Ironically, Hercules was infamous for his lack of self-control,
I'm sorry you are not familiar with the colloquial use of the term "Herculean", as in "Herculean effort". It means "a huge amount". He displayed an amazingly large amount of self-control, not a lack of it, in his testimony.
Kavanaugh lied,... ignoring his own obnoxious behavior, showing no self-awareness of his ill-spent youth,
All of this is based on one person's story that doesn't seem to be supported by her friends of the time. Guilty until proven innocent, yes? Whose youth was better spent: his, resulting in a position on the federal bench and consideration for SCOTUS, or yours, here spending your days posting to/. as an anonymous coward?
That would have been accurate and understandable and no one would really have a major fault with the president over that.
When a Republican politician gets roasted for the rest of his life because he spells "potato" with the 'e' at the end -- a valid spelling -- you can believe that Trump wouldn't get off for any "understandable" misspellings, because, well, Trump. But we excuse the US having '57 states" (actually, 58, since the statement was about visiting 57 and having one more to go) as just an understandable slip of the tongue because, well, not Trump.
Except that the same sort of new puritanism is creeping into our politics as well.
This had nothing to do with puritanism. It has everything to do with the hot-button issue of the day being older white men abusing young women (that movie producer whats-his-name, Matt Lauer, Bill Cosby, Al Franken, the list is endless), the success of knocking down anyone with a simple accusation, and what could easily be called political correctness, because it is political. Today it's riding on #meToo. A year ago this would have been coat-tailed onto #BLM.
Simply put, yes, I would expect a Judicial demeanor and not partisan hackery. The judge displayed none of the former and all of the latter
He displayed a Herculean amount of self-control in the face of the immense amount of crap being thrown at him hoping anything would stick. I want judges that are human, not robots. Humans get pissed when they are accused of things they didn't do by people who can't remember just what did happen or when, all based on partisan politics and intended to keep them from getting an appointment that they are more than qualified for.
If the Democrats get away with this reprehensible behaviour then there will be no more new SCOTUS members. In the future, every nominee will be accused of something, and the accusers will all chant in unison "the accusation is sufficient to stop the nomination." The accusations will all be from 36 years ago, none of them will be provable (or disprovable).
Before you denounce the partisan part to this, remember carefully HRC and the "vast right-wing conspiracy."
Similarly, it does not surprise me in the least to see partisan hacks rise up to defend his behavior in front of the Senate.
Given that it is partisan hacks that are trying to slime his reputation and name, I am not surprised you'd call the people defending him partisan hacks.
Does anyone remember the hysteria we lovingly call "The McMartin Pre-School Case"? Or even just "Duke Lacrosse?" We already have a verbification -- to "bork" someone. Will we now add "to kavenaugh", meaning "bork on steroids"?
Cost is a huge factor. Not just to cost to print the manual but the cost to ship the manual as well.
Then as soon as you turn the phone on the first time, it's downloading Mealy Migrant or Washingmachine Wombat or whatever cute name the developers have given the latest update ("Marshmallow"? Really?) and the manual is completely wrong anyway. Like, "when you are receiving no signal, you will see no bars on the display". Woopsie. Now you see all five bars with a small line through them.
And they don't want to "give away" their proprietary secrets anymore. Back in the day the manuals explained nearly ever API detail necessary to use a product,
You don't need "every API detail" to use a product. You need to know what the buttons do and what the cute little symbols called "icons" or "widgets" mean. For a phone, you need to know what buttons to press to store a contact or make a call.
You don't need to know "nearly every API detail" unless you are developing software for the phone -- and 99.99% of the users will never do that. Why would you expect them to waste the money and resources to print a thousand-page paper manual detailing every API and it's use when NOBODY (to three significant digits) is going to bother reading it, much less have any use for it?
Remember the old Hayes modem manuals with descriptions of every switch setting and AT command?
Remember in the good old Hayes Smartmodem days when a high percentage of people were attaching Hayes modems to something besides a plug-and-play telecom program, simply because there weren't a lot of plug-and-play telecom programs, and the ones that did exist often needed help dealing with the changing modem command sets as modems developed from 300 baud through 56k fax/modems and even Telebit 9600 UUCP-capable ones? That's not today. Times have changed. Modems changed from cutting-edge technology through commodity to nearly obsolete status.
and contains no info of value.
It contains enough information to get Mom and Pop started using it. It doesn't contain enough information for you to reverse engineer the communications protocol and attach it to your Arduino Nano so it can be a dial-in weather station, no. Google for "AT command set" and you'll find what you need. Why should everyone in the world get a large paper manual just so you don't have to use the Internet to find something?
If I was on business, I'd be more than happy to declare that.
That's swell. If everyone was such a law-abiding conscientious citizen there'd be no need for police of any kind. I think the point is that not everyone is, and these folks have a job to do.
There are certainly people who would claim holiday status while coming for work, especially if they are from a country that requires an actual visa before entry, or if they are bringing in high-dollar samples that they intend to leave behind. That's the kind of thing they're looking for.
And then on my way out, I'd just tell customs that the deal fell through because the regulatory environment in their country was shit.
You don't talk to customs on the way out. You get your passport stamped by immigration. They'll look at you like you're a moron and wave you on through, because they don't care what kind of crap you're spouting on the way out. They won't care if you couldn't come to a deal because of immigration policies, that's your problem.
And if they push me,
The only pushing they'll be doing is to push you onto the plane where you're no longer their problem.
Not having to maintain the massive amount of 32-bit support code inside Apple's various OS's will be a big win for Apple
So will we all just abandon to the scrap heap all the very expensive Apple devices that already exist and are still working? You know, all the 32 bit devices?
If Apple is not supporting 32 bit OSs anymore, then are app developers going to have to keep a copy of XCode 7 or whatever that does support the vast number of legacy devices?
Someone should write one that's like: "Hey Siri, BUG OUT!!!" which would promptly erase the phone.
Many many years ago, when Apple first came out with voice recognition for their desktop systems, I found it remarkably funny to walk by a co-worker's desk and speak loudly "computer restart yes". I can't imagine how much fun I could have if I found out anyone carrying an iPhone nearby had such a Siri command enabled.
Shouldn't they be worried about the data that is leaving the country?
They're not looking for "data". They're not looking for your company's magical design for the next cancer cure. They're not looking for the secret financial data that proves that your company is screwing the IRS.
