Slashdot Mirror


Many Hackers Too Fat For The FBI

CaveDwler writes: "Want to work for the FBI in computer security? Better put down your cheesey poofs and pick up your M16. According to this article over on Wired, you have to pass physical requirements in order to work with FBI in computer security."

581 comments

  1. But then... by Kid+Zero · · Score: 1

    Many never have to run from the FBI.

    1. Re:But then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard they didnt make shirts larger than XL for the FBI employees ;)

    2. Re:But then... by eggsovereasy · · Score: 1

      I'm 6'4" and XL is on the verge of being too short =P

  2. Re:fp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ho i actually got FP O_o greetz to all the trolls I owned now back to my normal non AC postingz w00t

    trollpoll:
    fps, goatses, or other trollin?

    oi now I gotta wait another minute..

    s10w, my damn CABLE that 0wned j00 is goin too fast to p0st on slashd0t

  3. Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Phat, surely...

  4. Too bad by flewp · · Score: 2

    for CowboyNeal.

    --
    WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    1. Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh dip! Whatta maja dis, yo. That shit was fucked up.

  5. Wow, this is news! by solarrhino · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hackers? Too Fat? Say it's aint so!

    --
    "Lord, grant that I may always be right, for Thou knowest that I am hard to turn" -- A Scots-Irish prayer
    1. Re:Wow, this is news! by kubrick · · Score: 1

      News for nerds... well, those with a positive but misguided image of their bodies, anyway. :)

      --
      deus does not exist but if he does
  6. Forget the physical... by skribble · · Score: 1

    It's the polygraph and the fact you're disqualified for ...ummm... "experimenting" with excessive chemical substances in the past that get's me (or should I say wouldn't get me... a job with the FBI)

    --
    --- Nothing To See Here ---
    1. Re:Forget the physical... by Golias · · Score: 2, Insightful
      While I feel bad for you and anybody else who would want to help that gets eliminated for various recreational substance use (or, as the headline implies, for obesity), I'm personally glad that the FBI is still tough for Joe Average to get into, even if he does grok relational databases.

      Contraray to what we all like our PHB to believe, most technical skills are not hard to learn. Modern development and administration tools make most of the work fairly easy to do, once you acquire the needed knowledge of the systems. Even a total moron (who has an advanced degree in astrophysics, wa-hey!) can run an app in debug mode until he gets it working. What sets us geeks apart (or has so far, anyway) is the desire to learn this shit.

      If the FBI recruits a good person, who won't have an acid flashback or a massive stroke two weeks after getting hired, and won't sell everything he knows to foreign governments in exchange for a box of Cheez-Its, they can train him in on what he doesn't know later.

      Besides, in the current market, you can afford to weed out the overweight, the hippies, the criminals, the people who don't clean under their fingernails, and anybody who uses the wrong conditioner for their ph balance, and still have lots of solid candidates to interview.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:Forget the physical... by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      "Even a total moron (who has an advanced degree in astrophysics, wa-hey!) can run an app in debug mode until he gets it working."

      Uh, there's some sarcasm there, right?

      An *undergrad* in astrophysics requires the same
      3 semesters of calculus as any other Physics, or Chemistry, right? Anybody who can pull that off is immune from EVER being called a moron.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    3. Re:Forget the physical... by tokki · · Score: 1

      I disagree with the PHB statement. There seems to be a small portion of the population that seem to have a natural skill for all things technical. It's just like any other talent, such as a talent for math, writing, drawing, etc. Some people have it, some people don't, despite how much they try. There are plenty of incredibly intelligent and accomplished people in various fields who can't discern a dialog box from a hole in the ground, and plenty of techies who think diagraming a sentance involves Visio.

    4. Re:Forget the physical... by Golias · · Score: 1

      It was a "Professor Frink" quote from a Simpsons Halloween special. Don't worry, it looks like a moderator missed the pop-culture reference as well, and modded me down as flame-bait... so you are in good company.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:Forget the physical... by the+way,+what're+you · · Score: 1

      don't worry, paint thinner doesn't count.

      --
      example.org - powered by Linux!
    6. Re:Forget the physical... by woogieoogieboogie · · Score: 1
      "What sets us geeks apart (or has so far, anyway) is the desire to learn this shit. "

      That is what sets every career apart; the desire to learn that career.

      --
      ... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
    7. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a good thing the CIA doesn't hire based upon that rule. Otherwise the organization might have to fire its own staff.

    8. Re:Forget the physical... by Golias · · Score: 1
      That is what sets every career apart; the desire to learn that career.

      If that was true, I would be an NBA center, getting paid millions to post up against Shaq for the Timberwolves. I guess I didn't want to be tall and athletic badly enough.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    9. Re:Forget the physical... by DragonTHC · · Score: 0

      you are a moron. Technical skills cannot be learned unless you are a technical person. it's a fact of life. I grew up tinkering and taking every piece of electronics apart that I could get my hands on. I am technical. I think technical. I would never trust my networks to the captain of the high school football team. after age 6, if you aren't technical it's too late.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    10. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're not technical, you're a fucking loser. Grow up.

    11. Re:Forget the physical... by yiantsbro · · Score: 1

      hey, even my Computer Science degree (BS) required 3 semesters of calculus....

      of course it took me 5 semesters to get through...

    12. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, taking calculus really means you're not a moron.

      You should vote for Hagelin next time around, he's taken those same calculus classes.

