Is there really any scarcity? I can go buy i7 processors from $300 to $1,000 USD at Newegg right now. Only one looks like it's out of stock.
Not relevant. The scarcity being discussed relates to the speeds of the chips mentioned in TFA. Since ALL of those chips have the same speed capability, and since some of the chips are being purposely hobbled, the supposed 'scarcity' of full-speed chips that is used to justify their higher price, is artificial by definition.
Are you okay with product differentiation as a result of natural manufacturing defects? The market clearly shows there's a demand for a range of low, mid and high-functionality processors. Why does it matter if this differentiation is a result of natural or artificial means so long as market demand at each level is satisfied?
If everybody could get the high speed processors for the price of the lower speed processors, there would be NO market demand for the lower-speed parts. And since the higher speeds don't actually cost Intel any more to make, the 'market demand at each level' is being dictated by Intel, not by the market.
The differentiation allows Intel to recoup R&D, marketing, IP and overall business costs across a range of products and provide more choices to the consumer.
The differentiation allows Intel to make scads and scads more profit than they would if there was real competition in the market. Period.
Power companies don't sell you generators, wind turbines, solar panels, etc., they sell you power. After all, why make a handful of sales to you when they can keep selling you power every day, ad infinitum?
The Web is evolving, (or devolving), into the same model, with games such as Diablo 3, other cloud services, OS's that need to 'phone home' to function, etc. Sure, ISP's have always enjoyed the benefits of this way of doing business, but now other businesses are finding similar ways to cash in.
I don't like it, (Get off my lawn, dammit!), but I foresee a time in the not-too-distant future when most computing devices will be not much more than expensive paperweights unless they have full-time 'net connectivity. Those of us who insist on our 'data autonomy' will be the survivalists of the Internet age, living in remote areas of the dataverse and not being full members of mainstream society. But, we'll also be the only ones with viable computing power when the intertubes fail...
...if people, companies, and government agencies would just develop a sense of humour about themselves and stop feeling mortally threatened by every little bit of criticism.
And if the cartoons contain factual info that is embarrassing or threatening to the force or to individuals therein, then a house cleaning is in order and the investigation should be directed at the PD, not at the citizen revealing the information. But it seems that these days, government agencies are sacrosanct, and immune from criticism of any type.
Renton PD - what a bunch of whiners. Too bad they're such dangerous whiners.
They fall into the trap that all GUI makers do. Once the GUI works, and works well, it only needs to be maintained, not changed. But, since they want to feel like they're doing something, they actually change it.
Hear hear! I'm using Gnome 2 on Debian Squeeze - the desktop metaphor works well and is easy to understand. But Gnome 2 still needs a lot of work - Nautilus as a file manager is still seriously deficient even when compared with Explorer in Win98, and system config is clunky and inconsistent. The people at Gnome would have been far better off making Gnome 2 fully-featured and consistent, and fixing a lot of bugs, instead of trying to come up with new GUI metaphors when most everyone is happy with the old ones.
This puts IT departments into a difficult and often untenable position. On the one hand, their users are clamoring for the latest gadgets to be integrated into the company's business tech. On the other hand, new devices may represent major security holes, or best practices for their use and integration may not yet be established.
If some new device results in a system crash or a security breach, it'll be the IT people whose jobs are on the line, not the user who insisted on using the new device.
I don't think this will be an Arduino killer. Arduino has too big a lead, and too much traction in the DIY, hacker, and arts communities. But it will appeal to companies that do software and are looking to break into embedded hardware. They're already familiar with.NET, C#, and Visual Studio, and they won't mind paying a premium for the hardware, because it's Microsoft-backed and because they already know the dev tools.
It might also find a home in the industrial space. Lots of manufacturing facilities have bright people who program PLC's and the like, and are quite capable of learning the tools and building simple stuff that can round out a company's automation efforts.
I don't love Microsoft, but kudos to them for branching out creatively in an effort to shore up their sagging fortunes.
Whether or not this is a move to co-opt FOSS, I can't say, although I have my suspicions. But from a security standpoint, it sucks. Security breaches are becoming more and more common; with the underlying code being closed, there can be no independent confirmation of the quality of security measures, patches, etc. So when a vulnerability is found and 'patched', we still won't have any assurance, beyond Microsoft's say-so, that the patch fixes the problem and doesn't introduce any new ones.
