If any telco shares my phone records with anyone or anything outside itself, I'm suing.
If I volunteer to release those records to a specific other person/thing, because I want to use it to prove something, that's my privilege if the telco allows access to it. But never before than.
I have the rights to be secure in my person, home, papers and effects. And I have a government we created to protect those rights.
Every single conversation, in person or over media (phone, email, etc) that any elected official has with anyone should be recorded and archived in the Library of Congress. And noted in a public schedule, except meetings a subcommittee in the House or Senate votes can be hidden. Any investigation should be able to subpoena any recording. With no expiration or statue of limitations.
That kind of evidence generation would protect the honest conversations from the corrupt ones, and steadily improve the ratio.
As I post this comment, every comment posted in this thread before mine was an apathetic "signing the petition will do nothing". It would have taken just a few seconds longer to sign the petition, even if also creating an account to do so.
Signing the petition might indeed do nothing. But posting a comment here saying so is absolutely guaranteed to do nothing. The corrupt politicos like Dodd absolutely count on people insisting on doing nothing. Just as bribery is the oxygen for their corruption, cynical apathy is the 78% nitrogen that makes the air they breathe.
Sign the petition, and at least have done something to strangle these parasites. Even if that's just being a small part of forcing the president to defend or deny them. It's better than nothing - certainly better than a loudly committed nothing.
I don'think Zigbee should assume the data has already been compressed, especially in sensors (like temperature and humidity) integrated entirely into the same microcontroller that controls the Zigbee process.
Speech is not violence, but threats of violence are speech that's rightfully not protected by the government. Calling people these names imply threats of violence.
Your example is bad, too. You very well might get arrested or convicted by a judge for using "fighting words" that get you beat up, even if the people who beat you get arrested, too.
There is a lot more to the limits to speech than what you think you've learned by fighting.
I learned about Fourier's math by programming FFTs under the guidance of a genius mentor, and applying them in DSP for image processing a couple of decades ago, and I've seen the principles in action since then. I can't recommend a book, but another post in this thread did.
The difference between violence directed at you individually, vs violence directed at you solely because you're the member of some group, is that the group violence threatens the entire group.
You have the Constitutional right to say things, but not to terrorize whole groups of people. When you publicly call someone "nigger" or broadcast "fuck the Jews" you are implying a threat of violence, as established by long history. Violent threats are not protected by the Constitution.
The mass violence is not the only terrorism. The violence is actually just the essential element in a mass communication of the threat that the violence. Terrorism is a technique for manipulating people. It can be done in a mass action, like a truck bomb, or in a serial action, like a sniper over several weeks. The message to the terrorized group of people is the point of the violence, its most important effect. Even in the 9/11/2001 planebombings, the 3000 people killed were not as big an effect as the convulsion of fear in the 300M people of America, and the many millions more in other countries the message was sent to.
The terrorism I'm talking about applies to anyone who the slur refers to. The reason this case is tiny is because it's pretty clearly a single person or member of a small group setting the SSID, not a large group like the KKK or the Qaeda. It's about as tiny as the slurs scratched into a school desk. But it's still terrorism. It terrorizes a large group of people through its steady use in tiny incidents.
Being called a slur like "nigger" is a reference to physical violence that has been established by past physical violence. That is one reason calling a Black person "nigger" is different from calling them "asshole" which doesn't single them out for being Black. The word refers to the violence against Black people. Calling them that is intimidation on the basis of its meaning, which is a reference to the violence. It's one reason calling someone who's not Black "nigger" doesn't have the same meaning. It's also one reason a Black person calling another Black person "nigger" doesn't have the same meaning: it's clearly not referring to the violence done by White people who used to be allowed to call Black people "nigger" and beat them.
It's a reason the word "nigger" in this post doesn't mean what it's meant when it's used in "Fuck all Jews and Niggers".
Does it matter how long it takes to transmit the bit, to determine the minimum energy required? If so, if the time is infinite, does it require infinitesimal energy?
So you're part Jewish. Have you ever been credibly attacked by being called a slur on Jews?
Either you've had the privilege of never being intimidated that way, you just don't think anyone else should be protected, or you're a masochist.
There's more to it than just the namecalling, but the namecalling is part of it. The rabbi and family firebombed nearby a couple weeks ago won't be protected by "thicker skin". But they will be protected by intolerance of the intimidation that happens much more often by racist words.
Just because you feel secure enough to ignore it doesn't mean everyone else should. In fact you'd be better served by looking into how acceptance of antisemitic language was part of how antisemitic violence became popular. And not just antisemitism, but all bigotry that is largely intimidation by language backed by violent acts.