    13. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are all knowledge issues, not apptitude. After a certain age it becomes a plasticity issue, as well as a matter of the effort one is willing to expend to adopt the lexicon of the latest fad. There are people that are attracted to the inane aspects of using computers, but big deal. You're not a genius because you can configure bind. If that professor of Physics had been 16 in '95, he would be able to configure bind, too.

    14. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close, but an ex-boss of mine is proof of what happens when someone who "wants" to learn technical shit tries to. He's an ex-miner and just couldn't figure out that chatting about your sex life to co-workers at 6:50 AM is totally not cool.

      Not to mention the "I don't have a real computer at home so I have a life" attitude helps ensure the demoralization process continues.

      But he passes all the FBI requirements. Strong as an ox, hard-headed (once he's taught to be), and certainly not fat. And he keeps telling us about how interested he is in computers (beats the hell outta me how you can say that and have a shitbox computer at home if you have a well paying fulltime job)...

      But hey, you just can't polish a turd, I'm sorry to say.

    15. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the FBI recruits a good person, who won't have [..] sell everything he knows to foreign governments [..] for a box of Cheez-Its

      Mmm, Cheez-Its, where can I sign up? Also, I would like to add that I don't like the FBI, but I do find their egos to be amusing.

    16. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is spud web a real name? and would that discredit this statement to some extent? Hell if I know, sports suck. Where are those cheesy poofs?

    17. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are confusing technical and not-idiot. I disagree, I think you can learn entirely new skill sets at any age in life, providing you have the drive, and more over, provided you aren't an idiot. Although I guess I was kinda geeky even at a young age, I can't really recall age =6 but maybe you've smoked less pot than me.

    18. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But hey, you just can't polish a turd, I'm sorry to say.

      No, actually Turtle(TM) makes a wax for that now

    19. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that aint it... fools like you are just idiots

    20. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol..i am 17, in the past 3 years i have done at least 40 college finals in different coding langs for around 500$ each, and i don't plan on going to college, or finishing high school, i am moving to nz because they don't look for degrees that prove nothing, college is meaningless(btw, i also taught myself advanced calculus, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermo-dynamics, astro-physics, cosmology, and am well off with writing( not on /. of course:)), art(graphical), music, phylosophy; and as i said, without college, and dropping out of highschool senior year after flunking for about 7 years(not the same grade mind you), because the educational system is crap, yes you can be called a moron with any kind of degree, and no people who don't have one of any kind cannot without examining why..i hate you brown-nosing pricks

    21. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and people who are well of socially(not myself o anyone else on /. of course:) ), its a different skillset, and apparently as hard as or harder than the tech stuff, because(in cases of the extreme techs nad extremly popular people) its one or the other.

    22. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's the polygraph and the fact you're disqualified for ...ummm... "experimenting" with excessive chemical substances in the past that get's me (or should I say wouldn't get me... a job with the FBI)

      Typical bullshit job requirements. These idiots all dreamed this crap up years ago by profiling the achievers in their field. Then they made a one size fits all job requirement, regardless of whether the individual pieces really contribute to job performance. I know one woman working for the Feds who's a turnaround artist. She can go into an agency full of non-performers who can't meet goals or deadlines and get them on track. She's done it many times, but can't get a promotion because "she doesn't delegate enough." Shit, she gets the job done. She just doesn't fit some goddamned meaningless part of the profile. It's as stupid as saying someone who's a good hacker is disqualified because he bites his nails "and that's a nervous habit". Buncha shit.

    23. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      hey, even my Computer Science degree (BS) required 3 semesters of calculus....

      of course it took me 5 semesters to get through...

      And your toughest three years of school was fifth grade, right?

    24. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Where are those cheesy poofs?

      You'll find them in the below-median gay bars in England.

    25. Re:Forget the physical... by bblgoose · · Score: 2, Funny

      Never trust anyone whose VCR blinks 12:00

    26. Re:Forget the physical... by thempstead · · Score: 1

      No longer true ... some videos automatically sink their time via the broadcast signal .... so we're back to not trusting anyone!!!

    27. Re:Forget the physical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spud Webb is a real name. But, no. He was a point guard (a position which does not require height nearly as much as center does).

    28. Re:Forget the physical... by DohDamit · · Score: 1

      ....were....not was.

    29. Re:Forget the physical... by DohDamit · · Score: 2

      Well....at least you're 17. The rest of it is BS, of course.

    30. Re:Forget the physical... by Sibelius · · Score: 1

      Awww, that's really cute. ::pats your head::

      Have fun with the mutton in NZ; It's really a beautiful country.

    31. Re:Forget the physical... by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1
      phylosophy

      Seems to me that if you really had studied it, you'd at least know how to spell it correctly. I call bullshit!

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
    32. Re:Forget the physical... by DataDawg · · Score: 1

      Maybe you could teach yourself punctuation and grammer, too!

  7. Required of all "Agents" by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1

    These physical, and legal reqirements are for all "Agents", but as the artical says, if you're not a agent, you're at the bottom of the food chain. Take up basketball and stop drinking, it will do you good anyway.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
    1. Re:Required of all "Agents" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop drinking?!?! Nah, its all a mater of balance. I generally offset the hours of binge drinking with a couple of good sessions in the gym and Im a slender 14st7lb :)

      Trust me that is light for my height and muscle weighs more than fat. honest :)

    2. Re:Required of all "Agents" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop drinking?!?!

      Heyu thaht'S what miuy post was baout

    3. Re:Required of all "Agents" by Sibelius · · Score: 1

      You know you've hit rock bottom when you've been reading /. for several hours, drunk out of your mind and looking for some meaning in your life.

