It is difficult at best to determine the origin of manufacture for many electronic devices. Integrated circuits, transistors, and even passive components like capacitors,  are packaged to established universal standards, and look similar even if they are counterfeit. And, although the problem of intellectual property theft has always been around, it is getting worse, and threatens our security. It is one thing to buy an electronic gadget that fails, and quite another for security systems that do not protect  us as designed. In the former case, the reputation of the company is at stake, but in the latter, the safety of all of us is at stake.
We have always been a creative country and as the 20th century started, we began to see how fast technology can change. Our patent system was created  to protect the inventor for some number of years, but also, the patent was always required to teach others how the content of the patent worked, but also be able to learn from the material. But, the patent could not be infringed upon until the 17 or so years of protection had expired. But, international law and patent protection means little to countries that allow, even tacitly, the laws to be broken. And, the US is not the only country to be victimized. So, we see a flood of counterfeit products that have the ability to fail and cause serious problems. I ran across an article that focuses on China as a "lawless" violator, but there are others as well. But, since we have had our electronic products manufactured there, we are open to theft and inferior products. Please read the article in Business Insider  by Michael Kelley and the spirited debate in the comments section. As always, there are two side or more with any issue. Here. Now I have to check my inventory of parts...

I have always been perplexed by the popularity of bottled water and the incredible amount of money people pay for even one bottle. Water is a non-renewable resource and is essential for life, but paying inordinate amounts of money for bottled water seems unnecessary.
While there are pros and cons about the taste and safety of municipal water supplies, there is no debating that the cost of bottled water makes very little fiscal sense. As for the taste and safety, there are multiple studies about both, and it seems to be a draw. The regulations, for both are different, but neither is safe from oversight. Municipal supplies are regulated by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), and bottled water by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). But remember, both are bureaucratic government agencies, and both have had multiple failures in detecting problems.
My concern is with the costs associated with bottled water, and the environmental impact. The world consumption is as high as 200 billion quarts or liters, annually. That is a large number of plastic bottles and containers. Only a small percentage are recycled, and the rest wind up slowly decomposing over years in landfills. And then there is the cost of transportation. Many of these bottles travel hundreds of miles and that means more fossil fuel. As far as the health issue, tap water has to be tested 100 a month by EPA standards. Bottled water is tested once a week. The bottom line cost? Bottled water costs 150 times as much as tap water and can go higher with the "designer" water. I bought 6 bottles 5 years ago and reuse the bottles with tap water. After refrigeration, they are good to go. I have included a link to a Los Angeles Times article to whet your appetite, pun intended. Just an observation...

History is our best example of our ability to make technological changes in the world in which we live. As far back as human time goes, the common people shaped the world of discovery. It is probably safe to assume that the wheel was discovered not by a mathematician or scientist, but by someone who saw a solution to a problem.
From our roots in ancient Greece until now, human ingenuity and persistence have formed the basis for communication, energy, scientific knowledge, and education. It is not that a specialized discipline is detrimental to finding solutions, but that a degree in a specific area is not what necessarily leads to new ideas and solutions to new problems. It is our desire to learn and explore and understand that gives us the ability to innovate and explain some very interesting subjects. So, what do we need to be amateur scientists and discover new and interesting material? I would offer the desirability of the following three elements in the search for answers: Curiosity, observation, and diligence.
I can only speak for myself for how I find new areas of interest and examination. First, I have no boundaries as to what can be discovered, even if it has been discovered before. I have no problem with reinventing the wheel if I learn in the process. Second, I have my eyes open and watch the world around me with great interest. It might be people, animals, items in the dollar store, or almost anything in sight. And third, and most of all, I expect failure. I certainly don't seek failure but I accept it as a part of the process. And, I fail a lot! There are exceptions to all of the rules as everyone knows. I recently posted on the Odds n' Ends page an entry called "This experiment is for the Birds" based on curiosity, observation, and the diligence to make the gadget to test my hypothesis. It worked the first time and that was a pleasant surprise. But, if it had failed, I would have tried another idea. It seems that the brain is an endless processor and there is always something to try.
There is a good article about the world of tinkerers mostly in the 20th century in Popular Science and the Scientific American. There is also an internal link to the archives in PS. The article written by Mark Frauenfelder is at Boing Boing here. The complete Amateur Scientist CD is reviewed on my page on Science and technology under "Amateur Scientist" in the archive.
If you are an inveterate tinkerer and hacker, keep on hackin, and if you are not, maybe its time to start. Just an observation...