There's only so big and often repeated that a false legal claim based on open records can get before someone who knows what they're looking at gets around to reading it.
From the article: "A letter on 3 October 1941 from the Lyon and Lyon attorney to Lamarr and Antheil says '...we rather doubted at the time that method claim 7 would be considered patentable, since the invention appears to reside more in a new apparatus than in a new method.' Thus, the attorney representing the applicants agreed with the patent examiner that the evidence was against Lamarr-Antheil’s definitive method claim to FHSS, which was claim 7."
This analysis makes it pretty clear that EFF's 1997 assertion that she and Antheil "developed and [...] patented the concept of 'frequency-hopping' that is now the basis for the spread spectrum radio systems" is flatly untrue.
This isn't to say that she wasn't an inventor or innovator, or didn't put together existing known techniques in a new way to address a relevant and interesting problem.
But frequency hopping without the ability to (re-)synchronize is hardly practical. It's like inventing the principle of the machine gun, firing many bullets in quick succession, without inventing the mechanism of automatic removal of the spent shell and pushing in a new round. Such prior art would not dethrone Hiram Maxim.
Same here: if it's the Lamar's invention that makes frequency hopping practical, then she is still the (co-)inventor of most of modern radio communication.
I think you mean it would not dethrone Dr. Gatling, whose contraption did indeed automatically remove spent shells, which illustrates just how fuzzy these questions of attribution are.
No, Gatling gun was a revolver-type gun, like a few before it, even though it's more automated. Modern Gatling guns, while immensely useful for rapid fire, are powered either electrically or pneumatically (I only handled two, both electrical). They also are damn heavy, because they have so many barrels.The early Gatling guns were gravity-fed, not belt-fed, and were significantly slower than the Maxim machine gun, and required the operator to rotate a crank to keep it operating, so it wasn't even fully automatic.
The Maxim machine gun was the first to offer really practical machine gun experience: a fully automatic weapon which is about as portable as a heavy small firearm, not like a light artillery piece.
Later versions did become more portable, but the Maxim was always a crew-served weapon. The advent of the fully automatic small firearm was really the Kalashnikov 60 atrocity-filled years later.
It's true that the Gatling required an operator to turn the crank and was significantly slower than the Maxim gun.
The thing approved by the patent office is 100% specific to a mechanism using two "moving" "elongated strips" to encode a sequence of frequency changes. It doesn't explain how they are kept synchronized, or provide a way to recover from loss of sync. Perhaps torpedoes were a case where an initial synchronization would work long enough.
As said before, the idea of coordinated frequency hopping was already known at the time.
I find it very suspicious that the telemetry indicators are cropped. Typically when the military release drone footage, they are blurred.
After the object tumbles, an effect transition has been added. You can tell because it overlays the "Pause (Ctrl+P)" control and how blooms outside the cropped video frame. This strongly suggests that it's not actually a continuous time shot.
Perhaps:
- This video is of an ordinary cruise missile or drone.
- Its surface is very hot, making it appear as a blob.
- The so-called hellfire doesn't detonate for whatever reason
- The object tumbles and crashes, but the video is deceptively spliced.
I don't trust this Representative to not lie knowingly or evaluate such claims skeptically. Statements like "I'm not going to explain it to you, you'll see exactly what it does" and "This is when it's zoomed out, you can still see it traveling" seem to be careful wording meant to lead people to a conclusion without actually claiming it.
>Statements like "I'm not going to explain it to you, you'll see exactly what it does" and "This is when it's zoomed out, you can still see it traveling" seem to be careful wording meant to lead people to a conclusion without actually claiming it.
Also saying "orb" which further mystifies it, that's just a visual translation of the gear tracking it.
After getting "hit", there seem to be what looks like three drones still flying, sort of like those ultra fast racing drones: https://youtu.be/EtRXay2kqtc
Even their movement is similar. They could have carried some sort of mesh, and could be some kind of missile deflecting tech test or whatever. Or maybe a 4th drone is still attached to that mesh and keeps dragging it along.
Insisting on the UFO angle, along with the rest of the wording they use seems they want to strongly suggest the viewer comes at particular conclusions without actually saying it.
Clocking and changing register states requires charging and discharging the gate capacitance of a bunch of MOSFET transistors. The current that results from moving all that charge around encounters resistance, which converts it to heat. Silicon is only a "semi" conductor after all.
You are correct that there is energy bound in the information stored in the chip. But last I checked, our most efficient chips (e.g., using reversible computing to avoid wasting that energy) are still orders of magnitude less efficient than those theoretical limits.
Thank you for encouraging me to go on this educational adventure. I have now heard of Landauer’s principle, which says each bit of information releases 2.9e-21 joules when destroyed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle
Clearly paste was squeezed out from the entire perimeter of the CPU. Offset mounting is used intentionally for this CPU.
Probably there's less paste remaining on the south end of the CPU because that's where the mounting force is greatest.
If anything, there's too much paste remaining on the center/north end of the CPU. Paste exists simply to bridge the roughness of the two metal surfaces, too much paste is a bad sign.
My guess is that the MB was oriented vertically and that big heavy heat sink with the large lever arm pulled it away from the center and north side of the CPU.
IMO, the CPU is still responsible for managing its power usage to live a long life. The only effect of an imperfect thermal solution ought to be proportionally reduced performance.
The experiments comparing different paste and application methods I've seen only make 1-2 degree C difference. Which enthusiasts might care alot about, but most people wouldn't notice.
