the availability of
stored audio files probably containing voice data (voice store and forward
(2)).
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push-to-talk
(2) http://www.answers.com/topic/voice-store-and-forward
Original Message
Subject: [liberationtech] Why Skype (real-time) is losing
On 12/27/2012 06:29 PM, David Gessel wrote:
A minor semantic quibble, but push-to-talk(1) is walkie talkie mode that
typically implies live, instant, and synchronous communications with
the caveat that it is historically half duplex which remains useful in
high-noise situations.
Push
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Nathan of Guardian
nat...@guardianproject.info wrote:
On 12/27/2012 06:29 PM, David Gessel wrote:
A minor semantic quibble, but push-to-talk(1) is walkie talkie mode
that typically implies live, instant, and synchronous communications
with the caveat that it
On 12/26/2012 12:34 PM, Eric S Johnson wrote:
Nathan, you've doubtless seen this article. What do your Tibetan friends say
about this?
It is a great article, and such a short, fascinating study into the
mindset of an activist under clear, demonstrable state surveillance. I
think the point about
On 12/24/2012 05:10 PM, Maxim Kammerer wrote:
I think that the reason is simple and obvious: society shifts to
preferring more impersonal communication. Same reason that teenagers
prefer texting to talking on phone, and hanging out to dating.
From what I can tell, it is the exact opposite. The
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Nathan of Guardian
nat...@guardianproject.info wrote:
Why is a text messaging/push-to-talk model winning out over
an instant messaging/VoIP model, in places like Africa and Asia,
regardless of known increased risk and decreased privacy and safety?
I think that
I know in the LibTech and broader global activist/NGO community, there
is still quite a bit of focus on Skype. However, during my recent time
in India with the Tibetan community there, I have seen Skype, on mobiles
at least, almost thoroughly replaced by WeChat, a WhatsApp/Kakao clone
made by
