Yes, as a general rule the device and access point will just connect at whatever the newest version they both understand is.
kirklennon
joined 2 years ago
It's a retroactive name just to keep the numbering scheme logical. It would be weird to start off giving the next version "1" so they added numbers to all of the old versions. 802.11n was renamed a full 15 years after it was released!
The very simple version is that the newer versions support faster speeds.
The confusing alphabet soup of Wi-Fi versions got renamed. 802.11n became Wi-Fi 4, 802.11ac became Wi-Fi 5, and 802.11ax became Wi-Fi 6. Wi-Fi 7 is still in development so 6 is the best in-use version.
I don’t think there’s anything particularly partisan about the law in the first place so it’s not so much an issue of what any party supports but rather education of the electorate at large. People aren’t going to get excited about encryption but they will be angry when WhatsApp stops working (which is what is going to happen) and they need to know why. Ideally they’ll hear enough rumblings that literally all of their messaging apps are going to stop working before the law goes into effect to stop it in time.
Apple offers to match donations from employees so this is a case of an employee making a small donation and Apple matching it rather than Apple explicitly choosing to make a tiny donation itself.
I think it may have something to do with the fact that the UK is far along in a plan to effectively ban encrypted messaging, and many other countries are looking in the same draconian direction. They want non-techy users (AKA voters) to know about it and to understand that it's super important.
No, that's technically stealing. It would be a debt if they agreed in advance to give you an interest-free loan of the beer while in the store.
What happened to “this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"?
The key word is debts. When you want to buy something in a store, you owe money if you want it, but you have not incurred a debt. You can just not buy it. You and the seller start at an even place, trade goods/services for money, and end even. If you have a debt, you're starting the transaction at a negative place and are trying to get back to even.
I trust the little guy.
The editor of Gizmodo knows very well that "Apple" gets clicks and in this case he's trying to generate free press for his obscure book. His suit doesn't quite meet the standard of "frivolous," so I don't think anybody is getting sanctioned for it, but it's certainly not filed in good faith. It's not even an issue of "trust." What he claims is inherently ridiculous. You can't copyright historical events, and presenting it as a Cold War thriller isn't some radical creative choice of "tone." The dry facts are pretty thrilling on their own, and the extra-thrilling parts (car chase) are inventions of the film.
How many other people are they doing this to?
Not stealing from? Literally billions of other people are being treated the same way by Apple every day.
due to their coverage on the leaked iPhone 4?
They literally committed a felony, bought what at that point was a stolen prototype, damaged Apple's property, and then tried to extort Apple in exchange for returning what was, again, Apple's own property.
Do you mean to say it's not perfectly logical that USB 3.0, USB 3.1 Gen 1, and USB 3.2 Gen 1 are all actually the same version? I wish I could travel back in time to the meeting where that was proposed and slap the person in the face until they realized the error of their ways.