You might consider that black people tend to be surprisingly socially conservative. They'd probably lean Republican, if it weren't for the racism.
When people vote for a candidate, the most pressing issue is not how socially conservative they are. The most pressing issue is MONEY.
I suppose it's a fun past time these days to call anyone who doesn't praise minorities and "people of color" all the time racist, but name one provable racist thing about the conservatives---chances are, you can't do much beyond the name calling. There have been black Republicans (even well known ones like Collin Powell, before he turned turncoat). The Bradley effect you have been hearing about? Bradley was a black Republican.
What the conservatives (traditionally, anyway, before the neocons) do stand for is individual liberty when it comes to money. Conservatives stand for the idea that the government should tax less and spend less (again, I'm excluding neocons, I do acknowledge that the Republican party hasn't been doing this, especially not in the past 8 years). Conservatives stand for the idea that one should actually earn the money he earns, not have wealth spread to them from those who earn more.
And, some people just don't like the idea of not getting free money from those who had to work harder to earn that money. They are not all African Americans (I'm sure there are whites, Asians, Latinos, and what-not who prefer free money from the government over their personal financial liberty). But if there has to be one thing that should explain 96-4 split in the black vote, it has to be MONEY issues, not the non-existent racism (or rather, imbalance of racism, since everyone is a little racist) in one party. Remember that Bradley was a Republican and it was the closet racists in the Democratic party that kept him from the gubernatorial office.
I find it kind of shocking how a good portion of slashdotters don't care much for Obama.
I've always thought of Slashdot as a libertarian-leaning site (it doesn't mean Republican or Democrat, or "right" or "left" as these terms have come to mean in the U.S.)---it certainly is, at least in narrow issues such as copyright and software freedom.
Once you consider that Obama's policies are not exactly endearing to libertarians (in fact, with Ron Paul out of the way, Obama's opponent Palin was as libertarian as they came on major tickets), it's not shocking at all how a good portion of slashdotters don't support Obama.
In fact, I find it shocking that Obama supporters can get modded up to 5s. But I guess this whole thing is similar to the whole Apple fanboy-ism---you get enough devoted people, and the libertarian slant of the site doesn't quite mean much.
I already liked the guy, but I'm honestly impressed by this. Any information from the government can be suspected as 'propaganda'. At least this site puts forth their agenda in an easy to navigate, plain English fashion.
Er, have you ever seen a propaganda in heavily-guarded legalese?
Propaganda is always distributed in plain, easily misinterpreted English which can be swallowed by the sheeple in bite-sized pieces. This is hardly something that should be commended.
This change.gov takes the worst of both worlds---demagoguery of "going directly to the people" over the heads of their elected representatives (i.e. worst of the participatory democracy) and the complete opacity and invisibility of opposing view points (i.e. worst of the representative democracy).
Either it is an open forum where everyone can have their say within simple rules, or it's propaganda, as simple as that. As for the "ease of understanding", well, when you get raped from behind, do you commend your attacker for using lubricants?
Why do I have this funny feeling that 50 hours of signing up the homeless in heavily Democratic districts will easily qualify as "community service" while 50 hours of working with a libertarian organization to oppose eminent domain laws, or working with a law firm fighting campus speech codes, may just barely fail to pass muster??
Worse, with the standards ACORN has set, 50 hours of "signing up" nonexistent "voters" in swing states during an election season will easily qualify and be encouraged as "community service".
And by that logic, I don't see anything in the constitution that expressly forbids government officials from raping you and taking advantage of your daughters, as long as they don't quarter troops or do unreasonable search and seizure.
Do you see where you are headed once you are on that slope?
Just because it's not forbidden expressly doesn't mean the government should be able to do it. Anything that isn't expressly allowed is assumed to be forbidden, for the government.
While I do agree that she sounds like she was quoted out of context (she was probably describing an almost spiritual experience, where mundane worries are no longer a concern), if you really think Obama's policies (or really, anyone's policies) can do anything to alleviate these issues, you are as deluded as the mainstream media.
For mortgages, the mortgage companies were not really the problem---it was the deadbeat buyers who bought houses they couldn't afford. The only faults of mortgage companies was that they were too generous, too forgiving of the risks. Yes, perhaps that should have been regulated better, but regulating these companies will do nothing for the deadbeat "homeowners" who won't pay mortgage---and really, these people shouldn't be in those houses, if they can't pay for it, no more than I should eat in a restaurant, if I can't pay what they charge.