  8. poofs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Better put down your cheesey poofs

    But can we still have powdered donut pancake surprise?

  9. The drug requirements by Ray+Yang · · Score: 1

    Far more inane is the requirement on marijuana smoking. Now, I've never touched the stuff, but I *know* people like me are a tiny minority of the talent pool out there. Yet another case of a rather pathetic "zero-tolerance" style "get-tough" policy coming back to bite its originators in the butt.

    1. Re:The drug requirements by tedDancin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yet another case of a rather pathetic "zero-tolerance" style "get-tough" policy

      You better make that "fifteen-tolerance"..

      "One question on the application asked if you'd smoked pot more than 15 times," Sweeny recalled. "Fifteen times? What's up with that? Fifteen is the magic number?"

      --

      Ladies, form queue here -->
    2. Re:The drug requirements by mattm76 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've touched the stuff. I've even put in my mouth when it was on fire and inhaled the poisonous smoke into my lungs and held it for a few seconds. It was alright. Still would rather drink and more of a menace to society. I haven't done it more than 15 times in my life, so I guess I still have the mental capacity to work for the government. Hell, the commander in chief snorted coke, and he's not doing too bad. Apparently raging alcoholics will be able to get on before I do because I've smoked pot in the past 3 years. Oh well, their loss!

    3. Re:The drug requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you deserve to lose your house, car, savings, computer equipment, civil liberties, freedom, privacy... You drugged out hippies should all be shot...

      WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN ...

    4. Re:The drug requirements by LinuxInDallas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The drug requirement also serves another purpose. By getting someone that has done little-to-nothing wrong during their life they minimize the chance that you can be blackmailed at some point during your career.

    5. Re:The drug requirements by hazem · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you can only be blackmailed about it if you think it's wrong and you don't want people to find out.

      If you smoke a few joints and you're open about it, chances are it would not make good leverage for blackmail.

      What works much better is to find someone who appears to be "goody-two-shoes" or boyscout and cares to maintain that image. It's when he has some kind of secret deviance that he wants to keep secret that makes him an excellent subject for blackmail.

      I used to give SAEDA briefings in the Army - Subversion and Espionage Directed Against the US Army. This article is about the FBI, but it's the same game.

    6. Re:The drug requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > getting someone that has done little-to-nothing wrong during their life they minimize the chance that you can be blackmailed at some point during your career..

      To be blackmailed you have to do something really, really, evil. Like smoke pot the 16th time. So, I doubt that has much to do with it.

      It is more likely they can more properly indoctrinate "prefect" little anal-retentive types with an absolute fear of the law. In these types of people, a few standard cultish mind control tricks to and the conscience can be dispatched forthwith.

      Fact is, the first steps of personal resistance in an unjust regime is almost always "passive" disregard for the unjust laws imposed. In breaking such trivial laws as smoking pot, you signal yourself as a disident.

      You'd think in a "free" country there'd be room in the system for disidents that have not, and have no intention of, commiting crimes against their fellow citizens.

      Guess not.

    7. Re:The drug requirements by rodgerd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Interesting argument, that one is. One of the reasons the British intelligence agencies got penetrated so thoroughly in the 50s and 60s was because they made homosexuality a dismissal offence (as well a a criminal one).

      This provided the Soviets with all the leverage they needed - because while homosexuality was still officially a crime, it was a crime to which a blind eye was generally turned. But agents could be trivially turned by supplying them with an attractive man, getting photos, and threatening ruin.

      So on one hand, sure, recruiting agents who are squeaky clean can help make it hard for others to exploit them against you, having recruitment standards out of whack with social norms can arguably make the problem worse.

    8. Re:The drug requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "President Bush said in his television address not long ago: 'Our outrage against drugs unites us as a nation!' A nation of what? Snoops and informers? Take a look at the knee-jerk, hard-core shits who react so predictably to the mere mention of drugs with fear, hate and loathing. Haven't we seen these same people before in various contexts? Storm troopers, lynch mobs, queer-bashers, Paki-bashers, racists - are these the people who are going to revitalize a 'Drug-free America'??"

      - William Burroughs: The Drug User -

    9. Re:The drug requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, whaa...? You know squat. If you want anecdotal evidence, I know 2 people out of probably 30 rather intelligent close friends that smoked. One did so regularly, one experimented for about a month.

      More anecdotal--of the stories I hear from friends talking folks they know, most who self-medicate are also damn screwed up--mental problems (chicken/egg, don't know which caused what), health problems, and just sheer lack of judgment (like the one that smokes cigs and weed and has diabetes and exercise induced asthma).

      You want true evidence of the impact of marijuana smoking, look at the scientific studies instead of your and my rambling "evidence" that you or I think we "know". Look at the simple observed effects subjects brains have. Then look at the statistical studies of addiction and lifestyle.

      You're right. It has an effect--a detrimental one. In my neck of the woods, it's a minority and associated with those that go nowhere. Your business if you do either.

      Then again, this will probably fall on deaf ears. Your post sounds like the same position as those folks that don't believe HIV is responsible for the majority of AIDS cases.

    10. Re:The drug requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God forbid a naturally growing substance not prohibit a man's ability to enforce man's non-sense. Now the nose candy, that's another story, hell you can be president if you drive around drunk looking for the next bump to snort.

