User talk:Smidoid

Please use the rationale parameter to explain why this user talk page should be deleted. (E.g., {{db-u1|rationale= }}.) Thanks!

Per the User page guidelines, user talk pages are generally not deleted, barring legal threats or other grievous violations that have to be removed for legal reasons. In addition, nonpublic personal information and potentially libellous information posted to your talk page may be removed by making a request for oversight.

Users who have left Wikipedia may be added to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians.

What about potential errors that are in the public mindset

Although there are other examples, Wikipedia contains a lot of references to the "invention" of Spread Spectrum technology by Hedy Lamar and George Antheil. This has become something of a poster child for new feminists who (understandably) see Lamar as an icon. There's even a book about it. Hedy's Folly, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11564538-hedy-s-folly where the very sales pitch directly implies that that their invention is at the heart of your mobile phone. Reviewers who have read the book often describe how thin it is. Challenging this common wisdom is very hard because Lamar was also awarded an EFF special award in 1997 for this technology.

I can understand how, in 1997, this might have appeared the case, but now that we have better search engines and more digitised information than ever before, it's quite clear that the patent was partly or wholly invalid. I've discussed this on the talk page, but I don't want to make the changes for fear of being attacked (again) for somehow besmirching the memory of a beloved actress. Being English I'm not as automatically enamoured with her, so less likely to be beguiled as Antheil clearly was. Nevertheless, she is described as a mathematician (without any reference) and a inventor of spread spectrum (referencing the 1941 patent) - when spread spectrum was around since at least 1903. While not the only independent reference, Tony Rothmans book describes in some detail how this came about (extract here: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~trothman/spread_spectrum.html) and has links to *some* of the relevant patents. One review of Hedy's Folly describes how the story (despite the title) is more about George Antheil than it is about Lamar.

Given that Wikipedia is so powerful (people used it as singular reference in attacking me for having the gall to challenge accepted wisdom) I think it behoves senior editors to look at this issue dispassionately and give credit where it's due. Tony Rothman and I arrived at the same conclusions completely independently simply by tracing the history of spread spectrum back to the earliest days of wireless communications (radio). As a noob my first full article, written in all naiveté, was eviscerated to the point it almost became meaningless - and that's left me scarred and unwilling to make changes.

If it helps, there are a couple of crucial issues about patents that don't seem well understood - prior art is probably the main one. There is, I believe, sufficient prior art to invalidate the (long expired) claim relating to spread spectrum - which, unfortunately, is what Lamar is credited with. This isn't just in patents, but also in documents which were published long beforehand. It's ironic that Lamar's patent was only discovered in a prior art search when CDMA came up for due-dilligence in the 1950s I think (it's said that she sued because of it). Aristotle (it is said) always claimed that women have fewer teeth than men - yet never bothered to check. As recently as the 19th century, people thought that the atom was the smallest possible unit of matter... and so on. These things are now almost comedic - but that's what was believed at the time.

Patents have become rather odd. They're supposed to stimulate invention yet (largely because of the evolution of technology and smart lawyers) they do precisely the opposite. Seem that these days, no one actually cares if your "invention" can even be constructed never mind works. They are not, unfortunately, subject to rigourous scientific scrutiny that academics and scientists strive for. If we have learned anything from MMR and FTL Neutrinos its that even scientists, at the top of their game make mistakes and those mistakes actually pass peer review. Patents (in particular those granted during wartime) could not conceivably have been judged at such length and this seems more of a rubber stamp exercise than a proper investigation. Moreover, since the US military buried the patent, there is little chance it could have been challenged through the normal means. So what we appear to have is a sequence of events which lead us to where we are now.

Correcting those mistakes was probably difficult - and now we have the Internet where nice ideas spread like wildfire and inconvenient truths are attacked without mercy. MMR being case in point. Smidoid (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

To be blunt, this looks like original research to me, something Wikipedia should not engage in. Rather, we should summarize what reliable sources report about a subject. If the sources disagree about the significance of Lamar's patents, we should cover the sides of the disagreement in proportion to their prominence in the sources. If all or most sources get it wrong - too bad, but not our fault. We cannot decide ourselves to disregard the majority of reliable sources because we personally are convinced they are wrong. Huon (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

To be equally blunt, this isn't original research. The so-called reliable sources that are quoted in the article are from the Lamar PR machine and Lamar's fans - those are biased an cannot be trusted. Common knowledge is NOT academic research. I've already given several references to reliably sources who (a) dispute the veracity of the patent claim and (b) are experts in the field - including Wikipedia itself. So, once again, rather than being automatically dismissive. Prior art is a massive issue here and could be easily referenced. The best summary so far is Tony Rothman (who is a physics professor at Princeton and author) - so reasonably expert in electronics which is relevant.

Allow me to quote from the page: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves."

Of course, Jimmy Wales seems to disagree with that: "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research."

I'd agree that it would count as original research to contest the patent (which is now expired) BUT it's also original research to claim that Lamar invented Spread Spectrum in any way shape or form. We have (a) her name on a patent - which proves precisely nothing and (b) various interpretations of the conversation allegedly held with Antheil at the time. Rothman's book (2003) is published by John Wiley .

As far as I can see - that's it. The only claim Lamar has to Spread Spectrum is hear-say and her married name on a patent. Everything that extrapolates from that (and there's a lot) is based on that one claim. Perhaps you would care to have a look a the citations in the academic evidence? I'm going to check those sources already quoted and see just how good they are.

Smidoid (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Musodza in 2014.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Musodza in 2014.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  Of course, Masimba supplied the image personally and I was given that information. I can, however, supply a portrait taken on my own equipment if that's better? Smidoid (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Raspberry Pi page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Taleb and GMO

I added a comment/sources to your discussion here (I don't know or care much about the issue and probably won't be editing the actual page any time soon) Costatitanica (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk: NAFLD

Talk pages use bottom-posting to maintain chronological sequence. Therefore, I have moved your recent entry to the bottom of the talk page.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)