For oil, oil prices are set by OPEC, as you acknowledged, not by the POTUS. POTUS is powerless to control the oil price except in very insignificant ways that is only a drop in the bucket in the short term (someone can, of course, put us on a path that does not depend on fossil fuel on the long term, of course, but no one is going to accomplish that in 4 or 8 years), anyone who says otherwise is out to betray you.
I will admit that I didn't vote for Obama (I always vote libertarian---I voted for Palin). But to all but Obama's most devoted followers, it should be obvious that even he is powerless against the tides of the world. If you don't agree now, check back in 2 years and see how much difference he has made.
You can say that again... when the white demographic votes to support a white candidate over a black, Asian, or Hispanic (or Native American, or whatever you want) candidate by such overwhelming percentage as 90%. The white demographic, even in the midst of Palinmania, and even when you just consider the white women, was practically split right down the middle, in comparison with the breakdown of the black demographic.
Given enough number of voters, you just can't get 90% of the vote, at least not based on rational issues---racism or communism, that's an entirely different matter.
Parent was modded funny, but that site actually allows you to share your ideas with the President-Elect.
What if His Highness doesn't approve of your lowly opinion?
In this day and age, where is a free forum where everyone can post, with minimal moderation to control spamming? I thought this campaign was about change, but it looks like it's the same old.
So yes, you CAN strip them down to run on a given machine, but it's not likely to work well out of the box.
Maybe I have a different definition of "out of the box", but GNU/Linux does work well on old hardware out of the box, just not the same box as where most people get their stuff.
On Debian, you can simply do a netinstall with base environment and apt-get install things as you need them. You get a pretty minimal install, and you didn't need to do any stripping down (simply *not* putting the fat on).
I would consider that "out of the box", and I think you can do the same thing with Ubuntu, i.e. install a minimal environment initially and apt-get install programs as you need them.
Unless you need to build your own kernel (and given how modularized most distro's kernels are, that's probably unnecessary) or compile your own stuff somehow, it's still all "out of the box"---most of the work that needs to be done for "stripping down" has already been done by the package maintainers.
So if "No One knows X" (wp) and if "WP doesn't know X" (logic, me) then WP= "No One"
You need remedial logic classes.
Granted, in all these discussions of mock logic that you initiated, all the terms are so poorly defined that any idiot can strangle any meaning out of a given string of words. But, even admitting your additional condition of "Someone knows X" (let's ignore for the moment that since this is strictly contradictory to "no one knows X", it makes absolutely no sense, logically, to assume that both sentences are true), what you said does not follow, by "conventional" definition of "someone" and "no one". The only way to make your sentence give any logical sense (again, ignoring the fatal mistakes made earlier on, if that were possible) is by defining "no one" in such a way so that it means "not that someone who knows X" (so that if you take "no one" to mean an entity of no consequence, importance of a being is essentially reduced to a greatly oversimplified condition of knowing X---as if X were the question and answer to life, universe, and everything)---and, at this point, you've defined your way out of the hole that you dug (the same way Bush could declare "mission accomplished"), but any miserable failure can do that always anyway.
If you don't know formal logic, don't even try using it in discussions---trying to sound smart without actually being makes you look even dumber.
Wow, it's LIKE an article. It's just missing any news. "No one knows" -- Uh, yeah someone knows. The Washington post doesn't know.
Ergo "The Washington Post" == "No one"
Er, your criticism may be valid, but your grammar is way off. Consider the following:
"No one knows X" AND "The Washington Post doesn't know X"
If you didn't fail grammar school level logic lessons, then it follows "The Washington Post is not 'no one'", since if it were 'no one', it would've known "X".
I am very tempted to introduce a certain pot to a kettle.
The way I see it, problem is not a matter of fitness---it's a matter of desirability of the outcome.
In today's society, we have highly educated people in developed cultures (hence "successful" and "desirable" to some degree) producing fewer and fewer children, while the less educated in under-developed world continue to grow in population.
By definition, this would make those who are less educated "fit". Not that there is a problem with that, but if we are to assume that human evolution should point in the direction of higher intelligence, this is definitely not a desirable outcome.