This announcement doesn't really change anything, and on the face of it it's non-news. But as propaganda, it stands a good chance of getting more people to drink the MS Kool-aid. And remember when MS used to use undocumented OS calls to give their own applications an edge over competitors? I think we can expect such abuses to increase greatly - the appearance of openness will hide what's really going on.. The 'surface' may be 'open', but the underlying code, and the underlying politics, are murkier and more closed than ever.
Besides, 'Open Surface' sounds rather shallow, doesn't it?
This is generally true, however with switching supplies and Class-D amplifiers, really good sound is available from feather-weight amps. A LOT of attention needs to be paid to filtering, switching frequencies, fast diodes, shielding, load compatibility, etc, but assuming these issues are competently addressed, a light-weight amp can sound good and have plenty of grunt.
Q: Why does your Dad's stereo sound better? A: Op-Aps and cost-cutting.
Cost cutting yes, op amps not necessarily. With a correctly chosen op amp in a correctly designed circuit, sound as good as or better than discrete designs is possible. Unfortunately, too many designers assume that a TL071 or an NE5534 in a garden variety topology is sufficient. It isn't.
The biggest lie of them all is wattage.
I'd say that the biggest lie is THD. Not that the spec'd THD figure is incorrect, (that's another issue), but that THD is a poor predictor of sound quality. Distortion figures of 0.1% or more are appalling to the average audio engineer; however if the harmonic content is mostly low-order and mostly even-order, an amp with this much distortion, or even more, can sound wonderful. On the other hand, an amplifier can have a 0.001% distortion spec and sound truly awful. This happens when a circuit that is inherently highly non-linear is given a low THD spec by using copious amounts of negative feedback. This causes lots of high-order odd harmonics, which are subjectively much, much more objectionable; the THD spec is good, but the amp sounds harsh and sterile. Even in the 1940's this problem was recognized, and highly respected audio engineers suggested that THD be calculated by weighting harmonics according to the square, or even the cube, of their order. These engineers were ignored by an industry that was increasingly driven by specsmanship and cost-cutting rather than by sound quality.
You simply cannot convey a full sound through miserable little 5 or 6 inch speakers.
If you're talking about overall speaker size then you are correct, however if you're talking about just the driver size then there's an experience you've missed. A good full-range driver in the 4-to-6 inch range, (an expensive Lowther driver, or even a fairly cheap Fostex), in a nice big cabinet that horn-loads the back of the speaker, can produce surprising amounts of bass and an overall magical sound.
Since when is it the government's job to defend corporate interests?
Your question is based on an incorrect assumption, namely that there's a difference between government and 'corporate interests'. Corporations run the world, and governments are their puppets, pure and simple. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". Except that lately they're not even bothering with the curtain - they're too powerful and to entrenched to care much what the citizens think.
he'd have to have committed a crime in US territory, and if the site wasn't there, and he wasn't there, then the answer to this seems pretty clear...
I agree with you; the fact that anyone would even think about extradition in this scenario is creepy - the fact that the bastards are actually attempting to extradite is appalling.
But do you really believe that the US recognizes any limits to 'US territory'? If it is perceived to affect US interests then it's perceived to be in US territory, regardless of geographic location. Why do you think so many countries hate the US? It's because of America's long and dirty history of meddling in other countries' affairs on a whim and for its own profit.
A corporation does not give you, the customer, the ability to change it's policies. The government does give you that express ability. So if you don't like something, change it.
Really? And just how much did the last vote you cast do to change anything of importance? Seriously, short of mass-uprising 'blood in the streets' scenarios, when was the last time that the will of the people became law and/or government policy anywhere in the world?
The corporations that run the world WANT you to have the illusion that you have the ability to change government policies, because that belief makes you quieter and easier to manipulate. But if citizens' votes really mattered, shit legislation like this would never even be proposed, much less implemented.
Think a minute before you serve up the tools needed for a authoritarian police state on a silver platter. Do you want to be responsible for the destruction of the last remaining bits of freedom in America? No? Then why are do doing it?
Too true - I wish I had mod points for you. It seems that most commenters are arguing about the math or the technology. Not nearly enough of us are addressing the issue of just how seriously fucked up it is that this kind of situation is even allowed to occur.
