4 ms·
'The key word being "part", so the headline is incorrect.' That's a ridiculous argument. Parsing the spec like that is meaningless. "While it was the main in
by aceperry 12y ago
'The key word being "part", so the headline is incorrect.'
That's a ridiculous argument. Parsing the spec like that is meaningless.
"While it was the main innovation in 2.0, EDR was optional in the spec."
Can't argue with non-reasoning like that.
- throwawaykf05 12y agoYou can implement Bluetooth 2.0 without EDR, so how is it meaningless? If you explain, maybe we'll see if indeed pointing out "optional" is the opposite of "fundamental" is indeed "non-reasoning".