Home > Top Digital Video Camera > The Search of Quality Ends Here

The Search of Quality Ends Here

November 24th, 2011 Leave a comment Go to comments

Mobile companies have launched many special phones and two phones deserve special mention. LG KC910 and Nokia 8800 Carbon Arte are these two phones.

There is no limit as far as mobile phone features are concerned. Every company is under huge competition with each other in attracting customers. They are launching better products in terms of features and price. LG and Nokia are two companies which are involved in product innovation in a constant way. LG has launched KC910 and Nokia’s new child is 8800 Carbon Arte. Both these phones have highly impressive features. Let’s do a comparative study of the both. LG KC910 has created a sensation in the world of mobile phones. It has fascinating looks and it comes with all the world class features. Its functionalities are top of the world and are truly a smart mobile phone.

This mobile phone from LG has a bright TFT touchscreen of 3.0 inches. The screen comes along with Flash UI, Accelerometer sensor and downloadable wallpapers. The most attractive feature of this phone is its digital camera of 8.0 mega pixels. The camera of LG KC910 comes with all the latest functions like auto-focus, video, xenon flash, and secondary VGA video call camera and Camera geo-tagging, face, smile and also blink detection. Besides all the highly advanced features, this ultra-modern mobile phone from LG also comes with music player, FM radio, Java games and truly melodious ringtones.

These features make LG KC910 a stunning phone. Now as far as Nokia 8800 Carbon Arte is concerned it is also a feature rich but one of the major features of this phone is its Internet connectivity capacities. The phone is equipped with GPRS in its Class 10 version and EDGE. The quality of the data exchange is also very fine which is ensured by the Bluetooth technology. Other features are also there like Nokia 8800 Carbon Arte has a 3.2 MP camera and its picture bear an image resolution of about 2048 x 1536 pixels. On this phone you can listen to songs which have the format of MP3, AAC or eAAC.

Now you can make your choice between LG KC910 and Nokia 8800 Carbon Arte. Both have specialties of their own and both ensure high quality.

Adam Jaylin

  1. Britt
    November 24th, 2011 at 23:45 | #1

    1984 and the growth of technology today?
    Fred Reed
    A popular illusion is that we use technology to serve our ends. In fact, we seem to follow it to ends inherent in the technology. It has a will of its own.
    For example, the automobile once invented made a dense network of roads inevitable, which made suburbs inevitable, which made malls inevitable, which made community and localism impossible and utterly changed the nature of society. This wasn’t planned. Neither was the Internet, which grew as it chose while we watched in astonishment.
    Today we hear much fuming about electronic surveillance and whether we should allow it. A better question might be whether we can not allow it. It is too easy, too convenient to be avoided.
    The technical capacity exists for detailed watchfulness that Stalin would have envied. For practical purposes, the power of computers is now without limit. You can buy a commodity computer with a terabyte of storage. Global networking is a reality, the Web being the obvious example. Databases of virtually unlimited size can be searched almost instantly from around the globe. Google indexes billions of pages. How long after you hit the Enter key does it take for search results to appear?
    This is new–not that governments will spy, but that they can do so easily, massively, and undetected. In 1950, police agencies could clandestinely open mail or tap phones, but it took time and manpower. Today enormous volumes of e-mail can be read automatically and copies sent to whoever wants them. The intended recipient has no way of detecting the interception. You can use encryption, yes. But unless you have the source code for your encryption program, and know enough cryptology and programming to read it, you can’t tell whether it has been backdoored.
    An insidious quality of modern surveillance is its inconspicuousness. If jackbooted storm troopers kicked your door in and rifled through your papers, you might object. This seldom happens. Yet every use of your passport, every phone call, every purchase you make with a credit card or check, where and when and what, goes into a database. Cameras can (and in some places do) read the license numbers of all passing cars. This is not the place to go into the details of radio-frequency identification devices and cellphone tracking, but both exist.
    My point here is not that any particular government is intentionally using the technology to impose totalitarian control. Some are (China, for example) and some aren’t. My question is whether, as every move we make becomes watchable and trackable, any government will be able to resist the temptation.
    Local governments are not immune to the attractions of intrusion. I recently read that in York, England, the wearing of hats in pubs is illegal because it interferes with the surveillance cameras. These are supposed to spot "troublemakers." Thus quickly does the pretext go from the exalted cause of opposing terrorism to catching guys with a snootful. What can be done will be.
    All of which raises a couple of questions. First, is freedom possible without privacy? Those in law enforcement will argue that surveillance doesn’t matter. If you do nothing illegal, their reasoning runs, what difference does it make what the government knows? A lot. For anyone who might butt heads with a government, whether in Beijing or Washington, being watched is intimidating. We all do things that can be used against us. A compromising e-mail about a tryst, sent to someone not a spouse, is embarrassing.
    The second question is whether people really care about freedom. I think not, though we tell ourselves that we do. The majority care about prosperity and comfort–a nice house, tolerable job, consumerism’s trinkets, beer, sex, 500 channels on the cable, and a couple of weeks a year at Disneyland. They go to Joe’s Rib Pit, congregate with friends, swill Bud, and watch NASCAR. This is not contemptible. (I hope not: I do it.) It is enough freedom for most.
    The abolition by disregard of the Constitution? An abstraction that doesn’t register. I’ll guess that 95 percent of the population have never heard of habeas corpus and don’t know what the Fourth Amendment is. Freedom of speech matters only to intellectuals. The cameras are everywhere, but you hardly notice them. Anyway, Kyle Busch is eating up NASCAR in that Toyota. Toyota–ain’t that something? In Georgia.
    The comfortable do not revolt against what does not inconvenience them. Can the police always tell where your cellphone is? Know what books you have checked out? What websites you visit? Read your e-mail? Why, we hardly notice. Anyway, it is only to catch terrorists.
    My take on article and 1984 essay

