level protocols. At a high level, however, the two standards are completely unalike. Version 4 of GSM, LTE, uses OFDMA and SC-FDMA at the lowest levels, which are not remotely similar to anything in IS-95 or its successor.
All mobile phone operators in the US right now are transitioning to LTE, a GSM standard. CDMA - both the mobile phone standard (IS-95 etc) and the air interface technology are considered obsolete, and the two remaining major operators of IS-95/etc networks are moving off it.
All of you hating on CDMA should actually be thanking it. If the U.S. hadn't allowed CDMA to compete...
Yeah yeah. That fucking idiot Steve DeBeste posted this libercrapian propaganda for the longest time, it was wrong when he said it, and it's wrong now. There was never a ban on CDMA systems outside of the US, or even in the EU. Vodafone actually experimented with it in the UK, deciding it was inferior (because it was) to conventional GSM.
Qualcomm's lobbying, and the US's lobbying on behalf of it, actually held the industry back. The lobbying pretty much forced the 3GPP designing UMTS to include a CDMA air interface, rather than jump straight to more capable protocols based upon OFDMA. We could have had much more power efficient devices with better latency and more scalability 10-15 years ago, but Qualcomm decided it was a giant conspiracy that nobody wanted their system outside of cost-cutting US carriers.
They don't want to hire code monkeys at all. In fact, most don't want to hire anyone at all.
Start-ups ideally want to buy something off the shelf, or contract with a company that can deliver what they need. The more people they have to directly manage, the less nimble they can be.
H1Bs are problematic, but simply banning them isn't likely to make things better for US software developers, it may be the difference in many cases between having a local IT department with some Americans employed at least at a management level, or having no IT department at all.
A good question to ask yourself is how things will look ten years from now, when we're all using Windows Cloud or ChromeOS to access applications hosted remotely, for pretty much everything. We were already 90% of the way there. And just because the US pioneered it, doesn't mean it'll end up controlling it.
If the only data you create is bookmarks, history, and passwords, then sort-of yeah, but in practice you can turn that off too.
But... in the real world, people who spend all day creating bookmarks, history, and passwords and nothing else usually have problems getting employment.
Chromebooks don't require Google to store documents, emails, or any other content you create and share with them.
So no, you're not trusting Google with all your data. You're not even trusting Google with a significant amount of data. You're optionally trusting Google with some metadata, and that's it, and that's only if you want to take advantage of being able to sync bookmarks, history, and passwords between devices.
Other than user management (with Chrome's usual bookmark/history/password manager syncing), what aspects of Chromebooks require you trust Google with all of your data? It's just a web browser with an operating system that launches it, there's no email client tied to GMail, Office suite tied to Google Docs, or anything like that.
Also, Obama banned Iraq refugees for 6 months and we didn't hear a peep out of the lefties. Once again, they don't care about the issue, only which side does it
This is, quite simply, a lie. Obama may have stopped issuing visas to Iraqis for six months (I'll take your word for it), but he never banned Iraqis with visas or green cards from entering the US.
If he had, there most certainly would have been an outcry as loud as the one you're hearing now.
That's speculation on your part, and unlikely, given reports that those trying to enter the country are also being asked their views on Trump. If disliking Trump is some kind of sign of being a Jihadist, then 70-80% of the US is Jihadist.
I rarely run apt-get autoremove, and/boot only has room for 5 or 6 kernels; it usually takes six to twelve months before I start having problems running updates. So I'm guessing it's not as often as you think. By comparison, Windows Update requires reboots usually at least once a week, frequently more often, in my experience.
By default, it runs an update and reboots at a time it thinks you're not working. So while it won't stop you from working right there and then, it will wipe out any unsaved changes if you walk away from your PC for too long a period of time.
In theory you can set quiet hours which would be the only hours it does this check. In practice, the functionality is flawed (W10 has rebooted on me when I've stepped away from it at work for a meeting, despite quiet hours being outside working hours, because I'd manually run updates earlier in the day. Usually it pesters you to reboot if you do this, but if you're not around to respond to the dialog in time, guess what happens...)
Yes, in this instance, your Mac does it better, and in this instance you have a right to be a smug Mac user about it;-)
You don't need to do registry edits, just disable the Windows Update service. Don't set it to "Manual" as it'll be restarted anyway, set it to "Disabled".
Remember to re-enable it once in a while when you do run updates, as you can't manually check for updates or install them without the Windows Update service running.
It's worse than that, he's actually logged in using the administrator account. Not an account with admin privs, but the built-in account that nobody uses because it's too dangerous. Which makes me wonder whether the rest of what he saw was related to that.
