I'd guess it is a fairly common (but fairly unknown) phenomenon, that sound frequencies just above your audible range can be *felt*. I can (unreliably) *feel* sound in the 19-20kHz range, and *reliably* hear a TV (PAL uses 25 fps, 625 lines/image, which gives a frequency of 15.6 kHz).
Certain TV cameras (e.g. surveillance cameras) are audible, too. I'd bet that your'e going to find up one of those in the mall.
As the article shows, not all cheap fakes work equally well. Some fakes, however, work so well that nobody find out that they're fake. Therein lies the whole problem: as a consumer, there is no effective method of discriminating the fake from the genuine before you buy - but afterwards it may be too late (defect product, no service).
Just because something is being abused, that doesn't make it inherently bad. copyrights & patents are like guns. They don't hurt anyone until somebody with bad intentions come along.
If a system is more prone to abuse than to good use, it is not necessarily inherently bad, but the effect is bad nonetheless. Hence one ought to improve such a system - either by preventing abuse, or by removing the system altogether.
Identical clock speeds are exactly not the point when comparing a single-core CPU against a dual-core CPU: you save power by lowering the clock speed, and have an extra core to compensate for the performance loss. Whether or not this compensation is advantageous is dependent on whether your particular code lends itself well to parallel execution over the particular cores or not.
I don't dispute that the benchmarks probably are representative for average real-life applications, but depending on the specific application, YMMV considerably. Dual core is not always an advantage, despite marketing hype.
Where can one find the the assumptions and circumstances under which these "pretty impressive" results are obtained? Indeed, it is hard to imagine that you can have "identical" notebooks with different chipsets.
... that's the whole point of patent trolling. I particularly "like" U.S. patent no. 6,721,189, "Memory module", especially the part where it says that In particular, it will be clear to those skilled in the art that the present invention may be embodied in other specific forms, structures, arrangements, proportions, and with other elements, materials, and components, without departing from the spirit or essential characteristics thereof...
Am I the only one to find the article less than interesting, BTW? Basically, "Patent dispute case allowed to continue" is redundant. Patent litigation per se will continue until the patent system is fixed, unless we all run out of money first.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd guess it is a fairly common (but fairly unknown) phenomenon, that sound frequencies just above your audible range can be *felt*. I can (unreliably) *feel* sound in the 19-20kHz range, and *reliably* hear a TV (PAL uses 25 fps, 625 lines/image, which gives a frequency of 15.6 kHz). Certain TV cameras (e.g. surveillance cameras) are audible, too. I'd bet that your'e going to find up one of those in the mall.
As the article shows, not all cheap fakes work equally well. Some fakes, however, work so well that nobody find out that they're fake. Therein lies the whole problem: as a consumer, there is no effective method of discriminating the fake from the genuine before you buy - but afterwards it may be too late (defect product, no service).
If a system is more prone to abuse than to good use, it is not necessarily inherently bad, but the effect is bad nonetheless. Hence one ought to improve such a system - either by preventing abuse, or by removing the system altogether.
I don't dispute that the benchmarks probably are representative for average real-life applications, but depending on the specific application, YMMV considerably. Dual core is not always an advantage, despite marketing hype.
BTW, the link titled view specification chart on http://www.intel.com/products/centrino/duo/index.h tm contains no specifications at all.
Am I the only one to find the article less than interesting, BTW? Basically, "Patent dispute case allowed to continue" is redundant. Patent litigation per se will continue until the patent system is fixed, unless we all run out of money first.