Being a member of a functioning society means you need to participate -- check your mail and respond when asked reasonable questions by state authorities...
A computer says I look like a lawbreaker, so I have to take time off work and get myself to a government office with my ID in order to prove the computer wrong. In what non-Fascist, non-totalitarian country is this a 'reasonable question'?
To me, this is about as 'reasonable' as having to be fondled and/or irradiated to board an airplane. This 'functioning society' is growing more disfunctional with each passing day.
Facebook is in routine use by various "authorities " to profile people. So why not the Israelis?
Too true - I'd mod you up if you weren't already at 5.
If Facebook personnel had actively aided the Israelis then this would be a newsworthy story. As it is, the protesters were stupid enough to publicly announce their intentions, and the Israelis were smart enough to monitor Facebook. The outcome was predictable, if the protesters had only given the matter some thought.
It'd be interesting to known what percentage of people even with landline phones already have this problem, given the prevalence of cordless phones. When the power's out, the only thing that works is an old-fashioned phone with a cord directly plugged into the wall.
That's why those of us 'in the know', (and you might be surprised at the large number of non-techies who, like my sister, fall into this category), keep a hard-wired phone available for use when mains power goes bye-bye.
I haven't done the math, but I have a feeling that it takes a lot more power to cover a given area with cell signal than to keep the POTS system running over the same coverage area, just because broadcasting omni-directional radio signals is inherently less efficient than direct-line communication.
You are so right about this; cellular service is hugely less efficient than PSTN. Also, if my cell phone happens to be low on power when the grid goes down for a week, then the status of the cellular service is irrelevant, because in a couple of days I will have no way to access cellular service - my phone's battery will be dead...
I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that a POTS CO consumes a lot less power than would the cell sites required to handle the same volume of call traffic. Large urban cell sites, with several companies' equipment in place, can use 30 kW or more at peak times. Keeping that capacity going for a week or two without grid power will require a very large fuel tank, and/or an impressive array of batteries, and/or a Jesus-big solar panel, all of which are likely not compatible with a dense urban environment. Not to mention that everyone needs to find a way to keep his/her phone charged...
I'll stick with PSTN, thanks. It has a proven track record, is pretty much immune to radio-frequency interference, is generally easier to patch back together when something goes wrong, and is more reliable by far than any of the existing alternatives. And I don't need any local power to use it - as long as the CO has power I have communications. Getting rid of PSTN, or failing to maintain it, would be a huge mistake
Actually, time is not distributed via the power grid, only frequency
Nitpicking - time is readily derived from frequency.
The better system for distributing TIME is GPS
Only if you are willing to pay several tens of dollars, instead of a few cents, to maintain accurate time. From the perspective of device cost only, (not taking into account infrastructure costs), syncing to the line frequency is much, much more cost-effective than GPS, unless you need VERY accurate time. Not to mention that it represents a much smaller commitment of non-renewable resources...
The real question is why do devices add the additional circuitry to count pulses off the mains grid rather than add additional circuitry to actually keep time?
The additional circuitry to use the line as a reference is much cheaper than a quartz oscillator.
How do they keep time when they run on the battery which is a common backup for every $5 alarm you get?
They use the cheap and inaccurate oscillator, (ceramic resonator or R-C oscillator), that is used to run the micro, and live with the timing inaccuracy for the presumably short time the mains power is absent.
This all about cost, and using a freely-provided accurate reference, (such as the mains frequency), will always be cheaper than adding components for an accurate and stable built-in reference.
Most clocks are not electric.Most Run on DC provided by a Crystal oscillator, the line frequency provided by the AC line to run them is irrelevant. only electromechanical electric clocks might be in error
Not true - MANY digital clocks use the line frequency as a time reference. They use cheap, but unstable and inaccurate, ceramic resonators, (or even R-C oscillators), and rely on the VERY accurate, (over time), mains frequency to maintain accuracy.
Slashdot Mirror
...to patent a process for filing patents!
Is there really any scarcity? I can go buy i7 processors from $300 to $1,000 USD at Newegg right now. Only one looks like it's out of stock.
Not relevant. The scarcity being discussed relates to the speeds of the chips mentioned in TFA. Since ALL of those chips have the same speed capability, and since some of the chips are being purposely hobbled, the supposed 'scarcity' of full-speed chips that is used to justify their higher price, is artificial by definition.