I do thank the 60s counterculture for rebelling against sanctimonious Republicans, "Conservatives", and Christians. That rebellion is indeed a fundamental American value. Far more fundamental than what those sanctimonious targets of that rebellion are pushing. Far more fundamental than what dittoheads like you push.
Not so many people hate the values that many Republicans, "Conservatives" and Christians have been pushing. They hate the actions of those people that defy the values. Though indeed there is some hatred of some of the values some people in those groups push, which are typically values of hatred.
When you broadcast hatred to people, it's not you hating something that is the problem. It's you scaring the people with your broadcast. You are intimidating people by referring to the threat of violence against them.
You'll probably stop thinking when I say so, but broadcasting intimidations of people like that is terrorism. Something like a WiFi network name is a tiny terrorism, but it's terrorism. Big acts of terrorism are built on these kinds of small acts. But even the small acts have their effect, just on small numbers of people.
When someone beats a Black person calling them "nigger", they are not just beating that person. They are intimidating everyone who gets called "nigger", backing up the namecalling with an act of violence. People calling others that name are not just using a mean word; the word means the person can be beaten (and worse), and implies that they will be. That is different in degree from firebombing a Black congregation church, but it is in the same category.
"Hate" crimes are badly named. They are terrorist crimes. They're criminal not to stop people from hating. But to stop them from harming other people.
You're allowed to hate. Just not to harm others with your hate. That is the America that protects its people - not from themselves, but from those who do us harm.
The person who set this SSID isn't being public about the fact that they're a racist. They're anonymous, and will likely never be caught.
Finding and punishing this person would make it public that they're a racist.
I too am all for protecting people saying things that demonstrate how bad they are, so they can face the consequences. However, I am against terrorizing groups of people by calling them names that refer to violent acts that intimidate and suppress them. Which is why the consequences of public racism should be punishment.
Being "anti-semitic" does mean you're against Jews, not all "semites".
anti-Semitism also antisemitism, 1881, from Ger. Antisemitismus, first used by Wilhelm Marr (1819–1904) German radical, nationalist and race-agitator, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga in 1879; see anti- + Semite. Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions, or policies, but almost always used in this sense. Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try H. Adler's Judaeophobia (1882). Anti-Semitic (also antisemitic) and anti-Semite (also antisemite) also are from 1881, like anti-Semitism they appear first in English in an article in the "Athenaeum" of Sept. 31, in reference to German literature.
Marr [slashdot.org] was referring to Jews, not to any other "Semites", just as practically everyone else is who uses the term "antisemitic". Except the people who want to deny that antisemitism targets Jews by diluting its meaning, to deny that antisemitism exists so it can operate unopposed.
Maybe telling what you say to an Israeli would get you called anti-semitic because diluting the meaning of "anti-semitic" is indeed anti-semitic. Indeed, given that many Israelis are Arabs who very well might not disagree with you, assuming you'd be called anti-semitic for it is anti-semitic.
Suburban NYC-area where people are getting firebombed these days by people who say what that WiFi SSID said are not in a carefully crafted bubble. They're in the real world, where those kinds of statements are part of the violence.
It's you in your Slashdot posting pod who is in a carefully crafted bubble.
If your particular ethnicity/gender/orientation was attacked with a well-known term that implied you'd be beaten, killed or worse in that neighborhood, you'd be right to feel shocked, hurt and harrassed, for good reason. Either you've had the privilege of never being intimidated that way, you just don't think anyone else should be protected, or you're a masochist.
That is ingenious. I'd love a cheap little unit I could tag "POLICE" that constantly tries to pair with nearby phones. Do they really work up to 50' away, between moving cars? How do I put the unit into constant pairing request?
Baby Jesus isn't the lord of people who celebrate Festivus instead of Christmas. It's much more belittling of them to insist that Baby Jesus is their lord when it ain't.
also antisemitism, 1881, from Ger. Antisemitismus, first used by Wilhelm Marr (1819–1904) German radical, nationalist and race-agitator, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga in 1879; see anti- + Semite. Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions, or policies, but almost always used in this sense. Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try H. Adler's Judaeophobia (1882). Anti-Semitic (also antisemitic) and anti-Semite (also antisemite) also are from 1881, like anti-Semitism they appear first in English in an article in the "Athenaeum" of Sept. 31, in reference to German literature.
Marr was referring to Jews, not to any other "Semites", just as practically everyone else is who uses the term "antisemitic". Except the people, often anonymous, who want to deny that antisemitism targets Jews by diluting its meaning, to deny that antisemitism exists so it can operate unopposed.
One of the compelling mathematical insights of Fourier's mathematics is that convolution is a multiplication in a complementary space (spectrum vs frequency). Along with the insight that multiplication in radix space is addition in logarithm space, these completely transformed (pun intended) the human understanding of space and the numbers with which we describe it.