They're looking for data that would indicate that you are not traveling for the purpose you claimed on your entry permit or visa. If you are on a tourist visa, then if they suspect that you are actually on business they will ask to see your phone's data. That SMS you forgot to delete that says "The meeting starts at 10AM tomorrow, remember to bring the business plan and samples..." will be evidence you lied. Expect more than a $5000 fine then.
This is not a blanket "search everyone looking for anything suspicious" situation. They're already suspicious, they're just acting on that suspicion. You can certainly wipe every device you carry and then expect to restore from backup once in-country, but if they're already suspicious of your motives for entry, that 3Tb USB disk with encrypted data combined with a phone and laptop that are in factory-reset condition will only make it more obvious you're up to something. Once YOU create that reasonable doubt, all the legal ways to override your blanket expectation of a guarantee of privacy kick in.
I'll mention something nobody seems to have caught, however. The summary refers to the search only being done "in flight mode", so it isn't going to include cloud data. Funny thing, you can put most phones in "flight" or "airplane" mode and then turn WiFi and bluetooth back on. It still shows the little airplane icon, but it's fully internet connected.
I suck at maths,
5 ways times 5 ways == 25, bi-directional means 50 ways.
You still suck at math. Five parties sharing means for each party there are four others to share with. Five parties sharing with the other four is 20 ways. Since the reverse direction is included, it's still just 20.
saying it is doesn't make it so. Democracy is everybody gets to a vote, they get one vote and they get to vote in elections that concern them.
That is the practical application. The basic tenet -- idea behind the system -- is that the people who vote are informed and care.
You're straw manning when you say "anyone who walks in".
No, I'm giving you the opposite to your "wrong" people claim. You say that there are those who claim that "wrong" people should not be allowed to vote. Since "wrong" people means non-citizens, non-residents, etc. as I listed, then if you oppose the idea of not allowing the "wrong" people to vote you are supporting the idea that anyone who walks in can do so.
I don't get to vote in California's Senate races.
I don't care why, but obviously then you are a "wrong" person and are not allowed to vote. Why aren't you up in arms that those awful California election officials aren't letting you vote?
You're trying to distract from the main issue, which is the suppression of legitimate voters.
Your phrase was "wrong people". Keeping the "wrong" people from voting has nothing to do with suppressing legitimate voters, since legitimate voters are not "wrong" people.
You know perfectly well what the "wrong" people means. It means people who disagree with you.
That may be what you intended to say, but you did not. "Wrong people" in the sense of what many of us don't want to be allowed to vote means exactly the list I gave previously.
You've made it very clear you'd like very much for those people to not be allowed to vote.
Oh, now you're just making shit up. The list I gave of "wrong people" had nothing to do with whether they agree with me on anything or not.
If we really care about democracy then we should make voting mandatory
A basic tenet of democracy is an informed and caring electorate making informed decisions. "Mandatory voting" is the absolute antithesis of this. Besides creating the problem of people who absolutely object to being forced to vote and decide to vote for the stupidest option just to fuck with the system, you'll have a much larger group who don't care at all and will vote based on the last sound-byte attack ad they hear.
require all states to have vote by mail
Yeah, because throwing ballots to the wind and counting whatever comes back is SO much democracy. Once you let the ballots out of your control, you lose control over who gets them, who votes them, and who sends them back.
There's a significant number of Americans who think it's a bad idea to let the "wrong" people vote.
Are there "wrong" people who we should not allow to vote? If you don't think there are, then you are in the group that thinks that anyone who walks into a polling place should be allowed to vote. Who are the "wrong" people? Non-citizens. People under the legal voting age for the state. People who don't live in that voting district. People who have already voted someplace else. You are insulting those who think the "wrong" people shouldn't vote -- and they are absolutely correct in demanding that they aren't allowed to.
And there are those of us who think that there are "wrong" people when it comes to who SHOULD vote, even if they can. People who just don't care SHOULD NOT VOTE. Their vote is noise. They are ALLOWED to vote, but they should self-select themselves out of the process.
And I'll go one further. For any taxation measure, anyone who isn't going to be paying the tax should not vote on it. For example, a proposal to add even more taxes to cigarettes should not be voted on by non-smokers. This is based on the old concept which I think was voiced by DeToqueville -- a free society can exist only until the majority realizes they can tax the minority to pay for their stuff. Or something like that.
To be fair, when the Facebook app asks for permission to access your contacts in order to look for your friends, it doesn't say "and also to fill out their shadow profiles and target ads at them".
Can you explain in simple terms how Facebook targets non-users for ads?
And why it is Facebook targeting them for ads when it is advertisers buying the advertising and providing the contact information being used to target them?
1. Information which Facebook has on people who are Facebook users, which they have not provided to Facebook and is not shown on their profile (but which Facebook may have gathered as part of a shadow profile for the user) but is targetable by advertisements
Facebook users DO NOT HAVE SHADOW PROFILES. By definition. Mislove is a FACEBOOK USER, and Facebook could have linked his super secret office phone number to his account via any number of means that he wasn't aware of, but that data is not a shadow profile.
2. Information which users have provided to Facebook for purposes other than updating their profile, which is not shown on their profile, but is still targetable by advertisements
And to that I say "do'h". They provided data to Facebook and expect Facebook not to have the data. It's not shown in their profile because it wasn't made visible to the public. But advertisers being able to target using that data is NOT revealing anything to the advertisers. The advertisers are NOT being given access to "shadow contact information" by Facebook. They have to already KNOW the contact information. The guy who bought the ad and targeted Mislove through his super secret office phone number already knew the super secret office phone number. He didn't ask Facebook to target "Alan Mislove" and Facebook didn't respond with "do you mean the Alan Mislove whose super secret office phone number is (XXX) YYY-ZZZZ?"
The biggest problem exposed by this whole brouhaha is that even professional computer science researchers don't understand how trivially easy it is for someone to link together information about them when they themselves make that information freely available to the public on their own websites. When your super secret office phone number is on the first page Google returns for your name, with a "tel" tag so automated software can trivially scrape it, then your super secret office phone number isn't very much of a secret. Failing to expect that a corporate data aggregator where you have handed over some of your personal data would not be able to aggregate that bit of data too is just ignorance of an unbelievable degree.