    11. Re:The drug requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Far more inane is the requirement on marijuana smoking. Now, I've never touched the stuff, but I *know* people like me are a tiny minority of the talent pool out there. Yet another case of a rather pathetic "zero-tolerance" style "get-tough" policy coming back to bite its originators in the butt.

      ANyone ever heard of a zero tolerance policy that didn't lead to ridiculous consequences. Like the twelve year old girl who gor suspended for drug activity for giving her friend a Midol? All the zero tolerance stuf is just dick flapping. As Dilbert said to his PHB, "That must really make you feel like a stallion when you get home at night."

    12. Re:The drug requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The drug requirement also serves another purpose. By getting someone that has done little-to-nothing wrong during their life they minimize the chance that you can be blackmailed at some point during your career.

      Total screaming horseshit. You can't be blackmailed for something you've let be known publicly. If I tell everyone I'm a transvestite, they have no weapon any more.

    13. Re:The drug requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Interesting argument, that one is. One of the reasons the British intelligence agencies got penetrated so thoroughly in the 50s and 60s was because they made homosexuality a dismissal offence (as well a a criminal one).

      Heh. Penetrated. Heh, heh. Hoo, ha, ha, ha, urg, splutter. Heh. Who do you work for, Beavis and Butthead?

    14. Re:The drug requirements by bblgoose · · Score: 1

      If I tell everyone I'm a transvestite, they have no weapon any more

      so that's why you're posting as AC :-)

    15. Re:The drug requirements by eam · · Score: 1

      I thought three was the magic number.

    16. Re:The drug requirements by xchino · · Score: 0

      You know less than squat. Your "anecdotal evidence" just shows that you don't have many friends.

      --
      Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
    17. Re:The drug requirements by majestyk2000 · · Score: 1

      Yes it is, that's a magic number...

    18. Re:The drug requirements by Theodrake · · Score: 1
      But weren't the two biggest scandals that hit the FBI about a devout Catholic and a Mormon agents. I don't believe either one every used drugs. The two guys that sold the super secret satelite info where blond, blue-eyed, white americans. Thus they were awarded Top Secrect clearances quickly. For the most part most americans are good people that wouldn't betray the trust given them whether they smoked a little weed or not while in college. Hell as pointed out earlier our coke head president is awarded the highest security clearance in the land. I'm always reminded of the CCR song Fortunate son:
      Some folks are born made to wave the flag, Ooh, they're red, white and blue. And when the band plays "Hail to the chief", they point the cannon right at you. It ain't me, it ain't me. I ain't no senator's son. It ain't me, it ain't me. I ain't no fortunate one.
  10. Of course they are by Craig+Davison · · Score: 1

    I'm sure they would want to stay where their interest is anyway, which is in security, not physically apprehending people.

    Anyway, that's what outside contractor jobs are for. Plus the money is sweet.

  11. Saves them the heartache! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hopefully they'll get rejected before they discover Jodie Foster doesn't really work for the FBI

    1. Re:Saves them the heartache! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, she regenerated as Julianne Moore.

  12. Fat? Where? by Synn · · Score: 2

    Where are all these fat pasty geeks I keep hearing about? Most I see are scrawny as hell. Yeah okay, so they're pasty, but they could carry a M16(crap, just try to KEEP a geek away from a M16 for Christ's sake).

    I'd think the "college degree" required bit would be a bigger limiting factor.

    1. Re:Fat? Where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Where are all these fat pasty geeks I keep hearing about? Most I see are scrawny as hell.

      Ah, you must be one of the common eastern geeks. Known for their nervous twitchs and darting eyes. I am more familiar with the geekus midwestus, who are more noted for their smug manner and snorting laughter. Oh, and rolls and rolls of fat, of course.

    2. Re:Fat? Where? by jon787 · · Score: 1

      Where are all these fat pasty geeks I keep hearing about? Most I see are scrawny as hell. Yeah okay, so they're pasty,

      Same idea here, all the geeks I know are on the skinny side

      but they could carry a M16(crap, just try to KEEP a geek away from a M16 for Christ's sake).

      Duh just check out Geeks With Guns.

      --
      X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
    3. Re:Fat? Where? by chris_mahan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Geek and weapons instructor

      Instructor:
      "When you've emptied the clip, put the m-16 back down on the table"

      Geek:
      "Can I have more ammo?"

      Instructor:
      "AGAIN?"

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    4. Re:Fat? Where? by fishbowl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>I'd think the "college degree" required bit
      >>would be a bigger limiting factor.

      Not really. Universities churn them out by the thousands, every year. And many of them are quite buff, physically, emotionally, mentally.

      When we read stories like this article, and hear about some overwieght, aging geek who got the wild
      hair to go into law enforcement when it suddenly appeared lucrative, and was rejected, we are supposed to sympathize. Perhaps we should, somewhat, but we must also consider that despite the requirements, and no matter what hype you hear to the contrary, most Federal agencies are having no problems whatsoever finding qualified applicants. There are a lot of people out there entering the workforce. It appears to me that there was a little babyboom in the more-is-more 1980s, and those kids are coming of age. I wish there was a way to get credible census information in this kind of detail, but I'll bet $1 that there are more 18-25 year olds today than there have ever been in history.

      In the case of the Federal law enforcement agencies, they usually have enough applicants just from former MP's, who have degrees, are physically fit, and have records that show distinguished military service.