Slashdot Mirror
If any telco shares my phone records with anyone or anything outside itself, I'm suing.
If I volunteer to release those records to a specific other person/thing, because I want to use it to prove something, that's my privilege if the telco allows access to it. But never before than.
I have the rights to be secure in my person, home, papers and effects. And I have a government we created to protect those rights.
Every single conversation, in person or over media (phone, email, etc) that any elected official has with anyone should be recorded and archived in the Library of Congress. And noted in a public schedule, except meetings a subcommittee in the House or Senate votes can be hidden. Any investigation should be able to subpoena any recording. With no expiration or statue of limitations.
That kind of evidence generation would protect the honest conversations from the corrupt ones, and steadily improve the ratio.
Investigating Dodd is a good place to start. Even just getting Obama to refuse to investigate Dodd is a start. You're insisting on never starting.
As I post this comment, every comment posted in this thread before mine was an apathetic "signing the petition will do nothing". It would have taken just a few seconds longer to sign the petition, even if also creating an account to do so.
Signing the petition might indeed do nothing. But posting a comment here saying so is absolutely guaranteed to do nothing. The corrupt politicos like Dodd absolutely count on people insisting on doing nothing. Just as bribery is the oxygen for their corruption, cynical apathy is the 78% nitrogen that makes the air they breathe.
Sign the petition, and at least have done something to strangle these parasites. Even if that's just being a small part of forcing the president to defend or deny them. It's better than nothing - certainly better than a loudly committed nothing.
I don'think Zigbee should assume the data has already been compressed, especially in sensors (like temperature and humidity) integrated entirely into the same microcontroller that controls the Zigbee process.
Speech is not violence, but threats of violence are speech that's rightfully not protected by the government. Calling people these names imply threats of violence.
Your example is bad, too. You very well might get arrested or convicted by a judge for using "fighting words" that get you beat up, even if the people who beat you get arrested, too.
There is a lot more to the limits to speech than what you think you've learned by fighting.
I learned about Fourier's math by programming FFTs under the guidance of a genius mentor, and applying them in DSP for image processing a couple of decades ago, and I've seen the principles in action since then. I can't recommend a book, but another post in this thread did.
The difference between violence directed at you individually, vs violence directed at you solely because you're the member of some group, is that the group violence threatens the entire group.
You have the Constitutional right to say things, but not to terrorize whole groups of people. When you publicly call someone "nigger" or broadcast "fuck the Jews" you are implying a threat of violence, as established by long history. Violent threats are not protected by the Constitution.
The mass violence is not the only terrorism. The violence is actually just the essential element in a mass communication of the threat that the violence. Terrorism is a technique for manipulating people. It can be done in a mass action, like a truck bomb, or in a serial action, like a sniper over several weeks. The message to the terrorized group of people is the point of the violence, its most important effect. Even in the 9/11/2001 planebombings, the 3000 people killed were not as big an effect as the convulsion of fear in the 300M people of America, and the many millions more in other countries the message was sent to.
The terrorism I'm talking about applies to anyone who the slur refers to. The reason this case is tiny is because it's pretty clearly a single person or member of a small group setting the SSID, not a large group like the KKK or the Qaeda. It's about as tiny as the slurs scratched into a school desk. But it's still terrorism. It terrorizes a large group of people through its steady use in tiny incidents.
Being called a slur like "nigger" is a reference to physical violence that has been established by past physical violence. That is one reason calling a Black person "nigger" is different from calling them "asshole" which doesn't single them out for being Black. The word refers to the violence against Black people. Calling them that is intimidation on the basis of its meaning, which is a reference to the violence. It's one reason calling someone who's not Black "nigger" doesn't have the same meaning. It's also one reason a Black person calling another Black person "nigger" doesn't have the same meaning: it's clearly not referring to the violence done by White people who used to be allowed to call Black people "nigger" and beat them.
It's a reason the word "nigger" in this post doesn't mean what it's meant when it's used in "Fuck all Jews and Niggers".
It's always a slur. But sometimes it's a threat.
Does it matter how long it takes to transmit the bit, to determine the minimum energy required? If so, if the time is infinite, does it require infinitesimal energy?
So you're part Jewish. Have you ever been credibly attacked by being called a slur on Jews?
There's more to it than just the namecalling, but the namecalling is part of it. The rabbi and family firebombed nearby a couple weeks ago won't be protected by "thicker skin". But they will be protected by intolerance of the intimidation that happens much more often by racist words.
Just because you feel secure enough to ignore it doesn't mean everyone else should. In fact you'd be better served by looking into how acceptance of antisemitic language was part of how antisemitic violence became popular. And not just antisemitism, but all bigotry that is largely intimidation by language backed by violent acts.