Oh, and to get to the topic at hand: while I completely agree Windows Update's current policies are ridiculous (hey, it's 1995 all over again when Windows will restart and lose all your work, except at least back then it was because of bugs in the operating system rather than an intentional design decision!), it is possible to disable the Windows Update service. Just go to Services, right click on Windows Update, edit, and change the status to Disabled.
Just remember to re-enable it once in a while and run updates - you can't run them manually with WU disabled, and some of the updates are important.
BTW Microsoft, the open source community figured out how to do updates a long time ago without rebooting. Ubuntu only requests reboots if the kernel changes, and that's rare. Additionally it only pushes you to make security updates.
Perhaps that's something open source does you could copy?
So you're saying there is a clear reason? Do tell, what is it? Because thus far the Trump administration has only made comments about terrorism, which don't actually apply given no immigrants from any of the countries involved have ever, in human history, conducted a terror attack on Americans.
These are people who have already been vetted, they've already been approved for coming over, they're frequently fleeing persecution and war and terror in their own countries, and we've told them "Sure come over... oh, now you've sold everything and come over, we were only kidding!"
We lied to them. Our nation lied and broke promises to desperate, innocent, people, and our lies are going to kill many of them. Even when we turned back Jews in 1938 - Jews like Anne Frank (you know what happened to her, right?) we at least hadn't issued them visa and green cards, they knew there was a chance they would be turned back.
Both. The Surface line has encroached on Apple's space, high end, design oriented, devices with decent amounts of power (Microsoft has previously run shy of entering that space) while, yeah, Apple's imploded.
...it usually helps to tell everyone you're selling it. Microsoft's marketing for this has been non-existent, to the point I double-taked when I read the summary and said "Wait, they're finally selling them?" I'm not seen a single ad, or even a review.
...which also means I'm inclined to believe Microsoft when they say "No big deal" about the low sales numbers. If they wanted higher sales numbers, they'd actually try to sell the things. It sounds to me that they're trying it out on early adopters, and will roll out a more consumer oriented system with full marketing once they and their customer base are happy with the product.
Qualcomm has patents on virtually all modern mobile phone standards. In any case, you're missing the point: the issue isn't that people want to see Qualcomm punished, it's that they're unhappy and believe the industry is being held back by the dominance of one supplier.
Well, with respect, you're a nerd, you're not really in touch with what ordinary people want. I'm more with it, and I've been saying for a long time that I'd like to spend more than $600 on a phone. Despite this very few manufacturers are willing to sell phones costing more than that.
Now, to be fair, most have at least started to add the features I want in a higher end phone - minus, alas, the higher price. I was glad to see Apple eliminate the headphone jack. Samsung's doing sterling work removing SD card slots, and soldering in the battery.
...but, I still feel, even these devices have battery lives that are just too high, their apps still too powerful, and they just don't cost enough.
Does that make sense to you? I mean, would your rather pay $60 for a phone with lots of RAM, lots of storage, an SD card slot, and a couple of SIM card slots, with a battery that lasts all day when you could pay $800 for something that doesn't have all of those unnecessary features that'd just be confusing and are what nerds want anyway?
I actually wish they'd do what you trolls always claim they're doing. Having Trump kicked out of Twitter would, especially based upon the last two months, make the world immeasurably safer.
"the memo's shortness and terse language seems to have exacerbated the confusion: 'Starting immediately and until further notice, ARS will not release any public-facing documents. This includes, but is not limited to, news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content,' wrote ARS chief Sharon Drumm in an email to employees."
The original order mentions nothing whatsoever about policy-related statements. It bans everything.
This was either a poorly worded memo, or more likely an extreme order that was watered down after a backlash.
People who like, as in are enthusiastic, about cars aren't going to want any of the solutions you listed because they impact the driving experience they love. People who don't would be happy with better transit and walkability. Better, cheaper, tunnelling could actually improve both transit (reducing grade seperation problems) and walkability (putting transportation infrastructure underground would allow buildings to be built closer together without the massive free parking problems of today.)
The kernel (the thing that you call Windows) hasn't been rewritten from scratch with every new OS iteration.
Nobody calls the kernel "Windows". We call the entire operating system, GUI, system tools, system frameworks, file systems, etc, plus the kernel Windows.
Windows 10 is not the same OS as Windows 7. There are subtle and unsubtle changes in the way it works, some for the better, but some for the worse. Responsiveness on critical widgets such as the Start menu has deteriorated - and the Start menu itself is a complete rewrite, sharing no code whatsoever with the Windows 7 version.
Yes, there are similarities and there's a lot of code that's unchanged or marginally changed, but that doesn't mean someone can't compare one to the other. If you couldn't, Microsoft wouldn't have released it. I mean, what would have been the point?
Slashdot Mirror
No, it didn't. The word CDMA can be two things: a mobile phone standard (IS-95 and its successors), and a type of technology.