      The "average geek" will refuse to believe that a business major or enlisted soldier could be as effective in computer security, network administration, or programming than he, but it is merely a perception based on prejudice, and not necessarily based in reality.

      I'm not even sure the "typical geek" would survive at all in a regimented, authoritarian work enviromnent. Quasi-military police work?

      The story sensationalizes the "overweight" factor, but I believe strongly that the man being over 35 and just now wanting to go into law enforcement is a bigger red flag. You really should start that career at 20. Perhaps at 18, beginning either with a few years of military service or majoring in criminal justice or political science. When it's time to retire from police work, you'll probably have a law degree to fall back on!

      But don't wait until you're almost 40, already burnt out, and THEN decide you want this type of career -- and if you do, don't try to blame not getting the job on your weight. There are a large number of factors working against this individual; the weight thing is just one; more of a symptom of the whole.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    5. Re:Fat? Where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The "average geek" will refuse to believe that a business major or enlisted soldier could be as effective in computer security, network administration, or programming than he, but it is merely a perception based on prejudice, and not necessarily based in reality.

      I agree completely. The biggest hurdles for geeks looking to get hied by the FBI will not be college degress or fitness requirements. It will be the sense of superiority and entitlement so many US geeks seem to be very fond of.

    6. Re:Fat? Where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect someone starting a career in computers after 10-20 years as an MP far more than the other way around.

      Lets face it, a 40 year old novice programmer is *pathetic*, and all the really good programmers are laughing at them.

    7. Re:Fat? Where? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You really should start that career at 20. Perhaps at 18, beginning either with a few years of military service or majoring in criminal justice or political science.

      Kinda militates against your earlier argument that the jobs go to former MPs, doesn't it. In fact, one of the problems cited about cops who go bad is that most used to be former servicemen with a history of having worked in a disciplined environment. Now kids head for cop school without any serious background on which their fitness can be judged.

    8. Re:Fat? Where? by gallen1234 · · Score: 1
      But don't wait until you're almost 40, already burnt out, and THEN decide you want this type of career

      And why shouldn't you do this? There's a common perception in this country that you have to pick a career by the time you're 25 and then pursue it for the rest of your life. This was fine when the average life expectancy was 35. Now that it is well into the 80's I don't see any reason why people should allow themselves to be tied down at 50 by a decision they made 30 years ago.

    9. Re:Fat? Where? by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "But don't wait until you're almost 40, already burnt out, and THEN decide you want this type of career "

      What is someone over 30 and who wants to start a new career supposed to do, commit suicide?

      Not everyone is 18-25, son. This forum's collective opinion to the contrary, there are over-25 yo's who can still contribute without wearing Depends.

      We are likely to be the generation that will live to 100, hell, 120 or 150 years of age. If only 18-25 yo's, just fresh out of college, are the only people worth considering for law enforcement, or comp sci, or IT, or electronics, hell, anything other than McJobs, what the hell is the majority of the world's poulation supposed to do? Read Slashdot for the rest of their lies and weep that they are no longer 18 and fresh out of a good high school in the burbs?

      This is a serious point. The population is aging, regardless of the Baby Boomlet kids of the 80's jamming up the employment pipes right now. The amount of ageism I encounter in real life and on fora such as these is also found in Human Resources departments I encounter daily.

      Something's going to give here. Even with the H1B visa worker flood, there is a shortage of good talent everywhere -- good talent, not mediocre and hired 'cause they're young and fit the profile at HR. Ther's going to be 80 million or so aging Americans with no access to good jobs because of the prejudice and school snobbery of the Boomlet. With Social Sec killed by the current admin's "borrowing", where the hell is anyone supposed to make a living?

    10. Re:Fat? Where? by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      NO! But he needs to think of something realistic
      to transition to! Schoolboy romantic notions of
      "fireman, cop, astronaut" are out of the question
      by now!

      And this article is about someone who was precisely in that frame.

      I won't even address the rest of your points, because you have assumed wrongly that I am younger than the person in the article.

      Certainly there are people in the subject's age bracket who could do well as an occupational athlete, but not him.

      The misunderstanding of the original article was that the job is for a federal police officer who happens to be skilled in computer network security. *NOT* vice versa.

      You tried to use my comments as a bully pulpit to rail against everything from immigration to social programs, and that was inappropriate.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    11. Re:Fat? Where? by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "You tried to use my comments as a bully pulpit to rail against everything from immigration to social programs, and that was inappropriate."

      I agree with all your other points. I, basically, didn't write enough in response, so that my point would have been clearer. I tend to write-and-run, because this sort of thing takes a lot of time.

      Not against immigration: merely realistic that the H1B relaxation of about two years back flooded the tech job market and closed up options for employment. This is a fact.

      The admin: I did rail against them, but I don't think it was inappropriate or "political" -- the tax cut and the new borrowing to finance 6.5 trillion bucks emptied out the SocSec funds with prejudice. Stick a fork in it: it's over. So now we collectively have to plan on working past 70.

      As for the purpose of arguing, I was not arguing the subject in the original article was correct, or you incorrect either. I was pointing out that, with a boomlet of yunguns, a flood of H1B's permitted, and age discrimination more rampant than in the '60's (another era of no-over 30's need apply), a person over thirty seems like a kid pressed up agaist a candy store window, with no hope of ever going inside.

      Someone over 30 shouldn't try to be an Olympic runner, but going into law enforcement or engineering shouldn't be a problem. A 35-yo can learn calc a lot faster than a 18 yo: not as distracted by the opposite sex, at the height of their mental faculties, fr more motivated (because, grimly, and realisitically, it's their last chance!). But, realistically, as you say, there is almost no chance for employment for a 35-40 year old new BS in CS.. some, but slim and vanishing.

