What’s your evidence, Richard Easton??!?

  • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    194
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Our mother who art in WiFi
    Thy beacon come
    Thou handshake be done
    In ac as in 802.11

  • VubDapple@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    150
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    From the wiki page

    During the late 1930s, Lamarr attended arms deals with her then-husband arms dealer Fritz Mandl, “possibly to improve his chances of making a sale”.[41] From the meetings, she learned that navies needed “a way to guide a torpedo as it raced through the water.” Radio control had been proposed. However, an enemy might be able to jam such a torpedo’s guidance system and set it off course.[42] When later discussing this with a new friend, composer and pianist George Antheil, her idea to prevent jamming by frequency hopping met Antheil’s previous work in music. In that earlier work, Antheil attempted synchronizing note-hopping in the avant-garde piece written as a score for the film Ballet Mechanique that involved multiple synchronized player pianos. Antheil’s idea in the piece was to synchronize the start time of identical player pianos with identical player piano rolls, so the pianos would be playing in time with one another. Together, they realized that radio frequencies could be changed similarly, using the same kind of mechanism, but miniaturized.[4][41]

  • Icaria@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    This post is inaccurate. Neither WiFi nor GPS use FHSS, nor is Lamarr anything close to singularly credited with FHSS’ invention (the earliest patent is credited to Nikola Tesla). This also implies that the Allies used her parent - they did not.

    Also Richard Easton is the son of the man who invented GPS and had every right to be skeptical of this claim, and it looks like Internet dipsh*ts have bullied him into deleting his twitter account over this.

  • Sotuanduso@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    To be fair, I’d be skeptical if you told me Andy Griffith was the father of 3D printing.

    Though I’d google it instead of asking for evidence first.

  • zik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    This is mostly wrong: while she did invent what would later be called Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS), it isn’t used in modern WiFi or in GPS. It is used in Bluetooth though.

    I should point out that techniques like FHSS are only a part of what makes up a radio communication method. You can’t say it was “the basis of Bluetooth” just because FHSS is one of the many technologies used in Bluetooth. She certainly contributed though.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    2 years ago

    Note that this frequency hopping is no longer used in most WiFi networks today. It is, however, critical to classic Bluetooth, and BLE still somewhat uses it. I have no idea how it’s related to GPS.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Frequency hopping in wifi was never well supported. 802.11a was primarily DSSS and afaik, very few, if any consumer devices supported the FHSS mode.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        2 years ago

        Indeed. Just speaking from a signals point of view, frequency hopping is not competitive for high bandwidth applications. It is however surprisingly durable in the presence of interference despite its simplicity. We’re seeing this play out in newer Bluetooth standards.

  • Margot Robbie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    It goes to show that being a good actress doesn’t mean that you can’t also be good at tech, even if you don’t like to to brag about it.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      ·
      2 years ago

      Reminds me of that time someone got into a Twitter beef with Rage Against The Machine. They dropped the “it’s not like you have a degree in political science or anything” line. The lead guitarist went to Harvard for social sciences.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m from a Tech and Science background (unfinished Physics degree, most-definitelly-finished EE degree and then about 2 decades at the bleeding edge of Informatics) and some years ago came in contact with the Theatre Acting world for a couple of years whilst living in London (UK), doing various short courses, seeing fringe Theatre and getting acquainted with various (not famous) actors and directors.

      Most were surprisingly (for me, at the time, with my pre-made ideas from my Science background and 2 decades in Tech) intelligent people.

      Good acting using modern acting techniques and good directing do require quite a lot of brains to pull do well, IMHO, since in things like method acting well before there’s any acting of what’s on a script, there’s a whole process of analysing them and various techniques for discovering the emotions of the character (best I can describe in a short space), at least for stage acting.

      The only main difference in capabilities, I would say, is that at least in Acting there is a much higher proportion of Extroverts than Introverts, the very opposite of the proportion in Science and Tech, and Introverts are the ones with the personality type that’s detailed oriented and hence more likely to come up with things like new or changed processes for doing things (IMHO).

    • Icaria@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      This is one of the strangest sentences I’ve ever read, even with context. In the history of the human race, has anyone specifically accused good actresses of not being good with tech?

  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 years ago

    Okay, well, I’m a network professional with a specialty in wireless and a keen interest in historical wireless networking, and “non-standard” stuff is also quite interesting. I’m no Richard Easton.

    I want to start with a disclaimer, by no means would I, nor should I be interpreted to be saying or implying that any contribution, regardless of source, isn’t valuable. Whether it comes from a woman, or man, white, black, or any color in-between, non-binary, gay, bi, trans, whatever. The contributor is valuable and their contribution is always valued.