GSM is a family of mobile phone standards.
So if GSM and CDMA got into a war, you must be comparing GSM with IS-95 and its successors. IS-95 is mostly dead. Sprint and Verizon still operate legacy networks, but they're transitioning to the latest version of GSM, which is called LTE.
The first iteration of GSM originally used TDMA. Version "3", UMTS, used W-CDMA, whose low level protocols (not high level protocols) are similar to IS-95 (etc)'s low level protocols. At a high level, however, the two standards are completely unalike. Version 4 of GSM, LTE, uses OFDMA and SC-FDMA at the lowest levels, which are not remotely similar to anything in IS-95 or its successor.
All mobile phone operators in the US right now are transitioning to LTE, a GSM standard. CDMA - both the mobile phone standard (IS-95 etc) and the air interface technology are considered obsolete, and the two remaining major operators of IS-95/etc networks are moving off it.
Yeah yeah. That fucking idiot Steve DeBeste posted this libercrapian propaganda for the longest time, it was wrong when he said it, and it's wrong now. There was never a ban on CDMA systems outside of the US, or even in the EU. Vodafone actually experimented with it in the UK, deciding it was inferior (because it was) to conventional GSM.
Qualcomm's lobbying, and the US's lobbying on behalf of it, actually held the industry back. The lobbying pretty much forced the 3GPP designing UMTS to include a CDMA air interface, rather than jump straight to more capable protocols based upon OFDMA. We could have had much more power efficient devices with better latency and more scalability 10-15 years ago, but Qualcomm decided it was a giant conspiracy that nobody wanted their system outside of cost-cutting US carriers.
I don't think there's ever been a business that's said "Where are we going to start? I know! The US! They have awesome infrastructure!"
They don't want to hire code monkeys at all. In fact, most don't want to hire anyone at all.
Start-ups ideally want to buy something off the shelf, or contract with a company that can deliver what they need. The more people they have to directly manage, the less nimble they can be.
H1Bs are problematic, but simply banning them isn't likely to make things better for US software developers, it may be the difference in many cases between having a local IT department with some Americans employed at least at a management level, or having no IT department at all.
A good question to ask yourself is how things will look ten years from now, when we're all using Windows Cloud or ChromeOS to access applications hosted remotely, for pretty much everything. We were already 90% of the way there. And just because the US pioneered it, doesn't mean it'll end up controlling it.
I know, it'd be as stupid as outsourcing manufacturing to them. What good is a factory if you can't get answers just by walking to the factory floor?
If the only data you create is bookmarks, history, and passwords, then sort-of yeah, but in practice you can turn that off too.
But... in the real world, people who spend all day creating bookmarks, history, and passwords and nothing else usually have problems getting employment.
Chromebooks don't require Google to store documents, emails, or any other content you create and share with them.
So no, you're not trusting Google with all your data. You're not even trusting Google with a significant amount of data. You're optionally trusting Google with some metadata, and that's it, and that's only if you want to take advantage of being able to sync bookmarks, history, and passwords between devices.
Other than user management (with Chrome's usual bookmark/history/password manager syncing), what aspects of Chromebooks require you trust Google with all of your data? It's just a web browser with an operating system that launches it, there's no email client tied to GMail, Office suite tied to Google Docs, or anything like that.
This is, quite simply, a lie. Obama may have stopped issuing visas to Iraqis for six months (I'll take your word for it), but he never banned Iraqis with visas or green cards from entering the US.
If he had, there most certainly would have been an outcry as loud as the one you're hearing now.
Bullshit. It's a ban. People with visas and green cards are being refused entry. That's why this is such a big deal.
That's speculation on your part, and unlikely, given reports that those trying to enter the country are also being asked their views on Trump. If disliking Trump is some kind of sign of being a Jihadist, then 70-80% of the US is Jihadist.
I rarely run apt-get autoremove, and /boot only has room for 5 or 6 kernels; it usually takes six to twelve months before I start having problems running updates. So I'm guessing it's not as often as you think. By comparison, Windows Update requires reboots usually at least once a week, frequently more often, in my experience.
By default, it runs an update and reboots at a time it thinks you're not working. So while it won't stop you from working right there and then, it will wipe out any unsaved changes if you walk away from your PC for too long a period of time.
In theory you can set quiet hours which would be the only hours it does this check. In practice, the functionality is flawed (W10 has rebooted on me when I've stepped away from it at work for a meeting, despite quiet hours being outside working hours, because I'd manually run updates earlier in the day. Usually it pesters you to reboot if you do this, but if you're not around to respond to the dialog in time, guess what happens...)