      As you say, I am being realistic, but this is not a good situation for either you or anyone else. You're aging too, and you may need to change careers two or three times in your life.

      In Chicago last year, there was a such a critial shortage of new police recruits that they upped the age limit to... 40. They finally got their recruits, and I hope it works out well. I suspect that the older men and women will do better than their younger counterparts, since they are more motivated to succeed.

      In conclusion, I think my comments appropriate.

    12. Re:Fat? Where? by merlin_jim · · Score: 2

      ...but I'll bet $1 that there are more 18-25 year olds today than there have ever been in history.

      No takers. That bet would be true for most of the world throughout most of human history. By the very nature of human reproduction and population growth, there are always more humans in every age group than there have ever been in history, barring special circumstances like a large aging generation (such as the post-war births generally called "baby-boomers")

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    13. Re:Fat? Where? by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      It appears to me that there are an assload of
      kids who were born in the 1980s and that cities and suburbs that were quite spacious in my memory are now very crowded.

      That's just how it looks to me.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  13. darwin by Scrameustache · · Score: 5, Funny

    "They will not consider you unless you can carry your M16 through the physical fitness course without killing yourself in the process,"

    I think its fair, if you die in the test, they don't hire you.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "They will not consider you unless you can carry your M16 through the physical fitness course without killing yourself in the process,"

      That's a pretty light requirement, since the M16A1 is a pretty light gun at 6.35 lbs. Compare it to the M1, at 9.5 lbs and up (and up since the wooden stock was often denser than spec).
      Those three pounds don't sound like much until you carry it all day. They really help with guncontrol, too. I can shoot the 30-06 M1 about as well as the .223 M16, since the extra weight helps reduce muzzle jump.

    2. Re:darwin by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      6.3 lbs? That's it? Hell my iBook wieghs in at 6.6, and I lug that arround all day. Man if you cant carry a 6.3 lb gun through an obsticle course, you definately do not deserve to be in the FBI. Expesialy if you call yourself geek.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    3. Re:darwin by dattaway · · Score: 2

      I don't know what my SKS weighs, but I can say carrying any type of gun or backpack through a cold morning of hunting can put anyone to the test. Physical endurance will seperate men from the boys in any kind of challenge.

    4. Re:darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carry 6 pounds over your shoulder for one day of hiking. If you can do that, try it day after day.

      Six pounds on your shoulder to most people is an unnatural condition. Most people will get tired of it quickly. The body will quickly ask your mind if this is really necessary. Most people will quickly say no. This is a mind game between you and your body. Most people decline.

      Are you up to the task? Sound easy? Try it sometime. In the dead cold of the winter, a mere six pounds will bring humility to the roughtest tempers.

    5. Re:darwin by Duncan3 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Come on, if you could pass the physical fitness course and all their security questions would you really have spent your life behind antisocial behind a keyboard being a geek? No, you'd be out having a life and getting laid like all the guys that can run farther then to the fridge without passing out.

      So, yea, it's all about Darwin.

      --
      - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
    6. Re:darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Are you up to the task? Sound easy? Try it sometime. In the dead cold of the winter, a mere six pounds will bring humility to the roughtest tempers.

      i wear six pound combat boots every day everywhere along with black jeans, no matter what weather outside. i bike everywhere too, with 12 pounds of books/computer/gear on my back (yes i know mil training gives you more gear).

      welcome to the world of sysadmin.

    7. Re:darwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, i am anti-social because i like to spend my time learning new things, i smoke pot and chicks like me, but i have other things at the moment

    8. Re:darwin by NeuroUk · · Score: 1

      Well in the case of death - you can always apply for the SUS special Undead Service moto "first death then glory"

    9. Re:darwin by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      Would a mile hike back and forth to school each day, plus carrying the books and coputer arround all day constitute enough of a haul for you? Believe me, ask any highschool student about lugging 6 pounds arround on their back all day and they'll ask you how the hell you managed to only have one class.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  14. It's not the physical reqs that turn away people by devphil · · Score: 3, Insightful


    ...it's the bind-bogglingly stupid hiring practices in general. And the FBI know it; heck, even this article spends only a little time discussing the physical bit. Most of the article points out other ways in which the FBI shoots themselves in the foot:

    [security consultent] Rosenberger added that even if a person were an acceptable job applicant, it would not guarantee that the person would work with computers.

    "You won't get a position in computer security until you've worked at least five years on the beat, preferably in physical investigations," Rosenberger said. "They'll grudgingly let you past if you just do forensics, but they feel you really should chase bad guys with a gun before you chase bad guys with a computer."

    At some point it will occur to the FBI that people can specialize in a topic before joining.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  15. Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by Rayonic · · Score: 5, Funny

    How is playing Counter-Strike going to help me lose weight?

    1. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by joe52 · · Score: 2

      Maybe if you're on a long kill streak and the chips are just out of reach?

      Personally I get fragged enough to run to the fridge regularly without missing much.

    2. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if they figure out a way to convert fat into electricity you'd have a chance. Until that happens, it's back to the 'husky' isle for you my friend.

    3. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you haven't been playing enough counter-strike, its a M4A1 rifle in counter-strike not a M16 :-P

    4. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Nice... except there isn't a M16 in counterstrike :).