But everyone is triggering on the false claim that Facebook is "giving advertisers access to your shadow contact information", which is not what happened here at all. You should be looking at the ignorance of people who think Facebook doesn't link the phone number they provide for 2FA to their account. It's really pretty simple: when you tell Facebook that your phone number is X when they ask for it for 2FA, then YOU are telling them that your phone number is X. There is no magic involved when you later find out that Facebook knows your phone number is X. It should be no surprise to anyone. And if GOOGLE can find it so easily, how can you be surprised when Facebook finds it, too?
An error in understanding doesn't translate to clickbait,
Deliberate misrepresentation of the material to make it seem magical and new does translate to clickbait. Linking to a page that is 90% advertising, which automatically changes to an irrelevant page with 90% advertising when you scroll just a skootch past the clickbait article is clickbait, especially when you cannot go back to the original page using the standard "back" button.
and getting to the source isn't that hard.
You have to watch the video, which doesn't play well over the net to begin with and not at all when it isn't in a form that is playable, then go to YouTube, then click on something else, then click on something else to finally get to the source. I'm reminded of a filing cabinet in the basement...
If the/. summary wasn't clickbait, it would have linked to the paper itself. If the clickbait article wasn't clickbait, it would have a direct link to the paper. Telling someone that they have to go through half a dozen steps to get from A to B is a pretty clear admission that getting from A to B isn't as easy as you claim. Especially when it takes watching a video.
Do you dispute the point that both the summary and the article describe something that is patently absurd? If not, then stop arguing with me about it.
James Comey, then head of the FBI, declared that she's guilty, but that "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue her.
No. No he did not. He said her staff where careless.
He did, indeed, say that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Here is the CNBC story that quotes him.
The case is unprosecutable because there isn't evidence of a crime.
From the same story:
Comey began his address by explaining what investigators found. He said that the probe showed that 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to include classified information at the time they were received. Within those emails, eight chains contained information that was "top secret" at the time they were sent, 36 had "secret" information and eight more had "confidential" information, the FBI director said.
All of that is evidence of a crime. He is further quoted as saying, in the SAME SENTENCE that contains the "no reasonable prosecutor" phrase:
"Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," he said.
There is evidence, but no prosecutor would bring a case. Further, he said:
He characterized the investigation findings as showing that Clinton and her team were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" but he said there was no clear evidence they intended to violate the law.
So no, he didn't say that just Clinton's staff "where" careless. Clinton too.
But but but... no clear evidence of intent? Sadly the laws being broken don't have an intent clause, they are broken when the act takes place, intent or not.
Despite the bleatings of the conspiracy theory set, "Grandma doesn't understand email security" isn't a crime,
But "Grandma doesn't understand what 'Top Secret' means and the necessity of safeguarding such material" IS a crime. Grandma shouldn't have had to understand email security, but since she made the attempt and failed, and had classified material transported using that email system in violation of federal law, there is a crime. A crime that Grandma had been briefed on before she was given a security clearance, by the way. Ignorance is not only not an excuse, it doesn't apply here.
join the fact based community.
A good suggestion. I suppose you would classify CNBC with Brietbart, but you can find the full statement here on the FBI's website. Are CNN and The New York Times also Brietbart sycophants?
and certainly the suggested answers, should at least be somewhat truthful and accurate.
Historical truth is controlled by the people who control the press. The internet was supposed to make that control HARDER, not easier.
It's really handy, you can get quick answers to questions... As long as the answers are reliable.
And Bing/Siri/Google get to decide for us what is reliable, on a microsecond by microsecond basis. I will point out that this is about six orders of magnitude faster than any Ministry of Truth could possibly do it, and less transparent and obvious.
Imagine asking for a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion because you want to see for yourself the nonsense it contains, and all you get are long commentaries about what other people thought was wrong with it. Or asking for a copy of the Red and Blue books for Scientology because you want to read the words of the prophet directly -- and all you get are scientology press releases. Or asking for a historically accurate recipe for Tollhouse cookies, and getting only a modern fat-free, low calorie, vegan recipe because that's what Siri/Google/Bing have determined is better for you.
To see, for myself, what was said. Why do you trust the media's depiction of what you can so easily go look at yourself? Do you think the media is an unbiased, complete reporter of the news and provider of information?
Would you like a recent demonstration of how good our media is? Look in a recent/. submission about using WiFi routers to count the number of people in the room. The media report of this achievement describes a technically impossible method and provides no link to the actual scientific paper they are basing their story on. That media: epic fail. Deliberate epic fail, probably. But we should trust them to describe what pizzagate was and the actual message involved.
How is putting that shit up on the search ratings benefiting anyone?
Anyone who isn't a sheep is benefited by having actual information to evaluate for themselves when they ask for it. Asking for "pizzagate" should return the actual pizzagate message BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WAS ASKED FOR.
Here in Oregon we're being subjected to by a heated media battle over our next governor. The ads, especially one side's, are very good at giving sound bytes saying "such and such PAC said that such and such candidate said...". Should I trust "such and such PAC" to be an unbiased reporter of what was said, or should I be allowed to go read it for myself?
Here's just one glaring example of a misleading ad. The ad shows an unidentified ethnic woman saying "[candidate] sided with a right wing group to...". If you look VERY carefully at the document she is holding, it clearly said "[right wing group] endorsed [candidate]". That's very different. (The same ad has another woman saying "[some PAC] said [candidate] said... that's good enough for me." Complete admission of being a low interest/low information voter. A biased PAC is the sole source of her decision making. The obvious intent of the ad is for women to choose to vote for the other candidate because "an ad I saw on TV said that a biased PAC said that one candidate said..." which is now two levels removed from the horse's mouth, through two biased filters.)
Yeah, and they get from the fucking campus directory or the business cards into Facebook...how?
I cannot access "Alan Mislove" on Facebook. All I find are links to this story. HOWEVER -- Google is your friend. If you google his name, the FIRST link provided is to his college webpage, which provides his name, address, telephone number, and a link to his "personal" website, which includes similar information PLUS a link to a map showing where he works. The college page is even helpful enough to list the office phone number with a "tel:" link so it is trivial to identify it as such.
The second and third links returned on a search of his name are to his "personal" page. One is via a vanity domain, the other direct to the college. It lists his email address, which makes it trivial to link to the college directory page.
Now, I expect that at some point someone who is so prolific in handing out his super secret office phone number has probably given Facebook his web page information for his profile. Maybe not. Maybe Facebook googled him just like I did -- that's a highly likely thing for them to do to seek more information -- and then they would find the PUBLIC information that Mislove provides freely and without limitation to the public. And Facebook.