    As previously stated from the article, Technology has a mind of its own, it is constantly growing without any boundaries. It seems as inevitable as the beginning of roads or strip malls, and the invention of the automobile. In other ways, the same might be possible with government. By means of a depression, people could look to totalitarian style governments for support and aid, giving them complete power. This would mean sacrificing liberty for security, giving authority the opportunity to thrive and develop. This was Orwell’s prediction, government dystopias. It seems today that government might not be as worrisome; technology could essentially have the same effect. What will the end be? As the growth of technology continues, there is hint that surveillance will be the future, and our privacy will become the past. It is a future that resembles Winston’s, in Nineteen Eighty-Four (George Orwell).
    With Winston’s contemplative views of the party, he would have felt that the article would have shown plausible ideas, in that technology could lead to a totalitarian type society. The lifestyle he abided by constricted his mind; the government surveyed and exposed it to an extent where he was unable to think freely. The technology that was used to survey Winston was archaic compared to the technology of today. It is still constantly growing and branching to make individual’s lives more accessible. E-mail, cell-phones, credit cards, internet websites like Facebook; are devices that have become invasive. Technology has not even reached full potential, and everyday innovationists are coming up with new devices to make our lives easier and more efficient, progressing in the inevitable invasion of privacy for society.
    Freedom and society’s regards to it was another main idea of the article in question. “To die hating them, that’s freedom,” were Winston’s words. The speaker expresses how as a society we don’t value our liberties: “The majority care about prosperity and comfort.” Winston however valued his freedom and defended it at all costs. Unfortunately when Winston was captured by the thought police and brought to the Ministry of Love, though fighting through the process, he ultimately lost his freedom in the end. If Winston were still in his previous state he would want society to fight for their freedom and not to live under the influence of technology. He would see that, although without intentional provocation, it is used to the corporation’s advantage because of the organic qualities that technology has enveloped. Being able to question the actions taken place are key for Winston.
    Yay!!! One whole star =)
    Yay!!! One whole star =)

  2. Your Assistant
    November 25th, 2011 at 04:47 | #2

    Interesting, you get a star…Good job.
    References :

  1. No trackbacks yet.