<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.technet.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>There’s full-duplex, and then there’s FULL-duplex.</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/rp/archive/2008/11/11/there-s-full-duplex-and-then-there-s-full-duplex.aspx</link><description>Here’s a note sent by Response Point hardware partner, Clearone . B y Mark G. Child It seems to me there is a fair amount of confusion out there surrounding the term “full-duplex.” And since we’re the audio experts, I thought an attempt to clear things</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: There’s full-duplex, and then there’s FULL-duplex.</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/rp/archive/2008/11/11/there-s-full-duplex-and-then-there-s-full-duplex.aspx#3168272</link><pubDate>Sun, 14 Dec 2008 03:01:18 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:3168272</guid><dc:creator>Rene Sloos</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;At CompuConsult we are testing a unit in our board room and it seems to work very well. Nicely designed unit!&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>