And, even if not, then it is highly likely that someone who he has friended on Facebook has him in their contact list, with phone number, so it was even more trivial to link it to him.
If you want to prove how intrusive Facebook is, try doing it with information that doesn't take 0.35 seconds of a Google search to retrieve, using information that was almost certainly provided to Facebook by the owner.
I think we're missing the key point of TFA - Facebook knows stuff that it claims not to know.
They didn't claim not to know contact information of Facebook users. From the/. article linked to as evidence that "Facebook denied doing this":
Lujan: Facebook has detailed profiles on people who have never signed up for Facebook, yes or no?...
Lujan: So these are called shadow profiles, is that what they've been referred to by some?
So, these "shadow profiles" are for people who have never signed up for Facebook. Alan Mislove IS A FACEBOOK USER, and is signed up to that service. The profile that Facebook has on him is not a "shadow profile".
Also, in the previous article, if you read carefully, you'll note that Zuckerberg never denies having information on people who do not have Facebook accounts, he denies knowledge of what "some people" call such profile information. The question is "So, these are called 'shadow profiles'...?" You are a FOOL if you answer anything but the specific question you were asked when testifying anywhere. Zuck ain't no fool.
Alice has a Facebook profile, but never links her landline phone number to it.
Bob buys a Facebook ad, targeted to Alice's landline.
Alice sees the ad.
The study being reported on says "They found that when a user gives Facebook a phone number for two-factor authentication or in order to receive alerts about new log-ins to a user's account". How can you claim the issue is one where the user never gives Facebook the number? They gave it to Facebook but not through the normal settings pages for entering contact information.
What do you think entering a phone number for 2FA means, if not "this number is mine"? How can you possibly imagine that this is not linking that phone number to you?
Yes, it is a problem that your friends are giving your super-secret personal information to Facebook or other data aggregators. It's a problem with your friends. And yes, I've had family members give such people my email addresses and phone number. It's a bitch.
Because the clickbait had no links to any paper. Only the claim that it was using ONE WiFi router.
Yes, if you put TWO routers on the opposite sides of a room and measure the signal between them, you will measure how much attenuation there is, and you can assume it comes from people. This is true for almost any two radios, and isn't specific to WiFi. Use a pair of bluetooth devices, or something at another frequency. Hell, do it with ultrasonics. Bodies absorb that, too. Do'h. But then, you can't just walk up to a wall and make this measurement, you have to have a transmitter on the other side of the room, too.
It would've taken much longer to write out your rant above than to spend two minutes locating the paper and bypass all the misinterpretation.
Well, you know, that pretty much supports my claim that TFA is clickbait, because they deliberately misrepresent the system to make it seem more magical, and thus more likely to draw clicks from people seeking info on how it is done. If they had honestly said "path loss between two radios is dependent on the mass of water between the two antennas" I would have yawned, thought "obvious", and not clicked on the bait.
They couldn't be arsed to include a link to the actual paper. Need even more proof about being clickbait? When I scroll down below the article looking for any link to anything relevant, the site pushes me to their main page and there is no way to get back. The back arrow doesn't go anywhere.
Wouldn't it be nice if slashdot, a place for technically literate people, would bypass such nonsense and link to the paper directly, instead of to clickbait sites, or worse, previous stories about the same thing? No, that would be too much work for a submitter or editor. Your "two minutes" looking for the paper is better spent by ONE person submitting the article than potentially hundreds trying to find it themselves, don't you think?
As it stands, my comments were absolutely correct. What was described cannot possibly work for the reasons I gave, and the site and/. submission are clickbait. The fact that what the paper itself describes is simple and predictable from antenna physics is a different matter. You can find path loss calculators online. All you need to add in is the attenuation from intermediate bodies. It's also, I expect, already observed in practice by people who install wireless networks when they plan for coverage. "Hey, Bob, this AP is serving a room that can hold 250 people. Is one transmitter of X milliwatts going to be enough?"
The original link doesn't explain what pizzagate is.
The original link IS pizzagate. Isn't it the best source to determine what the pizzagate conspiracy actually is, instead of being shown only everyone else's interpretation and spin on it?
It gives you a conspiracy theory as if it was fact.
No, it does not. It does not say "this material at the end of this link is a fact". It simply provided the link to the original material. AND it provided links to everyone else explaining why it wasn't true.
So, answer the question. If I ask for the pizzagate conspiracy message, why should it NOT show me a link to that message? Because YOU think I'm too stupid to understand that is it false, or that I'll suddenly agree that it's true because I am overwhelmed by the effective and persuasive communications skill of the author?
Please. Step up to the clue machine and take the next number. You will be served in the order you arrived.
The receiver and transmitter are not using the same antenna. They are on opposite sides of the room.
From TFS:
This means that you could simply walk up to a wall and press a button to count, with a high degree of accuracy, how many people are walking around.
From TFA:
The system, created by researchers at UC Santa Barbara, uses a single Wi-Fi router outside of the room to measure attenuation and signal drops.
A single Wi-Fi router outside of the room cannot be on opposite sides of the room. A single Wi-Fi router outside the room likely has a pair of antennas, but they are separated by at most one foot. A receiving antenna one foot from a transmitting antenna is going to see predominately the transmitted signal direct from the transmitter antenna. The people INSIDE the room will have no effect on the signal.
But a single WiFi router does not use one antenna for transmit and one for receive at the same time. That would be a stupid waste, since the receiver is only going to receive what the transmitter is sending. Why bother with that? No, the second antenna is for dual diversity -- the receiver can pick the best signal FOR RECEPTION by picking one of the two antennas.
That means that the TRANSMITTER is not TRANSMITTING while the receiver is receiving. You CANNOT measure your own signal strength because you aren't receiving when you are transmitting.
How would you even get a WiFi signal strength with just one antenna?
By measuring the signal strength at that one antenna. You can't measure your own signal strength with one, two or a hundred antennas, because you aren't receiving your own signal, but you can measure another APs signal. That requires a SECOND WiFi router. This system unambiguously says "uses a single WiFi router". Is this a trick question or what?
Now, if you aren't just using WiFi, you can do all sorts of amazing stuff with just one antenna doing both transmit and receive. We call that RADAR.
And a standard Wi-Fi router has absolutely ZERO capability of doing RADAR. That's the point. You cannot have a single WiFi router that measures its own signal strength.