Very true. It is also true that if you think what someone puts on Facebook and MySpace is relevant to their academic performance, then you shouldn't be in charge of admissions decisions for a good school, or any school. If you think it's relevant to job performance, you shouldn't be making hiring decisions, either.
Indeed. If my potential employer considers me unqualified merely based on what he finds on the Internet (because if it's on the Internet, it must be true!), rather than trusting what I have on my resume and application, and what I said in the interview, well...
I don't want to work for him either.
There are a lot of terrible things about me on the Internet. Most of them are lies (most of them I put up myself), and if someone is willing to believe them, let them. I hate to associate with suspicious, disbelieving people.
Not mine. There is a standard for using strong encryption when sending email, it's called STARTTLS and it has been in the SMTP standard for more than a decade.
Well, from your computer to your SMTP server, yes.
But, if you had a Yahoo! account, and you sent an email to a Gmail account, how do you think the email will be sent across these two servers? PLAINTEXT.
Truth is, unless you encrypt the email body itself with something like PGP (using GnuPG, etc.), at some point it will be sent across *some* network in plaintext.
Of course they do campaign quite a bit even when the house/senate is in session. If they were not allowed to, incumbents would be at a huge disadvantage.
Given the disastrous re-election rate our incumbents have (something in the upper 80s I think), I'm not sure if I would be against such a prohibition. If we make it harder for incumbents to get re-elected (without an actual term limit, so that the good ones can always stay), there won't be so much clammer about reforming the Washington or the good ol' boys' network.
If Debian can work out an agreement, that agreement needs to be with the entire free software community; the agreement must not be limited to something named Debian (after all, if the agreement becomes invalid when someone takes that component out of Debian, then by the general consensus, that component is not free).
Affordable. Only $219 a new lower price and a fraction of the cost of a standard laptop
Well, my laptop cost only a fraction of the cost of a mainframe, but I haven't heard that used as a selling point.
You can't compare an apple to a whole fruit basket and say that an apple costs only $10 while the fruit basket costs $30, and therefore it is cheap.
This thing seems to cost a gigantic $219 (more than lower end PDAs, which can do far more than what this can do!) for what is essentially a glorified typewriter.
How in the World can you tell if someone has ripped off your code?
Sometimes, they will straight out tell you that they did.
GPL violation happens most often with those who make embedded products, who make absolutely no effort to hide their mistakes (they simply didn't understand what GPL meant---but I think that's changing, thankfully), e.g. sometimes they will say somewhere either on the manual or the website that the product uses something like busybox.
Of course, there are some really bad guys who do all the obfuscation others mention, but for the most infringers, their main faults are that they didn't understand the terms of the license of the product that they were using (and thought it was free as in beer), and that they ignored the initial requests for compliance.
It could also be justifiably considered harassment or stalking, and a restraining order would effectively curtail your first amendment right.
I'm fairly sure that to make something "harassment", it would have to be more than posting your wireless router's (and other devices') MAC, along with thousands of others' on some website.
Someone posting a MAC address with that device's home address is no more "stalking" than posting a street address with its GPS coordinates on the web (or posting a street address with the picture of the house as seen from public street, if you want to make it more personal---and this is way more personal than MAC addresses).
What I'm saying above is what anyone with a common sense would say (not to mention that there is a similar case where such things were allowed). If you still disagree and want to argue your point, I'd suggest that you come back with some supporting court cases; otherwise you are a simple fearmongerer.
For example, anyone could observe that you've left your house or arrived home. However, if somebody watches your house for 2 weeks and writes down every time you left or arrived, is that legal? If they posted it on the internet, would that be legal?
Yes. It is legal---in the U.S. at least, there is this thing called "First Amendment".
When you leave your house, you do not have a reasonable expectation to privacy (one of the few things that can restrict someone's first amendment rights), so, I would guess the same First Amendment rights that lets you publish SSNs of homeowners (although in this case, you are simply re-publishing something that the government already did) lets you publish MAC, which is public information in any case.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care so much about the right to bare arms as much as I do about the right (and duty!) to bare breasts.
Just imagine: a blond beauty baring breasts bearing a sniper rifle. Is there a more beautiful sight?
You might consider that black people tend to be surprisingly socially conservative. They'd probably lean Republican, if it weren't for the racism.
When people vote for a candidate, the most pressing issue is not how socially conservative they are. The most pressing issue is MONEY.