I do thank the 60s counterculture for rebelling against sanctimonious Republicans, "Conservatives", and Christians. That rebellion is indeed a fundamental American value. Far more fundamental than what those sanctimonious targets of that rebellion are pushing. Far more fundamental than what dittoheads like you push.
Not so many people hate the values that many Republicans, "Conservatives" and Christians have been pushing. They hate the actions of those people that defy the values. Though indeed there is some hatred of some of the values some people in those groups push, which are typically values of hatred.
When you broadcast hatred to people, it's not you hating something that is the problem. It's you scaring the people with your broadcast. You are intimidating people by referring to the threat of violence against them.
You'll probably stop thinking when I say so, but broadcasting intimidations of people like that is terrorism. Something like a WiFi network name is a tiny terrorism, but it's terrorism. Big acts of terrorism are built on these kinds of small acts. But even the small acts have their effect, just on small numbers of people.
When someone beats a Black person calling them "nigger", they are not just beating that person. They are intimidating everyone who gets called "nigger", backing up the namecalling with an act of violence. People calling others that name are not just using a mean word; the word means the person can be beaten (and worse), and implies that they will be. That is different in degree from firebombing a Black congregation church, but it is in the same category.
"Hate" crimes are badly named. They are terrorist crimes. They're criminal not to stop people from hating. But to stop them from harming other people.
You're allowed to hate. Just not to harm others with your hate. That is the America that protects its people - not from themselves, but from those who do us harm.
The person who set this SSID isn't being public about the fact that they're a racist. They're anonymous, and will likely never be caught.
Finding and punishing this person would make it public that they're a racist.
I too am all for protecting people saying things that demonstrate how bad they are, so they can face the consequences. However, I am against terrorizing groups of people by calling them names that refer to violent acts that intimidate and suppress them. Which is why the consequences of public racism should be punishment.
No, "anti-semetic" has always meant "anti-Jewish", not including just anyone who's "Semitic".
Being "anti-semitic" does mean you're against Jews, not all "semites".
Marr [slashdot.org] was referring to Jews, not to any other "Semites", just as practically everyone else is who uses the term "antisemitic". Except the people who want to deny that antisemitism targets Jews by diluting its meaning, to deny that antisemitism exists so it can operate unopposed.
Maybe telling what you say to an Israeli would get you called anti-semitic because diluting the meaning of "anti-semitic" is indeed anti-semitic. Indeed, given that many Israelis are Arabs who very well might not disagree with you, assuming you'd be called anti-semitic for it is anti-semitic.
Suburban NYC-area where people are getting firebombed these days by people who say what that WiFi SSID said are not in a carefully crafted bubble. They're in the real world, where those kinds of statements are part of the violence.
It's you in your Slashdot posting pod who is in a carefully crafted bubble.
If your particular ethnicity/gender/orientation was attacked with a well-known term that implied you'd be beaten, killed or worse in that neighborhood, you'd be right to feel shocked, hurt and harrassed, for good reason. Either you've had the privilege of never being intimidated that way, you just don't think anyone else should be protected, or you're a masochist.
That is ingenious. I'd love a cheap little unit I could tag "POLICE" that constantly tries to pair with nearby phones. Do they really work up to 50' away, between moving cars? How do I put the unit into constant pairing request?
Baby Jesus isn't the lord of people who celebrate Festivus instead of Christmas. It's much more belittling of them to insist that Baby Jesus is their lord when it ain't.
anti-Semitism
also antisemitism, 1881, from Ger. Antisemitismus, first used by Wilhelm Marr (1819–1904) German radical, nationalist and race-agitator, who founded the Antisemiten-Liga in 1879; see anti- + Semite. Not etymologically restricted to anti-Jewish theories, actions, or policies, but almost always used in this sense. Those who object to the inaccuracy of the term might try H. Adler's Judaeophobia (1882). Anti-Semitic (also antisemitic) and anti-Semite (also antisemite) also are from 1881, like anti-Semitism they appear first in English in an article in the "Athenaeum" of Sept. 31, in reference to German literature.
Marr was referring to Jews, not to any other "Semites", just as practically everyone else is who uses the term "antisemitic". Except the people, often anonymous, who want to deny that antisemitism targets Jews by diluting its meaning, to deny that antisemitism exists so it can operate unopposed.
I don't think that Zigbee uses compression by default. Why do you think it doesn't, since Zigbee's main design goal is power efficiency?
One of the compelling mathematical insights of Fourier's mathematics is that convolution is a multiplication in a complementary space (spectrum vs frequency). Along with the insight that multiplication in radix space is addition in logarithm space, these completely transformed (pun intended) the human understanding of space and the numbers with which we describe it.