Slashdot Mirror
Ironically, Hercules was infamous for his lack of self-control,
I'm sorry you are not familiar with the colloquial use of the term "Herculean", as in "Herculean effort". It means "a huge amount". He displayed an amazingly large amount of self-control, not a lack of it, in his testimony.
Kavanaugh lied, ... ignoring his own obnoxious behavior, showing no self-awareness of his ill-spent youth,
All of this is based on one person's story that doesn't seem to be supported by her friends of the time. Guilty until proven innocent, yes? Whose youth was better spent: his, resulting in a position on the federal bench and consideration for SCOTUS, or yours, here spending your days posting to /. as an anonymous coward?
That would have been accurate and understandable and no one would really have a major fault with the president over that.
When a Republican politician gets roasted for the rest of his life because he spells "potato" with the 'e' at the end -- a valid spelling -- you can believe that Trump wouldn't get off for any "understandable" misspellings, because, well, Trump. But we excuse the US having '57 states" (actually, 58, since the statement was about visiting 57 and having one more to go) as just an understandable slip of the tongue because, well, not Trump.
Except that the same sort of new puritanism is creeping into our politics as well.
This had nothing to do with puritanism. It has everything to do with the hot-button issue of the day being older white men abusing young women (that movie producer whats-his-name, Matt Lauer, Bill Cosby, Al Franken, the list is endless), the success of knocking down anyone with a simple accusation, and what could easily be called political correctness, because it is political. Today it's riding on #meToo. A year ago this would have been coat-tailed onto #BLM.
Simply put, yes, I would expect a Judicial demeanor and not partisan hackery. The judge displayed none of the former and all of the latter
He displayed a Herculean amount of self-control in the face of the immense amount of crap being thrown at him hoping anything would stick. I want judges that are human, not robots. Humans get pissed when they are accused of things they didn't do by people who can't remember just what did happen or when, all based on partisan politics and intended to keep them from getting an appointment that they are more than qualified for.
If the Democrats get away with this reprehensible behaviour then there will be no more new SCOTUS members. In the future, every nominee will be accused of something, and the accusers will all chant in unison "the accusation is sufficient to stop the nomination." The accusations will all be from 36 years ago, none of them will be provable (or disprovable).
Before you denounce the partisan part to this, remember carefully HRC and the "vast right-wing conspiracy."
Similarly, it does not surprise me in the least to see partisan hacks rise up to defend his behavior in front of the Senate.
Given that it is partisan hacks that are trying to slime his reputation and name, I am not surprised you'd call the people defending him partisan hacks.
Does anyone remember the hysteria we lovingly call "The McMartin Pre-School Case"? Or even just "Duke Lacrosse?" We already have a verbification -- to "bork" someone. Will we now add "to kavenaugh", meaning "bork on steroids"?
Cost is a huge factor. Not just to cost to print the manual but the cost to ship the manual as well.
Then as soon as you turn the phone on the first time, it's downloading Mealy Migrant or Washingmachine Wombat or whatever cute name the developers have given the latest update ("Marshmallow"? Really?) and the manual is completely wrong anyway. Like, "when you are receiving no signal, you will see no bars on the display". Woopsie. Now you see all five bars with a small line through them.
And they don't want to "give away" their proprietary secrets anymore. Back in the day the manuals explained nearly ever API detail necessary to use a product,
You don't need "every API detail" to use a product. You need to know what the buttons do and what the cute little symbols called "icons" or "widgets" mean. For a phone, you need to know what buttons to press to store a contact or make a call.
You don't need to know "nearly every API detail" unless you are developing software for the phone -- and 99.99% of the users will never do that. Why would you expect them to waste the money and resources to print a thousand-page paper manual detailing every API and it's use when NOBODY (to three significant digits) is going to bother reading it, much less have any use for it?
Remember the old Hayes modem manuals with descriptions of every switch setting and AT command?
Remember in the good old Hayes Smartmodem days when a high percentage of people were attaching Hayes modems to something besides a plug-and-play telecom program, simply because there weren't a lot of plug-and-play telecom programs, and the ones that did exist often needed help dealing with the changing modem command sets as modems developed from 300 baud through 56k fax/modems and even Telebit 9600 UUCP-capable ones? That's not today. Times have changed. Modems changed from cutting-edge technology through commodity to nearly obsolete status.
and contains no info of value.
It contains enough information to get Mom and Pop started using it. It doesn't contain enough information for you to reverse engineer the communications protocol and attach it to your Arduino Nano so it can be a dial-in weather station, no. Google for "AT command set" and you'll find what you need. Why should everyone in the world get a large paper manual just so you don't have to use the Internet to find something?
If I was on business, I'd be more than happy to declare that.
That's swell. If everyone was such a law-abiding conscientious citizen there'd be no need for police of any kind. I think the point is that not everyone is, and these folks have a job to do. There are certainly people who would claim holiday status while coming for work, especially if they are from a country that requires an actual visa before entry, or if they are bringing in high-dollar samples that they intend to leave behind. That's the kind of thing they're looking for.
And then on my way out, I'd just tell customs that the deal fell through because the regulatory environment in their country was shit.
You don't talk to customs on the way out. You get your passport stamped by immigration. They'll look at you like you're a moron and wave you on through, because they don't care what kind of crap you're spouting on the way out. They won't care if you couldn't come to a deal because of immigration policies, that's your problem.
And if they push me,
The only pushing they'll be doing is to push you onto the plane where you're no longer their problem.
Not having to maintain the massive amount of 32-bit support code inside Apple's various OS's will be a big win for Apple
So will we all just abandon to the scrap heap all the very expensive Apple devices that already exist and are still working? You know, all the 32 bit devices?
If Apple is not supporting 32 bit OSs anymore, then are app developers going to have to keep a copy of XCode 7 or whatever that does support the vast number of legacy devices?
Someone should write one that's like: "Hey Siri, BUG OUT!!!" which would promptly erase the phone.
Many many years ago, when Apple first came out with voice recognition for their desktop systems, I found it remarkably funny to walk by a co-worker's desk and speak loudly "computer restart yes". I can't imagine how much fun I could have if I found out anyone carrying an iPhone nearby had such a Siri command enabled.
Shouldn't they be worried about the data that is leaving the country?
They're not looking for "data". They're not looking for your company's magical design for the next cancer cure. They're not looking for the secret financial data that proves that your company is screwing the IRS.
