News Huawei shows off 10Gb/s 802.11ax Wi-Fi

And this is the same Huawei that have been accused of potential violations related to immigration, bribery, corruption, copyright infringement, and spying activity.
Although no evidence has been found to support any of these claims i always say there's no smoke without fire.

 

Whilst I can't comment on this specific example, the "no smoke without fire" philosophy is an awful one to live by. It effectively means that the more disingenuous source will always win, after all, they'll be the ones to sow rumors and heresay first. In a world such as today's, where misinformation spreads like wildfire, it doesn't make sense to fan the flames.

 

Thing is, 3Gbps.. Is that going to make a massive difference, when the upgraded AC will be at 7Gbps? Only new tech (and high end ones at that..) will be able to use it for the first few years anyway!
Example, I have an AC router, but nothing that can currently use AC wifi!

 

It's not one i live by everyday, but in the case of Huawei I'm more inclined to.
Looking at the amount and who are making the claims does tend to raise some questions.

 

I've got one of the older ones of these I find it really useful if my phone can't get a I/n signal that always does and it's great for watching the BBC I player when out.

 

Sounds more like Apple to me

 

Good call! Better switch all your networking gear to Cisco...oh wait...

 

"no smoke without fire" is one of the most disturbing, and disturbingly increasingly prevalent, ideas in modern life. Forget ascertaining facts, forget collecting evidence, forget principals such as habeas corpus, innocent until proven guilty, forget hundreds of years of hard-fought for laws to protect the innocent from the powerful, what you're essentially saying is 'we have an accusation and so an accusation is enough to determine guilt'.

phhh!

The worse the crime someone is accused of, the MORE the need for actual proof of guilt, not less.

Here's another couple of glib sayings:

"He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword."
"As ye sow, so shall ye reap."

etc, etc, etc...

 

For corporations of this size my standard approach is guilty by default, and when they're proven innocent (every time), still guilty.

 

Well if Huawei was being tried in a court of law you may have had a point, but as what i stated is a personal opinion about my mistrust in Huawei, evidence and all the other things you mention mean diddly.

If i heard rumors of Jimmy Savile being a pedo i would have a similar distrust, even if there was no evidence to convict him, It's better to be safe than sorry. When it comes to peoples personal life they can make what ever judgments they like, even if there is no evidence, just look at religion, or any other beliefs people hold.

TLDR; No one tells people they must not believe in something if it can't stand up in a court of law.

 

Corky, I didn't say you couldn't mistrust Huawei, but you said "...i always say..." implying that you feel that way about everything. I was just giving my opinion, in a public forum, like you gave you opinion, in a public forum, that I think that's a very silly principal to live by.

There's actually very often smoke without fire. Sometimes it occurs naturally, or by coincidence. Sometimes people, and organisations, spend a lot of time and effort chucking smoke bombs about, with the sole purpose of making people think there's a fire, Sometimes they even do it to disguise their own fires.

But congratulations for bringing paedophiles into a discussion about Wi-Fi to shore-up your argument though.

 

John_T, Ahh i forget sometimes that this is the Bit-tech forums and a lot of people take things so literally and out of context.

I would have thought that seeing as the phrase i used was in a topic about a particular company, that it would have been seen as being specific to that company, not as a general rules that i live by

Maybe it would help if you looked up the meaning of "there's no smoke without fire" and learned what an idiom is

 

Sorry Corky, that's my mistake, I was replying to what you actually said as opposed to what you meant, but not to worry. Also, not really sure why you want to explain something that I already demonstrably understand, but I assume you're just trying to be helpful, so thanks anyway.

By the way, TLDR is generally given to mean 'To Long, Didn't Read', so not really applicable to something that is short and has been read. (Just trying to be helpful back).

Anyway, I think it's clear we disagree on this one. Not the end of the world...