I suppose it's a fun past time these days to call anyone who doesn't praise minorities and "people of color" all the time racist, but name one provable racist thing about the conservatives---chances are, you can't do much beyond the name calling. There have been black Republicans (even well known ones like Collin Powell, before he turned turncoat). The Bradley effect you have been hearing about? Bradley was a black Republican.
What the conservatives (traditionally, anyway, before the neocons) do stand for is individual liberty when it comes to money. Conservatives stand for the idea that the government should tax less and spend less (again, I'm excluding neocons, I do acknowledge that the Republican party hasn't been doing this, especially not in the past 8 years). Conservatives stand for the idea that one should actually earn the money he earns, not have wealth spread to them from those who earn more.
And, some people just don't like the idea of not getting free money from those who had to work harder to earn that money. They are not all African Americans (I'm sure there are whites, Asians, Latinos, and what-not who prefer free money from the government over their personal financial liberty). But if there has to be one thing that should explain 96-4 split in the black vote, it has to be MONEY issues, not the non-existent racism (or rather, imbalance of racism, since everyone is a little racist) in one party. Remember that Bradley was a Republican and it was the closet racists in the Democratic party that kept him from the gubernatorial office.
I find it kind of shocking how a good portion of slashdotters don't care much for Obama.
I've always thought of Slashdot as a libertarian-leaning site (it doesn't mean Republican or Democrat, or "right" or "left" as these terms have come to mean in the U.S.)---it certainly is, at least in narrow issues such as copyright and software freedom.
Once you consider that Obama's policies are not exactly endearing to libertarians (in fact, with Ron Paul out of the way, Obama's opponent Palin was as libertarian as they came on major tickets), it's not shocking at all how a good portion of slashdotters don't support Obama.
In fact, I find it shocking that Obama supporters can get modded up to 5s. But I guess this whole thing is similar to the whole Apple fanboy-ism---you get enough devoted people, and the libertarian slant of the site doesn't quite mean much.
I already liked the guy, but I'm honestly impressed by this. Any information from the government can be suspected as 'propaganda'. At least this site puts forth their agenda in an easy to navigate, plain English fashion.
Er, have you ever seen a propaganda in heavily-guarded legalese?
Propaganda is always distributed in plain, easily misinterpreted English which can be swallowed by the sheeple in bite-sized pieces. This is hardly something that should be commended.
This change.gov takes the worst of both worlds---demagoguery of "going directly to the people" over the heads of their elected representatives (i.e. worst of the participatory democracy) and the complete opacity and invisibility of opposing view points (i.e. worst of the representative democracy).
Either it is an open forum where everyone can have their say within simple rules, or it's propaganda, as simple as that. As for the "ease of understanding", well, when you get raped from behind, do you commend your attacker for using lubricants?
Why do I have this funny feeling that 50 hours of signing up the homeless in heavily Democratic districts will easily qualify as "community service" while 50 hours of working with a libertarian organization to oppose eminent domain laws, or working with a law firm fighting campus speech codes, may just barely fail to pass muster??
Worse, with the standards ACORN has set, 50 hours of "signing up" nonexistent "voters" in swing states during an election season will easily qualify and be encouraged as "community service".
And by that logic, I don't see anything in the constitution that expressly forbids government officials from raping you and taking advantage of your daughters, as long as they don't quarter troops or do unreasonable search and seizure.
Do you see where you are headed once you are on that slope?
Just because it's not forbidden expressly doesn't mean the government should be able to do it. Anything that isn't expressly allowed is assumed to be forbidden, for the government.
Ah, but this isn't the mainstream media.
So, again, the whole "change" was just rhetoric, no more.
Is it even desired?
These days, I think it's scorned in favor of blind following of charismatic Messiah figures.
Keep drinking the Obama Cool-Aids.
While I do agree that she sounds like she was quoted out of context (she was probably describing an almost spiritual experience, where mundane worries are no longer a concern), if you really think Obama's policies (or really, anyone's policies) can do anything to alleviate these issues, you are as deluded as the mainstream media.
For mortgages, the mortgage companies were not really the problem---it was the deadbeat buyers who bought houses they couldn't afford. The only faults of mortgage companies was that they were too generous, too forgiving of the risks. Yes, perhaps that should have been regulated better, but regulating these companies will do nothing for the deadbeat "homeowners" who won't pay mortgage---and really, these people shouldn't be in those houses, if they can't pay for it, no more than I should eat in a restaurant, if I can't pay what they charge.