They're looking for data that would indicate that you are not traveling for the purpose you claimed on your entry permit or visa. If you are on a tourist visa, then if they suspect that you are actually on business they will ask to see your phone's data. That SMS you forgot to delete that says "The meeting starts at 10AM tomorrow, remember to bring the business plan and samples..." will be evidence you lied. Expect more than a $5000 fine then.
This is not a blanket "search everyone looking for anything suspicious" situation. They're already suspicious, they're just acting on that suspicion. You can certainly wipe every device you carry and then expect to restore from backup once in-country, but if they're already suspicious of your motives for entry, that 3Tb USB disk with encrypted data combined with a phone and laptop that are in factory-reset condition will only make it more obvious you're up to something. Once YOU create that reasonable doubt, all the legal ways to override your blanket expectation of a guarantee of privacy kick in.
I'll mention something nobody seems to have caught, however. The summary refers to the search only being done "in flight mode", so it isn't going to include cloud data. Funny thing, you can put most phones in "flight" or "airplane" mode and then turn WiFi and bluetooth back on. It still shows the little airplane icon, but it's fully internet connected.
I suck at maths, 5 ways times 5 ways == 25, bi-directional means 50 ways.
You still suck at math. Five parties sharing means for each party there are four others to share with. Five parties sharing with the other four is 20 ways. Since the reverse direction is included, it's still just 20.
saying it is doesn't make it so. Democracy is everybody gets to a vote, they get one vote and they get to vote in elections that concern them.
That is the practical application. The basic tenet -- idea behind the system -- is that the people who vote are informed and care.
You're straw manning when you say "anyone who walks in".
No, I'm giving you the opposite to your "wrong" people claim. You say that there are those who claim that "wrong" people should not be allowed to vote. Since "wrong" people means non-citizens, non-residents, etc. as I listed, then if you oppose the idea of not allowing the "wrong" people to vote you are supporting the idea that anyone who walks in can do so.
I don't get to vote in California's Senate races.
I don't care why, but obviously then you are a "wrong" person and are not allowed to vote. Why aren't you up in arms that those awful California election officials aren't letting you vote?
You're trying to distract from the main issue, which is the suppression of legitimate voters.
Your phrase was "wrong people". Keeping the "wrong" people from voting has nothing to do with suppressing legitimate voters, since legitimate voters are not "wrong" people.
You know perfectly well what the "wrong" people means. It means people who disagree with you.
That may be what you intended to say, but you did not. "Wrong people" in the sense of what many of us don't want to be allowed to vote means exactly the list I gave previously.
You've made it very clear you'd like very much for those people to not be allowed to vote.
Oh, now you're just making shit up. The list I gave of "wrong people" had nothing to do with whether they agree with me on anything or not.
If we really care about democracy then we should make voting mandatory
A basic tenet of democracy is an informed and caring electorate making informed decisions. "Mandatory voting" is the absolute antithesis of this. Besides creating the problem of people who absolutely object to being forced to vote and decide to vote for the stupidest option just to fuck with the system, you'll have a much larger group who don't care at all and will vote based on the last sound-byte attack ad they hear.
require all states to have vote by mail
Yeah, because throwing ballots to the wind and counting whatever comes back is SO much democracy. Once you let the ballots out of your control, you lose control over who gets them, who votes them, and who sends them back.
There's a significant number of Americans who think it's a bad idea to let the "wrong" people vote.
Are there "wrong" people who we should not allow to vote? If you don't think there are, then you are in the group that thinks that anyone who walks into a polling place should be allowed to vote. Who are the "wrong" people? Non-citizens. People under the legal voting age for the state. People who don't live in that voting district. People who have already voted someplace else. You are insulting those who think the "wrong" people shouldn't vote -- and they are absolutely correct in demanding that they aren't allowed to.
And there are those of us who think that there are "wrong" people when it comes to who SHOULD vote, even if they can. People who just don't care SHOULD NOT VOTE. Their vote is noise. They are ALLOWED to vote, but they should self-select themselves out of the process.
And I'll go one further. For any taxation measure, anyone who isn't going to be paying the tax should not vote on it. For example, a proposal to add even more taxes to cigarettes should not be voted on by non-smokers. This is based on the old concept which I think was voiced by DeToqueville -- a free society can exist only until the majority realizes they can tax the minority to pay for their stuff. Or something like that.
So there.
To be fair, when the Facebook app asks for permission to access your contacts in order to look for your friends, it doesn't say "and also to fill out their shadow profiles and target ads at them".
Can you explain in simple terms how Facebook targets non-users for ads?
And why it is Facebook targeting them for ads when it is advertisers buying the advertising and providing the contact information being used to target them?
1. Information which Facebook has on people who are Facebook users, which they have not provided to Facebook and is not shown on their profile (but which Facebook may have gathered as part of a shadow profile for the user) but is targetable by advertisements
Facebook users DO NOT HAVE SHADOW PROFILES. By definition. Mislove is a FACEBOOK USER, and Facebook could have linked his super secret office phone number to his account via any number of means that he wasn't aware of, but that data is not a shadow profile.
2. Information which users have provided to Facebook for purposes other than updating their profile, which is not shown on their profile, but is still targetable by advertisements
And to that I say "do'h". They provided data to Facebook and expect Facebook not to have the data. It's not shown in their profile because it wasn't made visible to the public. But advertisers being able to target using that data is NOT revealing anything to the advertisers. The advertisers are NOT being given access to "shadow contact information" by Facebook. They have to already KNOW the contact information. The guy who bought the ad and targeted Mislove through his super secret office phone number already knew the super secret office phone number. He didn't ask Facebook to target "Alan Mislove" and Facebook didn't respond with "do you mean the Alan Mislove whose super secret office phone number is (XXX) YYY-ZZZZ?"
The biggest problem exposed by this whole brouhaha is that even professional computer science researchers don't understand how trivially easy it is for someone to link together information about them when they themselves make that information freely available to the public on their own websites. When your super secret office phone number is on the first page Google returns for your name, with a "tel" tag so automated software can trivially scrape it, then your super secret office phone number isn't very much of a secret. Failing to expect that a corporate data aggregator where you have handed over some of your personal data would not be able to aggregate that bit of data too is just ignorance of an unbelievable degree.