    That being said, FHSS, has its uses, and it’s been used in wireless. It’s a valid technology that should be recognised as such. As with many things, it wasn’t a singular effort, and nobody should imply otherwise.

    As others have pointed out, the most commonly known technology which employs FHSS is Bluetooth; and trust me, trying to track down issues caused by BT interference is a nightmare because of it. Generally I avoid the problem by not using the 2.4ghz ISM band as much as possible, but I digress.

    For those saying it’s not part of 802.11, it actually is. It’s an old part of the protocol which has long since been replaced and it is considered obsolete by the IEEE 802.11 group.

    However, in the 802.11 protocol, sometimes called 802.11 prime (Wikipedia calls it “legacy”), it states: “[802.11] specified two raw data rates of 1 and 2 megabits per second (Mbit/s) to be transmitted via infrared (IR) signals or by either frequency hopping or direct-sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) in the Industrial Scientific Medical frequency band at 2.4 GHz.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11_(legacy_mode)

    All I want to really add, is that networking is a team sport. If companies and people didn’t work together to make it function, then it wouldn’t work.

    Only by collaborating and working together towards improvement and an increase in the ability of the technology to work across all platforms, vendors, manufacturers, and devices, can we get it to function at all. This fact is as true now as it was when FHSS was invented. Everyone needs to work together in order to make any real progress. Otherwise, all of our wifi stuff would “speak” different languages, and nothing outside of a single companies product line, would work with anything else.

    Everyone’s contributions have helped wifi get to it’s current state, and that should never be forgotten.

    • Wrightfi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 years ago

      I also work with Wi-Fi and am a CWNE, this post is spot on, thank you for writing this with such accuracy and clarity.

      • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        I’ve been thinking of going for my cwna/cwne. I just haven’t taken the time to figure out how to go about it.

        Any pointers? Obviously I have a pretty solid foundation of knowledge, it’s just the whole getting it written thing that I’m most unsure of.

        Though, having a good resource for studying just to review, would be nice as well.

        • Wrightfi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          For CWNA, the study guide and practice tests are all that I would recommend to pass the exam. The guides contain really good information although I’m sure you’ll know a lot of it already. For the CWNP, CWSP and CWAP, I’d recommend the study guide and practice tests again, but with some online research for any topics you’re struggling with. The CWAP exam is quite tough so you’ll need to get hands on with packet captures. But in general I found most exams to be fair and related to the real world, no vendor specific nonsense or horrible trick questions.

          Once those are done the CWNE requires three short essays (less than 1000 words). And some other form of input, such as a white paper or blog, the CWNP website has this detailed but don’t worry too much about that now.

          For the CWNA, I’d start with the study guide and see how you take to it. I found it really useful throughout my career. Feel free to reach out in the future if you have any questions.

  • Frogodendron@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s a brief five-minute Google search for me, but it seems that everyone has problems with both reading comprehension and/or causality evaluation.

    I think it’s great that such a patent exists and that the technology was invented by her. Yet, even checking the frequency-hopping spread spectrum page on Wikipedia shows that it was only one invention in the long series of discoveries and technologies, which was neither the first, nor the most crucial of them, and this particular option seems to be one of the sources of inspiration for later technologies (along with a bunch of predecessors).

    The rest of the criticisms regarding the choice of Wi-Fi over Bluetooth is already mentioned in the comments of others.

    I really don’t want to minimise the contribution of an individual towards the development of sophisticated technologies, and I have zero qualms about this individual being a woman, I just think that the presentation oversells the achievement which might cause additional mockery from those who do think that women (and actresses at that!) have no business in anything serious.

    What I actually find impressive, however, is that a woman, at the time where women’s rights were far from what they are today (just read about her first marriage, that must have been hard), could be both an actress, an inventor, a producer, all while leading quite a bitter life it seems. Not many can boast that.

    I guess where I’m going with that is that she, as many others, may be best praised as an example of a complex person that had many achievements as well as many hardships. Using her as a basis of “Didn’t think an actress could do something worthwhile? Gotcha!” statement seems a bit shallow.

    edit: However, since this post showed me that a person like Hedy Lamarr has existed in the first place (yeah, I’m not well-versed in mid-20 century American culture, sorry), and interested me (and likely a bunch of others) enough to Google her biography, I’d say it’s a net positive regardless.

    • Traegert@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Don’t try and oversell “famous woman does tech thing”. Try and and make people aware of the women who actually did really cool tech things. Marie Curie was a bad ass

  • restingboredface@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 years ago

    There is a great documentary about her on Netflix. It covers her love of science and her attempts to get her design to the military for the war effort.