Are you okay with product differentiation as a result of natural manufacturing defects? The market clearly shows there's a demand for a range of low, mid and high-functionality processors. Why does it matter if this differentiation is a result of natural or artificial means so long as market demand at each level is satisfied?
If everybody could get the high speed processors for the price of the lower speed processors, there would be NO market demand for the lower-speed parts. And since the higher speeds don't actually cost Intel any more to make, the 'market demand at each level' is being dictated by Intel, not by the market.
The differentiation allows Intel to recoup R&D, marketing, IP and overall business costs across a range of products and provide more choices to the consumer.
The differentiation allows Intel to make scads and scads more profit than they would if there was real competition in the market. Period.
Power companies don't sell you generators, wind turbines, solar panels, etc., they sell you power. After all, why make a handful of sales to you when they can keep selling you power every day, ad infinitum?
The Web is evolving, (or devolving), into the same model, with games such as Diablo 3, other cloud services, OS's that need to 'phone home' to function, etc. Sure, ISP's have always enjoyed the benefits of this way of doing business, but now other businesses are finding similar ways to cash in.
I don't like it, (Get off my lawn, dammit!), but I foresee a time in the not-too-distant future when most computing devices will be not much more than expensive paperweights unless they have full-time 'net connectivity. Those of us who insist on our 'data autonomy' will be the survivalists of the Internet age, living in remote areas of the dataverse and not being full members of mainstream society. But, we'll also be the only ones with viable computing power when the intertubes fail...
...if people, companies, and government agencies would just develop a sense of humour about themselves and stop feeling mortally threatened by every little bit of criticism.
And if the cartoons contain factual info that is embarrassing or threatening to the force or to individuals therein, then a house cleaning is in order and the investigation should be directed at the PD, not at the citizen revealing the information. But it seems that these days, government agencies are sacrosanct, and immune from criticism of any type.
Renton PD - what a bunch of whiners. Too bad they're such dangerous whiners.
They fall into the trap that all GUI makers do. Once the GUI works, and works well, it only needs to be maintained, not changed. But, since they want to feel like they're doing something, they actually change it.
Hear hear! I'm using Gnome 2 on Debian Squeeze - the desktop metaphor works well and is easy to understand. But Gnome 2 still needs a lot of work - Nautilus as a file manager is still seriously deficient even when compared with Explorer in Win98, and system config is clunky and inconsistent. The people at Gnome would have been far better off making Gnome 2 fully-featured and consistent, and fixing a lot of bugs, instead of trying to come up with new GUI metaphors when most everyone is happy with the old ones.
This puts IT departments into a difficult and often untenable position. On the one hand, their users are clamoring for the latest gadgets to be integrated into the company's business tech. On the other hand, new devices may represent major security holes, or best practices for their use and integration may not yet be established.
If some new device results in a system crash or a security breach, it'll be the IT people whose jobs are on the line, not the user who insisted on using the new device.
That's not 'HIPPA', it's 'HIPAA', as in Health Information Protability and Accountability Act.
I don't think this will be an Arduino killer. Arduino has too big a lead, and too much traction in the DIY, hacker, and arts communities. But it will appeal to companies that do software and are looking to break into embedded hardware. They're already familiar with .NET, C#, and Visual Studio, and they won't mind paying a premium for the hardware, because it's Microsoft-backed and because they already know the dev tools.
It might also find a home in the industrial space. Lots of manufacturing facilities have bright people who program PLC's and the like, and are quite capable of learning the tools and building simple stuff that can round out a company's automation efforts.
I don't love Microsoft, but kudos to them for branching out creatively in an effort to shore up their sagging fortunes.
Whether or not this is a move to co-opt FOSS, I can't say, although I have my suspicions. But from a security standpoint, it sucks. Security breaches are becoming more and more common; with the underlying code being closed, there can be no independent confirmation of the quality of security measures, patches, etc. So when a vulnerability is found and 'patched', we still won't have any assurance, beyond Microsoft's say-so, that the patch fixes the problem and doesn't introduce any new ones.
This announcement doesn't really change anything, and on the face of it it's non-news. But as propaganda, it stands a good chance of getting more people to drink the MS Kool-aid. And remember when MS used to use undocumented OS calls to give their own applications an edge over competitors? I think we can expect such abuses to increase greatly - the appearance of openness will hide what's really going on.. The 'surface' may be 'open', but the underlying code, and the underlying politics, are murkier and more closed than ever.
