On mySimon: Toothbrush Sanitizer
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 1 of 1:
Lets Make This More Dificult
Seriously. I have to question 'interest in the specific area. Not only have many public showings placed these items into 'novelty status,the description of them,usage,is only the after the simple necesity of installing the software.

Many USB apps have in the past especially USB cams for example - come bundled with a 'free application in which to utilize visual,audio communication. For some reason the engineering and aplicability of the camera itself rather than the usability of the software is where the public portrayal is seen for the public at a retail level. For example if it was to find and look for a detail of ''communications''you would find the section extremely lacking to the actual value of audio,visual communications in real time - to be replaced with conductivity of something akin to managment ""and use of text filing.
- where you would find the application software would be where you find the camera.

What this has to do with the monoliths of business is is the true applicability of real communications pertaining to the visual personality.

Its advent of qualifying itself as 'something new is anything but. As the idea in and of itself has a copyright agenda deeming its person as benefactor for technology that is not theirs 'in its use. Deemed 'out of the loop through business agreement.

Other than this the simplicity of these 'novelties should not be replace with a burgoise parking meter ,in wich revenue replaces the qualifying effect of wich the technology pertains to. For some these financiers are lying in face first for something that could be considered a steal from your space and time.

Any technology wich uses the display,audio playback,and recording is an equally qualifying usage for the technology as the copyrighted agenda has to THAT application of technology. The problem is these are not considered predators since in reality communication has no person for the copyrighted effect,none.

Anyway financiers who know nothing now,and will tend to know more in the future should stay away from trying to abandon ,uses of technology by delegating person through business agreement.These technolies sustain its own foundation of communications in light of the strengths besides financial, in quality of life for those that can find it.

Should I say financiers are ignorant by usage ? Or by practice ? Or by shere person ?

The FCC should be broken up. One for 'broadcast,and one for 'communication. FBC,and FCC. The quant 'arrangements being qualified for 'communications does not justify the inequality of distribution for what expresses communication beyond the broadcast' relationship.

For a scenario consider a rule placing a 'bandwidth specification in wich 'cable operators would have to set for 'commercial public communication. It cannot be done since no stipulation can be measured beyond the present entrenchment within 'copyrighted medias.

Really nobody know 'knows what communication is.This is how the financiers like it.But for us it is considered only novelty,and that should change. That is come out from the closet,and as always - we will be left to see. Its simplicity is completely erroneous to the revenue concept in present day business liscencing model.

Maybe because Voip only needs to communicate.

-just talking.
Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 02/23/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Lets Make This More Dificult  ParadigmOdyssey | 02/23/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement

SmartPlanet

Click Here