For oil, oil prices are set by OPEC, as you acknowledged, not by the POTUS. POTUS is powerless to control the oil price except in very insignificant ways that is only a drop in the bucket in the short term (someone can, of course, put us on a path that does not depend on fossil fuel on the long term, of course, but no one is going to accomplish that in 4 or 8 years), anyone who says otherwise is out to betray you.
I will admit that I didn't vote for Obama (I always vote libertarian---I voted for Palin). But to all but Obama's most devoted followers, it should be obvious that even he is powerless against the tides of the world. If you don't agree now, check back in 2 years and see how much difference he has made.
This racism deal goes both ways.
You can say that again ... when the white demographic votes to support a white candidate over a black, Asian, or Hispanic (or Native American, or whatever you want) candidate by such overwhelming percentage as 90%. The white demographic, even in the midst of Palinmania, and even when you just consider the white women, was practically split right down the middle, in comparison with the breakdown of the black demographic.
Given enough number of voters, you just can't get 90% of the vote, at least not based on rational issues---racism or communism, that's an entirely different matter.
Parent was modded funny, but that site actually allows you to share your ideas with the President-Elect.
What if His Highness doesn't approve of your lowly opinion?
In this day and age, where is a free forum where everyone can post, with minimal moderation to control spamming? I thought this campaign was about change, but it looks like it's the same old.
So yes, you CAN strip them down to run on a given machine, but it's not likely to work well out of the box.
Maybe I have a different definition of "out of the box", but GNU/Linux does work well on old hardware out of the box, just not the same box as where most people get their stuff.
On Debian, you can simply do a netinstall with base environment and apt-get install things as you need them. You get a pretty minimal install, and you didn't need to do any stripping down (simply *not* putting the fat on).
I would consider that "out of the box", and I think you can do the same thing with Ubuntu, i.e. install a minimal environment initially and apt-get install programs as you need them.
Unless you need to build your own kernel (and given how modularized most distro's kernels are, that's probably unnecessary) or compile your own stuff somehow, it's still all "out of the box"---most of the work that needs to be done for "stripping down" has already been done by the package maintainers.
So if "No One knows X" (wp) and if "WP doesn't know X" (logic, me) then WP= "No One"
You need remedial logic classes.
Granted, in all these discussions of mock logic that you initiated, all the terms are so poorly defined that any idiot can strangle any meaning out of a given string of words. But, even admitting your additional condition of "Someone knows X" (let's ignore for the moment that since this is strictly contradictory to "no one knows X", it makes absolutely no sense, logically, to assume that both sentences are true), what you said does not follow, by "conventional" definition of "someone" and "no one". The only way to make your sentence give any logical sense (again, ignoring the fatal mistakes made earlier on, if that were possible) is by defining "no one" in such a way so that it means "not that someone who knows X" (so that if you take "no one" to mean an entity of no consequence, importance of a being is essentially reduced to a greatly oversimplified condition of knowing X---as if X were the question and answer to life, universe, and everything)---and, at this point, you've defined your way out of the hole that you dug (the same way Bush could declare "mission accomplished"), but any miserable failure can do that always anyway.
If you don't know formal logic, don't even try using it in discussions---trying to sound smart without actually being makes you look even dumber.
Wow, it's LIKE an article. It's just missing any news. "No one knows" -- Uh, yeah someone knows. The Washington post doesn't know.
Ergo "The Washington Post" == "No one"
Er, your criticism may be valid, but your grammar is way off. Consider the following:
"No one knows X" AND "The Washington Post doesn't know X"
If you didn't fail grammar school level logic lessons, then it follows "The Washington Post is not 'no one'", since if it were 'no one', it would've known "X".
I am very tempted to introduce a certain pot to a kettle.
The way I see it, problem is not a matter of fitness---it's a matter of desirability of the outcome.
In today's society, we have highly educated people in developed cultures (hence "successful" and "desirable" to some degree) producing fewer and fewer children, while the less educated in under-developed world continue to grow in population.
By definition, this would make those who are less educated "fit". Not that there is a problem with that, but if we are to assume that human evolution should point in the direction of higher intelligence, this is definitely not a desirable outcome.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that not every lawyer is a RIAA extortionist.
But can you say that Obama was a good lawyer, i.e. any of those wonderful people that you mentioned?