Besides, 'Open Surface' sounds rather shallow, doesn't it?
There is no substitute for mass.
This is generally true, however with switching supplies and Class-D amplifiers, really good sound is available from feather-weight amps. A LOT of attention needs to be paid to filtering, switching frequencies, fast diodes, shielding, load compatibility, etc, but assuming these issues are competently addressed, a light-weight amp can sound good and have plenty of grunt.
Q: Why does your Dad's stereo sound better?
A: Op-Aps and cost-cutting.
Cost cutting yes, op amps not necessarily. With a correctly chosen op amp in a correctly designed circuit, sound as good as or better than discrete designs is possible. Unfortunately, too many designers assume that a TL071 or an NE5534 in a garden variety topology is sufficient. It isn't.
The biggest lie of them all is wattage.
I'd say that the biggest lie is THD. Not that the spec'd THD figure is incorrect, (that's another issue), but that THD is a poor predictor of sound quality. Distortion figures of 0.1% or more are appalling to the average audio engineer; however if the harmonic content is mostly low-order and mostly even-order, an amp with this much distortion, or even more, can sound wonderful. On the other hand, an amplifier can have a 0.001% distortion spec and sound truly awful. This happens when a circuit that is inherently highly non-linear is given a low THD spec by using copious amounts of negative feedback. This causes lots of high-order odd harmonics, which are subjectively much, much more objectionable; the THD spec is good, but the amp sounds harsh and sterile. Even in the 1940's this problem was recognized, and highly respected audio engineers suggested that THD be calculated by weighting harmonics according to the square, or even the cube, of their order. These engineers were ignored by an industry that was increasingly driven by specsmanship and cost-cutting rather than by sound quality.
You simply cannot convey a full sound through miserable little 5 or 6 inch speakers.
If you're talking about overall speaker size then you are correct, however if you're talking about just the driver size then there's an experience you've missed. A good full-range driver in the 4-to-6 inch range, (an expensive Lowther driver, or even a fairly cheap Fostex), in a nice big cabinet that horn-loads the back of the speaker, can produce surprising amounts of bass and an overall magical sound.
Since when is it the government's job to defend corporate interests?
Your question is based on an incorrect assumption, namely that there's a difference between government and 'corporate interests'. Corporations run the world, and governments are their puppets, pure and simple. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". Except that lately they're not even bothering with the curtain - they're too powerful and to entrenched to care much what the citizens think.
he'd have to have committed a crime in US territory, and if the site wasn't there, and he wasn't there, then the answer to this seems pretty clear...
I agree with you; the fact that anyone would even think about extradition in this scenario is creepy - the fact that the bastards are actually attempting to extradite is appalling.
But do you really believe that the US recognizes any limits to 'US territory'? If it is perceived to affect US interests then it's perceived to be in US territory, regardless of geographic location. Why do you think so many countries hate the US? It's because of America's long and dirty history of meddling in other countries' affairs on a whim and for its own profit.
A corporation does not give you, the customer, the ability to change it's policies. The government does give you that express ability. So if you don't like something, change it.
Really? And just how much did the last vote you cast do to change anything of importance? Seriously, short of mass-uprising 'blood in the streets' scenarios, when was the last time that the will of the people became law and/or government policy anywhere in the world?
The corporations that run the world WANT you to have the illusion that you have the ability to change government policies, because that belief makes you quieter and easier to manipulate. But if citizens' votes really mattered, shit legislation like this would never even be proposed, much less implemented.
Bcause we're talking about Apple, shouldn't the title be 'Fake Apple Stores BLOSSOMING In China'?
Stop selling them you shit software!
Think a minute before you serve up the tools needed for a authoritarian police state on a silver platter. Do you want to be responsible for the destruction of the last remaining bits of freedom in America? No? Then why are do doing it?
Too true - I wish I had mod points for you. It seems that most commenters are arguing about the math or the technology. Not nearly enough of us are addressing the issue of just how seriously fucked up it is that this kind of situation is even allowed to occur.
Being a member of a functioning society means you need to participate -- check your mail and respond when asked reasonable questions by state authorities...