    5. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      M4A1 Carbine that is in Counter-Strike is an M16 with a collapsible stock. It shares 80% commonality with the M16, and is a direct variant. The M4A1 carbine is a shortened version of the M16A2, so technically it does have an M16. Just a variant of an M16. Considering there also isn't an "M16" either, but M16A1, M16A2, M4/M4A1 that are all part of the M16 family.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    6. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      You've got to play CT more often. It even has a nice silencer...

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    7. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      Every time you get killed, drop and give yourself twenty-five?

      (And if you laugh at ordinary push-ups, or you just get killed /very/ rarely, raise your feet by setting them on a chair first, so your back is closer to level when rigid.)

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    8. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by Fesh · · Score: 2

      Actually, there's two major differences besides the collapsable stock. First of all, the barrel is redesigned. You can tell an M4 by the fact that it has a constriction midway down the length of the barrel. Second, the M16 is not fully automatic. It only has semi-auto and three-round burst settings. The M4, however, is full auto. Also, the handguard is only half-length, but any of the short-barreled AR-15 variants have that, so it's not as telling.

      Considering that I'm only a humble student of military technology, I'm probably missing the more subtle points.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    9. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by Angry+Black+Man · · Score: 2

      Second, the M16 is not fully automatic. It only has semi-auto and three-round burst settings

      No, you're wrong. Some M16's DO have full automatic. I know. I have fired an M16 (NOT an M4, and M16) in full auto mode. The M16A1 might but i am SURE one of the variants (whichever one is used by the Israeli Defense forces) IS full autmomatic.

      --
      the byproduct of years of oppression by the white man
    10. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by machine+of+god · · Score: 1

      Do you think it will hurt me if they find out I prefer the sight on the soviet sniper rifle?

    11. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      Actually, there's two major differences besides the collapsable stock. First of all, the barrel is redesigned. You can tell an M4 by the fact that it has a constriction midway down the length of the barrel. Second, the M16 is not fully automatic. It only has semi-auto and three-round burst settings. The M4, however, is full auto. Also, the handguard is only half-length, but any of the short-barreled AR-15 variants have that, so it's not as telling.
      You have point A, but you are wrong about the M16A1/2 being semi-automatic only. The M4 is part of the M16 family.

      I think M16 = ( M16A1|M16A2|M4A1|M4A2|AR15 ) but that's just my opinion.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    12. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by DavidBrown · · Score: 2

      The M16A1 is the original, and can fire either single shots or be fully automatic, just by moving the switch.

      The M16A2 is the upgrade, and can fire either single shots or a three-round burst. It also has an upgraded plastic grip on the barrel (round instead of triangular), and also has a deflector behind the ejection port designed to prevent brass from flying into the face of left-handed shooters.

      The idea behind the three shot burst was that most soldiers just wasted ammo, so limiting them to a three shot burst saved ammo without really reducing effective firepower. Mind you, the typcial infantary squad should still have an automatic rifleman, carrying an M-62, or the newer SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon). The one real downside to the three shot burst is that the weapon actually has three different trigger-pulls - the amount of force necessary to squeeze the trigger depends on whether you are shooting the first, second, or third round.

      How to I know this? I once had possession of 650 of the damn things, curtesy of Uncle Sam.

      --
      144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
    13. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The m4 isnt really an m16.

      It has a shorter, heavier barrel for one. It has a collapsible stock, but an m16 can be modified for that. The foregrip is smaller, and the gun fires in three round burst and single shot. Someone already stated this, that the M4 derives from the m16, it IS apart of the m16 family but it is NOT an m16. M16 is a classification, like m16a1, m16a2, m16a3 and m16a4. The M4 series is another classification, m4a1, m4a2 and m4a3. Bushmaster sells the m4a3 and Im gonna purchase one next time I go to a gun show. So an m4 is not an m16, just like an m60 is not an m249.

    14. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by prismatic · · Score: 3, Informative

      The M16 is the original. It did not have a forward assist, and had a three-prong flash supressor, and triangle handguards. It is capable of Safe | Semi | Auto.

      The M16A1 came out a few years later, with a teardrop-style forward-assist, a birdcage flash supressor, triangle handguards, and Safe | Semi | Auto capability.

      The M16A2 came out approximately 20 years later, and has a birdcage flash suppressor without ports on the bottom to prevent a defensive position from leaving a signature. It has rounded handguards, a longer butt-stock, a heavier barrel with a faster twist rate to accommodate heavier ammunition, and is capable of Safe | Semi | Burst. It has some other features, too, which distinguish it from the M16 and M16A1 (like the brass deflector, different sights and a different forward assist).

      The M16A3 is identical to the M16A2 except it has a removable carrying handle with the Picatinny Rail System and is capable of Safe | Semi | Auto.

      The M16A4 is identical to the M16A3 except it is Safe | Semi | Burst.

      The M4 Carbine is a carbine version of the M16A4. It has a 14.5" barrel instead of a 20" one. It has a four-position collapsable butt-stock. The barrel is notched to accomodate the M203 grenade launcher. There are some other technical differences that I don't know too well, dealing with feed ramps, etc. It is capable of Safe | Semi | Burst.

      The M4A1 Carbine is the carbine version of the M16A3. It is used almost exclusively by Special Operations Units, and is identical to the M4 except it is capable of Safe | Semi | Auto.

      And there's probably about a bajillion other differences in pin sizes, hammer configuration, auto sear, and who knows what else that I left out due to ignorance, but that don't matter too much.

