Is that really what they are doing? I have a counterfeit Prolific device that "broke" after a driver update. I simply uninstalled the new drivers and installed an old version to make it work.
Admittedly, that's a different OEM, so they may be doing something different.
Seafile. Got it. Thank you.
By comparing them to those to the south of them?
I cannot argue with that. So, let's say, "relatively level-headed" compared to the world's most violent people with indoor plumbing.
Not having the virtually unlimited bandwidth of all-fiber networks means that, for these populations, many activities are simply not possible. For example, broadband provided over all-fiber networks brings education, healthcare, and other social goods into the home through immersive, innovative applications and services that are impossible without it.
I think this point requires further explaining.
Why exactly do I need Gbit service to bring healthcare into my home?
Alternatives to fiber, such as cable (DOCSYS 3.0), are not enough, and they could be more expensive in the long run. The maximum speed a DOCSYS modem can achieve is 171/122 Mbit/s (using four channels), just a fraction the 273 Gbit/s (per channel) already reached on fiber.
Huh?
DOCSIS 3.0 does not have a maximum limit on the number of channels that can be bonded.
The initial hardware would only bond up to 8 channels (~304 Mbit/s), but 16 channel (608 Mbit/s) hardware is already being rolled out by Comcast in the form of rebadged Cisco DPC3939 Gateways.
2015/2016 we might see 24 channel (912 Mbit/s) and 32 channel (1.2 Gbit/s) hardware.
2016/2017 is most likely, in the form of DOCSIS 3.1 modems, which use completely different modulation, but will have 24/32 channel DOCSIS 3.0 baked into them so that the ISPs can seamlessly upgrade from DOCSIS 3.0 to 3.1.
Cable's game plan is to use DOCSIS 3.1 to put off pulling fiber to the home, which keeps their costs low and will allow them to offer (multi)gigabit speeds using a hybrid fiber/co-ax infrastructure.
What makes you believe that?
Well, the main firearm for police is the sidearm. The weight that a suppressor adds makes the gun more difficult to handle. Granted, my only experience is with the old fashioned suppressors with the rubber grommets, but I don't think the new suppressors are that much lighter. Additional weight at the muzzle of a handgun may not matter in target shooting (my forte) but it really matters in tactical situations.
When you hear the evidence that suppressors make a weapon more accurate, it's always in reference to a stationary firing position.
Also, the new types of suppressors are much less effective in quieting a weapon. Even the volume of a suppressed weapon is enough to cause hearing damage (it's the attack portion of the envelope that causes the damage as much as it is the volume).
Of course, this is not viable so long as silencers remain regulated and taxed as heavily as they currently are in US (much more so than guns themselves).
I'm pretty sure the suppressor regulations are local, not national, by the way.
If anything, local police are too eager to go to their weapon to solve a problem as it is. I'm not sure you want to encourage more of it by making gunfire quieter.
None of these analogies are correct.
They are not changing the device at all, they are simply making their drivers not work with the fake ones.
There is no reasonable analogy that can be made involving a Gucci product.
Something like that:
This is exactly correct. I've experienced this with a radio programming cable with a counterfeit chip supposedly from Prolific. The drivers that Windows automatically downloaded for it caused the device to not function. Rather than stuffing around with the supplier, I simply downloaded an old working driver, uninstalled the new driver, installed the old driver, and done.
Certainly not a job my mother could do, but also not the same as the OEM bricking devices, which would legally be dangerous for them as it could be argued that they were willingly causing property damage.
From a commercial point if view I think it is an appropriate measure, albeit perhaps not the most reasonable from consumers' perspectives.
Just FYI, even a single round fired causes permanent hearing damage, which is why wearing hearing protection is required on pretty much any firing range regardless of how many people are there.
They're using silencers on the firing range? What's wrong with regular ear protectors?
It would certainly be a very good thing for police to have and use silencers consistently, in light of the fact that they do occasionally use their firearms in public, and this negatively affects the health of every single person on the scene.
Yes, we have plenty of evidence that police using firearms in public negatively affects the health of people at the scene.
Especially if you happen to be of a certain shade.
But still, both of the main types of suppressors negatively affect both control of the firearm and impact on the target, and some accuracy. Why would you want police to have less control of their firearm, less stopping power, and less accuracy?
Let's not pretend that the DoD equipment being shipped to local police forces has anything to do with improving policing or protecting people's safety.
Is the FTDI hardware interface driver a 100% pure "standard" USB interface
no, and you could have found that out by reading this thread.
but you can't really run a temperature controlled fan stoker for a BBQ pit from a tablet either, which
Of course you can. There's lots of ways to do that, including hacking into the audio hardware. I'd probably just use an old phone though, and not a whole tablet. You don't need that much screen for that job. Most devices have some GPIO on board, which can be used with some effort, but using the audio hardware is much easier. Use one of the many phones with USB OTG, and connect up a cheap MCU to do the USB-to-GPIO work.
rPI is Not an open hardware project and never claimed to be.
Nonsense. They claimed to be generally open, hardware and software. Then it was pointed out that important parts of the software were so closed you couldn't even use them. Eventually it was opened up enough so that you could use them, but all the important parts except the interface (which was originally closed) remain secret sauce. They also claimed to use all documented interfaces, but provided inadequate documentation for the display and camera connectors for a seriously long time as well.
They absolutely claimed to be promoting an open platform originally. They also made lots of other claims they never came through on, like that they would release Android for the device.
All the hacking people are using it for is welcome, but wasn't what they were going after in the beginning. You can't just copy other peoples closed source hardware.
Yes, you can, unless it's patent-protected.
Car analogy: If you bought a Frod, and took it to Ford Dealer and they put in a Motorcraft Oil Filer that damages your FROD because it isn't a Ford, is Ford Responsible because all you cared about was the Frod Car was cheaper on eBay?
but this is Ford installing a Motorcraft oil filter which was designed not to open if it was connected to a Frod, not one which just happens to not open in that condition. There's a massive difference there, and the difference is one of intent.
From the article, the fakes are not bricked it is just their device ID is changed to 0. FTDI are simply saying this isn't one of our chips so we won't let it work with our driver.
Or your OS, which will refuse to deal with the device, assuming that it has failed or is otherwise exhibiting bad behavior.
Those manufacturers that include fake chips will end up with a lot of returns and might reconsider using fakes.
Most of those manufacturers will just close their doors, change their name, and open them again, and the users will end up contacting FTDI, or just giving up.
Ok, so the cloners copy the design (that FTDI paid for),
Reverse engineering for the purposes of interoperability is critical to scientific development. Here in the USA, it is an activity which is explicitly protected.
steal the VID (that FTDI paid for),
It's not theft, because they're not depriving them of it.
and then by clear intention, use the FTDI driver (that FTDI paid for),
The user uses the FTDI driver.
and you say FTDI started a war?
Yes, but a war on users, some of whom deliberately set out to buy FTDI hardware. They won't make that mistake again.
Really? Good for FTDI. The supply chain will get purged of the counterfeit material faster this way then any lawsuit could.
That's probably true. However, they're going to have a whole lot of lawsuits coming their way in response, and those lawsuits will be from users of their chips.
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?