Until you can say that, I guess Obama was another bad lawyer.
Very true. It is also true that if you think what someone puts on Facebook and MySpace is relevant to their academic performance, then you shouldn't be in charge of admissions decisions for a good school, or any school. If you think it's relevant to job performance, you shouldn't be making hiring decisions, either.
Indeed. If my potential employer considers me unqualified merely based on what he finds on the Internet (because if it's on the Internet, it must be true!), rather than trusting what I have on my resume and application, and what I said in the interview, well ...
I don't want to work for him either.
There are a lot of terrible things about me on the Internet. Most of them are lies (most of them I put up myself), and if someone is willing to believe them, let them. I hate to associate with suspicious, disbelieving people.
Not mine. There is a standard for using strong encryption when sending email, it's called STARTTLS and it has been in the SMTP standard for more than a decade.
Well, from your computer to your SMTP server, yes.
But, if you had a Yahoo! account, and you sent an email to a Gmail account, how do you think the email will be sent across these two servers? PLAINTEXT.
Truth is, unless you encrypt the email body itself with something like PGP (using GnuPG, etc.), at some point it will be sent across *some* network in plaintext.
Of course they do campaign quite a bit even when the house/senate is in session. If they were not allowed to, incumbents would be at a huge disadvantage.
Given the disastrous re-election rate our incumbents have (something in the upper 80s I think), I'm not sure if I would be against such a prohibition. If we make it harder for incumbents to get re-elected (without an actual term limit, so that the good ones can always stay), there won't be so much clammer about reforming the Washington or the good ol' boys' network.
You're full of shit. Nobody is calling Obama Jesus
Right. They are just acting like he is. Real difference.
I believe that Debian was prevented from accepting a similar agreement because it in some way conflicted with their ideology.
Not "in some way". It conflicts with an explicitly stated guideline, in particular,
8. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian.
If Debian can work out an agreement, that agreement needs to be with the entire free software community; the agreement must not be limited to something named Debian (after all, if the agreement becomes invalid when someone takes that component out of Debian, then by the general consensus, that component is not free).
Affordable. Only $219 a new lower price and a fraction of the cost of a standard laptop
Well, my laptop cost only a fraction of the cost of a mainframe, but I haven't heard that used as a selling point.
You can't compare an apple to a whole fruit basket and say that an apple costs only $10 while the fruit basket costs $30, and therefore it is cheap.
This thing seems to cost a gigantic $219 (more than lower end PDAs, which can do far more than what this can do!) for what is essentially a glorified typewriter.
How in the World can you tell if someone has ripped off your code?
Sometimes, they will straight out tell you that they did.
GPL violation happens most often with those who make embedded products, who make absolutely no effort to hide their mistakes (they simply didn't understand what GPL meant---but I think that's changing, thankfully), e.g. sometimes they will say somewhere either on the manual or the website that the product uses something like busybox.
Of course, there are some really bad guys who do all the obfuscation others mention, but for the most infringers, their main faults are that they didn't understand the terms of the license of the product that they were using (and thought it was free as in beer), and that they ignored the initial requests for compliance.
It could also be justifiably considered harassment or stalking, and a restraining order would effectively curtail your first amendment right.
I'm fairly sure that to make something "harassment", it would have to be more than posting your wireless router's (and other devices') MAC, along with thousands of others' on some website.
Someone posting a MAC address with that device's home address is no more "stalking" than posting a street address with its GPS coordinates on the web (or posting a street address with the picture of the house as seen from public street, if you want to make it more personal---and this is way more personal than MAC addresses).
What I'm saying above is what anyone with a common sense would say (not to mention that there is a similar case where such things were allowed). If you still disagree and want to argue your point, I'd suggest that you come back with some supporting court cases; otherwise you are a simple fearmongerer.
For example, anyone could observe that you've left your house or arrived home. However, if somebody watches your house for 2 weeks and writes down every time you left or arrived, is that legal? If they posted it on the internet, would that be legal?
Yes. It is legal---in the U.S. at least, there is this thing called "First Amendment".
When you leave your house, you do not have a reasonable expectation to privacy (one of the few things that can restrict someone's first amendment rights), so, I would guess the same First Amendment rights that lets you publish SSNs of homeowners (although in this case, you are simply re-publishing something that the government already did) lets you publish MAC, which is public information in any case.