Known mileage

Subject:  One treadmill, secured for free in non-working condition from Freecycle about a week and a half ago.

Problem 1:  Treadmill belt doesn't run, though it can be turned by muscle power alone.

Solution:  Found one 0.25" spade connector to the emergency-stop switch in the control box was disconnected.  Reconnected it.  Presto, treadmill works.  (This was several days ago.)

Problem 2:  Treadmill computer powers up, but never displays anything, all readouts stay at zero.

Preliminary diagnosis:  "I'll bet the computer's not receiving any tach signal."

Solution:  Trace tach signal line, find mis-aligned Hall-effect sensor, re-align sensor.  Presto, treadmill computer works.

Currently it appears I can manage about half a mile at 3.7mph before my knees beg for mercy.

Counterfeiting ... or is it?

New Scientist has an article about counterfeiting and anti-counterfeiting technology.  Not so much just counterfeiting money, as counterfeiting all kinds of products ranging from fake drugs(fake Lipitor anti-cholesterol drugs, fake cough syrups) through durable products (fake Michelin tires, fake Tyco fire sprinklers, fake Schneider circuit breakers) to fake consumer electronics (many NEC products, fake Duracell batteries).  I can't link to the article here, because you need a New Scientist subscription to access it.¹

What made the NEC case particularly interesting is that it didn't stop at selling cheap junk with NEC logos on it, or even cloned NEC products.  The cloners had a network of factories across China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, and were manufacturing and selling over 50 NEC products and selling them worldwide.  Their reps carried NEC business cards and sold licenses to NEC technology for royalties.  Most interestingly, though, they had dome their own R&D, and were selling — under the NEC brand — a number of their own original products that NEC hadn't thought of yet.

New Scientist asks the question, "What do you call the counterfeiting of products that haven't officially been invented yet?"

I think this is an error of mis-classification.  I suggest that this is not simply an uncommonly sophisticated case of product counterfeiting, but rather the first (reported) case of corporate identity theft.

[1]  "Copycat Killer", New Scientist, April 21-27 2007, pp.28-32