You are a liar who's spamming the hell out of this thread with your lies. The original article clearly states that 533MHz is not available for any other apps nor games - it's only available for benchmark tests.
Stop spreading lies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/10213672/Samsung-deny-performance-boosting-hardware-in-Galaxy-S4.html The original article is wrong.
Your unstated major premise is "what Samsung has told me is accurate". This is a mistake. Samsung's explanation is a rival hypothesis to Anandtech's. At the moment you have to compare the two hypotheses with the presented data. That data tends to favour Anandtech's explanation.
Hypothesis implies something that is not known. Samsung knows the clock speed on their phone, and seeing as you have read the article you surely know that this is verified when you run the benchmark tests. For the other side of the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/samsung/10213672/Samsung-deny-performance-boosting-hardware-in-Galaxy-S4.html
Corporate Pot, meet Government Kettle. People: Meet hard place in between.
Did... Did you just say caught between a pot and a kettle? I think you may have mixed your metaphors...
And yet only way to get the Science channel is to buy ten ESPN channels that i'll never watch. If they're not willing to do a la carte, they should at least create packages for each demographic.
Sadly, packaging is a part of negotiation. Science channel wants is more interested in piggybacking ESPN than being on an a la carte type of selection. In this case other channels want to be on the same package as espn, not vice versa.
Do Comcast and VIACOM know this?
Seeing as cable companies have to pay the providers to air their programming, yes I'd say they do. Next time you wonder why your cable bill keeps going up blame ESPN. They charge an arm and a leg to the cable companies because they know they are indispensable to the customers.
I flatly disagree with the assertion that it is "punishment" to require that the marketplace be fully informed, and assert that it's a genuine privilege to block the flow of information that would otherwise be used to fully inform consumer decision making.
I'll point to the medical industry where "informed consent" is often a false security. What you are doing is saying that we must place a warning label on something that requires no warning. You seem to imply that "I should have the right to know" means "company should be forced to label everything with a 'scarey' gmo label". Should you be able to find a list of GMO foods on a company website? Sure. If you really want to know the information is already available. Most people aren't looking for information, they are crusading to brand GMO's with a "Scarlet Letter" designed to punish Monsanto and scare people away from buying their products.
All your files have been destroyed (sorry). Paul.