A computer says I look like a lawbreaker, so I have to take time off work and get myself to a government office with my ID in order to prove the computer wrong. In what non-Fascist, non-totalitarian country is this a 'reasonable question'?
To me, this is about as 'reasonable' as having to be fondled and/or irradiated to board an airplane. This 'functioning society' is growing more disfunctional with each passing day.
And we're also *this close* to winning the war on drugs...
Yeah, and if Taliban prisoners continue to escape in large numbers, ( http://www.zimbio.com/Afghanistan/articles/GaEeVLxwmLg/Taliban+prisoners+escape+through+extensive ), then winning the war on drugs will be a cakewalk compared with defeating Al Qaeda. Panetta is talking nonsense.
Facebook is in routine use by various "authorities " to profile people. So why not the Israelis?
Too true - I'd mod you up if you weren't already at 5.
If Facebook personnel had actively aided the Israelis then this would be a newsworthy story. As it is, the protesters were stupid enough to publicly announce their intentions, and the Israelis were smart enough to monitor Facebook. The outcome was predictable, if the protesters had only given the matter some thought.
It'd be interesting to known what percentage of people even with landline phones already have this problem, given the prevalence of cordless phones. When the power's out, the only thing that works is an old-fashioned phone with a cord directly plugged into the wall.
That's why those of us 'in the know', (and you might be surprised at the large number of non-techies who, like my sister, fall into this category), keep a hard-wired phone available for use when mains power goes bye-bye.
I haven't done the math, but I have a feeling that it takes a lot more power to cover a given area with cell signal than to keep the POTS system running over the same coverage area, just because broadcasting omni-directional radio signals is inherently less efficient than direct-line communication.
You are so right about this; cellular service is hugely less efficient than PSTN. Also, if my cell phone happens to be low on power when the grid goes down for a week, then the status of the cellular service is irrelevant, because in a couple of days I will have no way to access cellular service - my phone's battery will be dead...
I could be wrong about this, but it seems to me that a POTS CO consumes a lot less power than would the cell sites required to handle the same volume of call traffic. Large urban cell sites, with several companies' equipment in place, can use 30 kW or more at peak times. Keeping that capacity going for a week or two without grid power will require a very large fuel tank, and/or an impressive array of batteries, and/or a Jesus-big solar panel, all of which are likely not compatible with a dense urban environment. Not to mention that everyone needs to find a way to keep his/her phone charged...
I'll stick with PSTN, thanks. It has a proven track record, is pretty much immune to radio-frequency interference, is generally easier to patch back together when something goes wrong, and is more reliable by far than any of the existing alternatives. And I don't need any local power to use it - as long as the CO has power I have communications. Getting rid of PSTN, or failing to maintain it, would be a huge mistake
Actually, time is not distributed via the power grid, only frequency
Nitpicking - time is readily derived from frequency.
The better system for distributing TIME is GPS
Only if you are willing to pay several tens of dollars, instead of a few cents, to maintain accurate time. From the perspective of device cost only, (not taking into account infrastructure costs), syncing to the line frequency is much, much more cost-effective than GPS, unless you need VERY accurate time. Not to mention that it represents a much smaller commitment of non-renewable resources...
The real question is why do devices add the additional circuitry to count pulses off the mains grid rather than add additional circuitry to actually keep time?
The additional circuitry to use the line as a reference is much cheaper than a quartz oscillator.
How do they keep time when they run on the battery which is a common backup for every $5 alarm you get?
They use the cheap and inaccurate oscillator, (ceramic resonator or R-C oscillator), that is used to run the micro, and live with the timing inaccuracy for the presumably short time the mains power is absent.
This all about cost, and using a freely-provided accurate reference, (such as the mains frequency), will always be cheaper than adding components for an accurate and stable built-in reference.
no one has made a line synced clock in 30 years, quartz won, welcome to the new world
You don't know what you're talking about - line-synced clocks are still common, because they are marginally cheaper to make.
Most clocks are not electric .Most Run on DC provided by a Crystal oscillator, the line frequency provided by the AC line to run them is irrelevant. only electromechanical electric clocks might be in error
Not true - MANY digital clocks use the line frequency as a time reference. They use cheap, but unstable and inaccurate, ceramic resonators, (or even R-C oscillators), and rely on the VERY accurate, (over time), mains frequency to maintain accuracy.