But everyone is triggering on the false claim that Facebook is "giving advertisers access to your shadow contact information", which is not what happened here at all. You should be looking at the ignorance of people who think Facebook doesn't link the phone number they provide for 2FA to their account. It's really pretty simple: when you tell Facebook that your phone number is X when they ask for it for 2FA, then YOU are telling them that your phone number is X. There is no magic involved when you later find out that Facebook knows your phone number is X. It should be no surprise to anyone. And if GOOGLE can find it so easily, how can you be surprised when Facebook finds it, too?
An error in understanding doesn't translate to clickbait,
Deliberate misrepresentation of the material to make it seem magical and new does translate to clickbait. Linking to a page that is 90% advertising, which automatically changes to an irrelevant page with 90% advertising when you scroll just a skootch past the clickbait article is clickbait, especially when you cannot go back to the original page using the standard "back" button.
and getting to the source isn't that hard.
You have to watch the video, which doesn't play well over the net to begin with and not at all when it isn't in a form that is playable, then go to YouTube, then click on something else, then click on something else to finally get to the source. I'm reminded of a filing cabinet in the basement...
If the /. summary wasn't clickbait, it would have linked to the paper itself. If the clickbait article wasn't clickbait, it would have a direct link to the paper. Telling someone that they have to go through half a dozen steps to get from A to B is a pretty clear admission that getting from A to B isn't as easy as you claim. Especially when it takes watching a video.
Do you dispute the point that both the summary and the article describe something that is patently absurd? If not, then stop arguing with me about it.
I don't think you get many points for being correct about something not relevant to the subject.
The summary and the news article it links to are probably relevant to the subject. If not, why do they exist?
And given the rest of your comments, it sounds like you still haven't read the paper, which is somewhat less obvious than you appear to think.
Path loss is established science. My points stand.
James Comey, then head of the FBI, declared that she's guilty, but that "no reasonable prosecutor" would pursue her.
No. No he did not. He said her staff where careless.
He did, indeed, say that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Here is the CNBC story that quotes him.
The case is unprosecutable because there isn't evidence of a crime.
From the same story:
Comey began his address by explaining what investigators found. He said that the probe showed that 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to include classified information at the time they were received. Within those emails, eight chains contained information that was "top secret" at the time they were sent, 36 had "secret" information and eight more had "confidential" information, the FBI director said.
All of that is evidence of a crime. He is further quoted as saying, in the SAME SENTENCE that contains the "no reasonable prosecutor" phrase:
"Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," he said.
There is evidence, but no prosecutor would bring a case. Further, he said:
He characterized the investigation findings as showing that Clinton and her team were "extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information" but he said there was no clear evidence they intended to violate the law.
So no, he didn't say that just Clinton's staff "where" careless. Clinton too.
But but but ... no clear evidence of intent? Sadly the laws being broken don't have an intent clause, they are broken when the act takes place, intent or not.
Despite the bleatings of the conspiracy theory set, "Grandma doesn't understand email security" isn't a crime,
But "Grandma doesn't understand what 'Top Secret' means and the necessity of safeguarding such material" IS a crime. Grandma shouldn't have had to understand email security, but since she made the attempt and failed, and had classified material transported using that email system in violation of federal law, there is a crime. A crime that Grandma had been briefed on before she was given a security clearance, by the way. Ignorance is not only not an excuse, it doesn't apply here.
join the fact based community.
A good suggestion. I suppose you would classify CNBC with Brietbart, but you can find the full statement here on the FBI's website. Are CNN and The New York Times also Brietbart sycophants?
and certainly the suggested answers, should at least be somewhat truthful and accurate.
Historical truth is controlled by the people who control the press. The internet was supposed to make that control HARDER, not easier.
It's really handy, you can get quick answers to questions... As long as the answers are reliable.
And Bing/Siri/Google get to decide for us what is reliable, on a microsecond by microsecond basis. I will point out that this is about six orders of magnitude faster than any Ministry of Truth could possibly do it, and less transparent and obvious.
Imagine asking for a copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion because you want to see for yourself the nonsense it contains, and all you get are long commentaries about what other people thought was wrong with it. Or asking for a copy of the Red and Blue books for Scientology because you want to read the words of the prophet directly -- and all you get are scientology press releases. Or asking for a historically accurate recipe for Tollhouse cookies, and getting only a modern fat-free, low calorie, vegan recipe because that's what Siri/Google/Bing have determined is better for you.
Why would you want to read pro pizzagate shit?
To see, for myself, what was said. Why do you trust the media's depiction of what you can so easily go look at yourself? Do you think the media is an unbiased, complete reporter of the news and provider of information?
Would you like a recent demonstration of how good our media is? Look in a recent /. submission about using WiFi routers to count the number of people in the room. The media report of this achievement describes a technically impossible method and provides no link to the actual scientific paper they are basing their story on. That media: epic fail. Deliberate epic fail, probably. But we should trust them to describe what pizzagate was and the actual message involved.
How is putting that shit up on the search ratings benefiting anyone?
Anyone who isn't a sheep is benefited by having actual information to evaluate for themselves when they ask for it. Asking for "pizzagate" should return the actual pizzagate message BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WAS ASKED FOR.
Here in Oregon we're being subjected to by a heated media battle over our next governor. The ads, especially one side's, are very good at giving sound bytes saying "such and such PAC said that such and such candidate said...". Should I trust "such and such PAC" to be an unbiased reporter of what was said, or should I be allowed to go read it for myself?
Here's just one glaring example of a misleading ad. The ad shows an unidentified ethnic woman saying "[candidate] sided with a right wing group to ...". If you look VERY carefully at the document she is holding, it clearly said "[right wing group] endorsed [candidate]". That's very different. (The same ad has another woman saying "[some PAC] said [candidate] said ... that's good enough for me." Complete admission of being a low interest/low information voter. A biased PAC is the sole source of her decision making. The obvious intent of the ad is for women to choose to vote for the other candidate because "an ad I saw on TV said that a biased PAC said that one candidate said ..." which is now two levels removed from the horse's mouth, through two biased filters.)
Yeah, and they get from the fucking campus directory or the business cards into Facebook...how?
I cannot access "Alan Mislove" on Facebook. All I find are links to this story. HOWEVER -- Google is your friend. If you google his name, the FIRST link provided is to his college webpage, which provides his name, address, telephone number, and a link to his "personal" website, which includes similar information PLUS a link to a map showing where he works. The college page is even helpful enough to list the office phone number with a "tel:" link so it is trivial to identify it as such.