Yes, in this instance, your Mac does it better, and in this instance you have a right to be a smug Mac user about it ;-)
You don't need to do registry edits, just disable the Windows Update service. Don't set it to "Manual" as it'll be restarted anyway, set it to "Disabled".
Remember to re-enable it once in a while when you do run updates, as you can't manually check for updates or install them without the Windows Update service running.
It's worse than that, he's actually logged in using the administrator account. Not an account with admin privs, but the built-in account that nobody uses because it's too dangerous. Which makes me wonder whether the rest of what he saw was related to that.
Oh, and to get to the topic at hand: while I completely agree Windows Update's current policies are ridiculous (hey, it's 1995 all over again when Windows will restart and lose all your work, except at least back then it was because of bugs in the operating system rather than an intentional design decision!), it is possible to disable the Windows Update service. Just go to Services, right click on Windows Update, edit, and change the status to Disabled.
Just remember to re-enable it once in a while and run updates - you can't run them manually with WU disabled, and some of the updates are important.
BTW Microsoft, the open source community figured out how to do updates a long time ago without rebooting. Ubuntu only requests reboots if the kernel changes, and that's rare. Additionally it only pushes you to make security updates.
Perhaps that's something open source does you could copy?
So you're saying there is a clear reason? Do tell, what is it? Because thus far the Trump administration has only made comments about terrorism, which don't actually apply given no immigrants from any of the countries involved have ever, in human history, conducted a terror attack on Americans.
These are people who have already been vetted, they've already been approved for coming over, they're frequently fleeing persecution and war and terror in their own countries, and we've told them "Sure come over... oh, now you've sold everything and come over, we were only kidding!"
We lied to them. Our nation lied and broke promises to desperate, innocent, people, and our lies are going to kill many of them. Even when we turned back Jews in 1938 - Jews like Anne Frank (you know what happened to her, right?) we at least hadn't issued them visa and green cards, they knew there was a chance they would be turned back.
Fuck you for trying to justify this.
Or just any 1970s science fiction...
Both. The Surface line has encroached on Apple's space, high end, design oriented, devices with decent amounts of power (Microsoft has previously run shy of entering that space) while, yeah, Apple's imploded.
Qualcomm has patents on virtually all modern mobile phone standards. In any case, you're missing the point: the issue isn't that people want to see Qualcomm punished, it's that they're unhappy and believe the industry is being held back by the dominance of one supplier.
Well, with respect, you're a nerd, you're not really in touch with what ordinary people want. I'm more with it, and I've been saying for a long time that I'd like to spend more than $600 on a phone. Despite this very few manufacturers are willing to sell phones costing more than that.
Now, to be fair, most have at least started to add the features I want in a higher end phone - minus, alas, the higher price. I was glad to see Apple eliminate the headphone jack. Samsung's doing sterling work removing SD card slots, and soldering in the battery.
Does that make sense to you? I mean, would your rather pay $60 for a phone with lots of RAM, lots of storage, an SD card slot, and a couple of SIM card slots, with a battery that lasts all day when you could pay $800 for something that doesn't have all of those unnecessary features that'd just be confusing and are what nerds want anyway?
I actually wish they'd do what you trolls always claim they're doing. Having Trump kicked out of Twitter would, especially based upon the last two months, make the world immeasurably safer.
They need to kick him off, permanently.
Stating scientific facts is never "smarmy anti-${President} shitposting". Or shitposting. That you think it is is frightening.
No, it's not fake news. The update reads in part:
The original order mentions nothing whatsoever about policy-related statements. It bans everything.
This was either a poorly worded memo, or more likely an extreme order that was watered down after a backlash.
People who like, as in are enthusiastic, about cars aren't going to want any of the solutions you listed because they impact the driving experience they love. People who don't would be happy with better transit and walkability. Better, cheaper, tunnelling could actually improve both transit (reducing grade seperation problems) and walkability (putting transportation infrastructure underground would allow buildings to be built closer together without the massive free parking problems of today.)
More importantly, can it work under "Bash on Ubuntu for Windows" (great name Microsoft!) under Windows 10?
'cos if it can, then there's finally a way to run Alpha Centauri under Windows 10! Hooray!
Nobody calls the kernel "Windows". We call the entire operating system, GUI, system tools, system frameworks, file systems, etc, plus the kernel Windows.
Windows 10 is not the same OS as Windows 7. There are subtle and unsubtle changes in the way it works, some for the better, but some for the worse. Responsiveness on critical widgets such as the Start menu has deteriorated - and the Start menu itself is a complete rewrite, sharing no code whatsoever with the Windows 7 version.
Yes, there are similarities and there's a lot of code that's unchanged or marginally changed, but that doesn't mean someone can't compare one to the other. If you couldn't, Microsoft wouldn't have released it. I mean, what would have been the point?