Odds and Ends

First, courtesy of Peter Grant, I concur. Couldn’t have have happened to a nicer bunch of guys:

Looks that way. From the organizers of BAMN to the organizers of Refuse Fascism, to just your typical Antifa member has allegedly been doxxed. 8chan has released the first and last names of all of them and promises to be releasing the personal info of all of them.

Quintus Curtius takes a look at how creating something is only the beginning.

Even though this would not be the end of Bell’s legal troubles (he would face hundreds more frivolous suits in the years ahead), it was a watershed moment.  The lesson was hammered home to him that it was not enough just to invent something:  what mattered even more, perhaps, was fending off the jackals who would steal the meat right from his jaws.  Eli Whitney, the inventor of the cotton gin, supposedly received very little compensation from his invention; it was relatively easy to duplicate and he was perhaps not as aggressive as he might have been in defending his intellectual property.  It is true that patent law was in its relative infancy in the United States in 1794 (the year Whitney patented his invention); but it is clear that Whitney did not understand how to deploy his machine in a way that would protect his interests.

It is not enough to innovate; one must also learn to defend.  Creation is nothing without preservation.

Now, I think the current patent and copyright system has gotten out of hand, but with responsibility should come power, not just the other way around. Once an idea is out there it’s fairly easy to copy. While inventors would often toil at their work anyway, getting recognition for this, and the ability to leverage the work, is the least we can do.

Getting onto a different topic, the first successful sub attack was the Hunley. For years, even after it was found and dug up, it was speculated as to exactly what had caused it to sink.

Lance and her fellow researchers determined that, based on the pressure wave generated by the explosion, the crew of the Hunley likely died from the effects of the blast within their tight confines. “The blast produced likely caused flexion of the ship hull to transmit the blast wave,” Lance and her co-authors wrote, “[and] the secondary wave transmitted inside the crew compartment was of sufficient magnitude that the calculated chances of survival were less than 16% for each crew member.”