The second and third links returned on a search of his name are to his "personal" page. One is via a vanity domain, the other direct to the college. It lists his email address, which makes it trivial to link to the college directory page.
Now, I expect that at some point someone who is so prolific in handing out his super secret office phone number has probably given Facebook his web page information for his profile. Maybe not. Maybe Facebook googled him just like I did -- that's a highly likely thing for them to do to seek more information -- and then they would find the PUBLIC information that Mislove provides freely and without limitation to the public. And Facebook.
And, even if not, then it is highly likely that someone who he has friended on Facebook has him in their contact list, with phone number, so it was even more trivial to link it to him.
If you want to prove how intrusive Facebook is, try doing it with information that doesn't take 0.35 seconds of a Google search to retrieve, using information that was almost certainly provided to Facebook by the owner.
I think we're missing the key point of TFA - Facebook knows stuff that it claims not to know.
They didn't claim not to know contact information of Facebook users. From the /. article linked to as evidence that "Facebook denied doing this":
So, these "shadow profiles" are for people who have never signed up for Facebook. Alan Mislove IS A FACEBOOK USER, and is signed up to that service. The profile that Facebook has on him is not a "shadow profile".
Also, in the previous article, if you read carefully, you'll note that Zuckerberg never denies having information on people who do not have Facebook accounts, he denies knowledge of what "some people" call such profile information. The question is "So, these are called 'shadow profiles' ...?" You are a FOOL if you answer anything but the specific question you were asked when testifying anywhere. Zuck ain't no fool.
Alice has a Facebook profile, but never links her landline phone number to it. Bob buys a Facebook ad, targeted to Alice's landline. Alice sees the ad.
The study being reported on says "They found that when a user gives Facebook a phone number for two-factor authentication or in order to receive alerts about new log-ins to a user's account". How can you claim the issue is one where the user never gives Facebook the number? They gave it to Facebook but not through the normal settings pages for entering contact information.
What do you think entering a phone number for 2FA means, if not "this number is mine"? How can you possibly imagine that this is not linking that phone number to you?
Yes, it is a problem that your friends are giving your super-secret personal information to Facebook or other data aggregators. It's a problem with your friends. And yes, I've had family members give such people my email addresses and phone number. It's a bitch.
In fact, why not just read the paper itself?
Because the clickbait had no links to any paper. Only the claim that it was using ONE WiFi router.
Yes, if you put TWO routers on the opposite sides of a room and measure the signal between them, you will measure how much attenuation there is, and you can assume it comes from people. This is true for almost any two radios, and isn't specific to WiFi. Use a pair of bluetooth devices, or something at another frequency. Hell, do it with ultrasonics. Bodies absorb that, too. Do'h. But then, you can't just walk up to a wall and make this measurement, you have to have a transmitter on the other side of the room, too.
It would've taken much longer to write out your rant above than to spend two minutes locating the paper and bypass all the misinterpretation.
Well, you know, that pretty much supports my claim that TFA is clickbait, because they deliberately misrepresent the system to make it seem more magical, and thus more likely to draw clicks from people seeking info on how it is done. If they had honestly said "path loss between two radios is dependent on the mass of water between the two antennas" I would have yawned, thought "obvious", and not clicked on the bait.
They couldn't be arsed to include a link to the actual paper. Need even more proof about being clickbait? When I scroll down below the article looking for any link to anything relevant, the site pushes me to their main page and there is no way to get back. The back arrow doesn't go anywhere.
Wouldn't it be nice if slashdot, a place for technically literate people, would bypass such nonsense and link to the paper directly, instead of to clickbait sites, or worse, previous stories about the same thing? No, that would be too much work for a submitter or editor. Your "two minutes" looking for the paper is better spent by ONE person submitting the article than potentially hundreds trying to find it themselves, don't you think?
As it stands, my comments were absolutely correct. What was described cannot possibly work for the reasons I gave, and the site and /. submission are clickbait. The fact that what the paper itself describes is simple and predictable from antenna physics is a different matter. You can find path loss calculators online. All you need to add in is the attenuation from intermediate bodies. It's also, I expect, already observed in practice by people who install wireless networks when they plan for coverage. "Hey, Bob, this AP is serving a room that can hold 250 people. Is one transmitter of X milliwatts going to be enough?"
The original link doesn't explain what pizzagate is.
The original link IS pizzagate. Isn't it the best source to determine what the pizzagate conspiracy actually is, instead of being shown only everyone else's interpretation and spin on it?
It gives you a conspiracy theory as if it was fact.
No, it does not. It does not say "this material at the end of this link is a fact". It simply provided the link to the original material. AND it provided links to everyone else explaining why it wasn't true.
So, answer the question. If I ask for the pizzagate conspiracy message, why should it NOT show me a link to that message? Because YOU think I'm too stupid to understand that is it false, or that I'll suddenly agree that it's true because I am overwhelmed by the effective and persuasive communications skill of the author?
Please. Step up to the clue machine and take the next number. You will be served in the order you arrived.
The receiver and transmitter are not using the same antenna. They are on opposite sides of the room.
From TFS:
From TFA:
A single Wi-Fi router outside of the room cannot be on opposite sides of the room. A single Wi-Fi router outside the room likely has a pair of antennas, but they are separated by at most one foot. A receiving antenna one foot from a transmitting antenna is going to see predominately the transmitted signal direct from the transmitter antenna. The people INSIDE the room will have no effect on the signal.
But a single WiFi router does not use one antenna for transmit and one for receive at the same time. That would be a stupid waste, since the receiver is only going to receive what the transmitter is sending. Why bother with that? No, the second antenna is for dual diversity -- the receiver can pick the best signal FOR RECEPTION by picking one of the two antennas.
That means that the TRANSMITTER is not TRANSMITTING while the receiver is receiving. You CANNOT measure your own signal strength because you aren't receiving when you are transmitting.
How would you even get a WiFi signal strength with just one antenna?
By measuring the signal strength at that one antenna. You can't measure your own signal strength with one, two or a hundred antennas, because you aren't receiving your own signal, but you can measure another APs signal. That requires a SECOND WiFi router. This system unambiguously says "uses a single WiFi router". Is this a trick question or what?
Now, if you aren't just using WiFi, you can do all sorts of amazing stuff with just one antenna doing both transmit and receive. We call that RADAR.
And a standard Wi-Fi router has absolutely ZERO capability of doing RADAR. That's the point. You cannot have a single WiFi router that measures its own signal strength.