      --
      Brian Voils
      "A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students."
    15. Re:Put down your cheesy poofs and pick up an M-16? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there's probably about a bajillion other differences in pin sizes, hammer configuration, auto sear, and who knows what else that I left out due to ignorance, but that don't matter too much.

      Ya know what? None of that crap really mattered too much, nor did it have anything to do with the story or the comment you replied to. But you got a +3 informative so congrats.

  16. Vision, too! by Snarfvs+Maximvs · · Score: 1

    I thought this was particularly ridiculous--you need uncorrected vision of 20/200 to pass. I'm 20/800 but can shoot a pretty tight group.

    Where are they going to find computer geeks with good vision??

    --
    -----------------------

    To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.

    1. Re:Vision, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The rationale for the uncorrected vision requirement is that they do not want agents who are essentially blind if, for example, someone knocks the glasses from their face or lose a contact lens.

      Yeah, it's arbitrary, but they have to draw the line somewhere. If you're so anxious to join the FBI, get LASIK surgery.

    2. Re:Vision, too! by TechnoVooDooDaddy · · Score: 2

      uhh.. 20/200 is pretty bad, requiring correction... 20/800 is legally blind i believe.

      for those that don't know, 20/200 means what you can read at 20 yards, i can read at 200 yards (or a bit further as i have 20/13 vision)

    3. Re:Vision, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me, I got 20/20.....but I'm 35+

  17. The Dark Side? by GuyMannDude · · Score: 4, Funny

    "In order to be a good computer security person, you must think like a black-hat hacker and be able to understand the tools and methods of the dark side," Sweeny said.

    Oh great. So not only do you have to be able to run the obstacle course but you gotta be able to choke people from a distance and fight little green hyper midgets.

    GMD

    1. Re:The Dark Side? by unicron · · Score: 3, Funny

      Most slashdotters can choke people from a distance just buy removing a shoe.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    2. Re:The Dark Side? by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      You will immediately be disqualified if you are using chemical warfare. You will also be known as the Show Strangler. You may even be termed a menace to the Nation (that's with both shoes off) and be sent as an enemy non-combatant to a tropical island with a lovely group of sunbathers that are (kinkily) into barbed wires.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    3. Re:The Dark Side? by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Show=Shoe (damn the keys are so close together on that keyboard)

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    4. Re:The Dark Side? by unicron · · Score: 2

      Is it so friggin hard to give us the ability to edit our posts? I mean f0 real and shit.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    5. Re:The Dark Side? by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Dang, I should have hit preview, that's all. my bad.

      I'm not complaining.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    6. Re:The Dark Side? by unicron · · Score: 2

      No, I was being serious. The ability to edit posts is something evident in every forum software I've ever seen except for this one.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    7. Re:The Dark Side? by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      yeah, but then they don't get moderated.

      Let's say you write something great, and it gets moderated to 5, informative. Then 20 min later, you replace it with "Haxors rulez".

      See my point?

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    8. Re:The Dark Side? by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      The whole point was that posts are supposed to be static. This prevents things like a person changing their viewpoint afterwards just because they got bad mod points. Likewise if /. can claim static posts, then it's much easier for them to fight off companies like M$ when they demand the discussions to be censored (http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20020503_dmca_conseque nces.html)

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    9. Re:The Dark Side? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a brillaint idea: IF (eat) YOU (my) EDIT (ass) THE (lameness) POST (filter) IT DROPS DOWN TO YOUR NORMAL POSTING LEVEL

      See my point?

      gg rocket scientist

    10. Re:The Dark Side? by Pasc · · Score: 1

      I have written discussion board software. I made it so that a user can modify their posting. Other users can see that it was modified and can view the older versions if they wish. So you can change your viewpoint, but anybody that clicks on the little "History" link can see what you said originally.

      Keeps everybody happy.

  18. mmmmm... Pot by littleRedFriend · · Score: 4, Funny

    One question on the application asked if you'd smoked pot more than 15 times

    15 times? A day?

    --
    IANAL, but imagine a beowulf cluster of in Soviet Russia all your belong are base to us welcoming the new SCO overlords.
    1. Re:mmmmm... Pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it count if you use the last one to light the next?

    2. Re:mmmmm... Pot by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 2

      I cant remember.....

    3. Re:mmmmm... Pot by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 2

      15 times? Times what?

    4. Re:mmmmm... Pot by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2

      "One question on the application asked if you'd smoked pot more than 15 times..."

      Wouldn't it just be easier to leave a bowl of candy out?

    5. Re:mmmmm... Pot by CormacJ · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually this is probably one of those questions that TLA's like to use to see if you are paying attention

      1) If you answer no:
      So you have smoked pot then?

      2) If you answer yes:
      Well good luck then

      3) I have never used drugs:
      Bravo. Look at this guy who reads the questions

    6. Re:mmmmm... Pot by the+way,+what're+you · · Score: 0
      One question on the application asked if you'd smoked pot more than 15 times

      Naw, he smoked waaay more than me, bro. Wait a minute, how did you know that my friend's nickname is "15 times"? ...funny story behind that one...

      --
      example.org - powered by Linux!
    7. Re:mmmmm... Pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, now that reminds me of grade eleven!

    8. Re:mmmmm... Pot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they've just come to accept that there is a large majority of people out there who have tried marijuana at a party/social situation, and to be honest I'd generally look more unfavourably on someone who would eagerly write "NOT ME MISTER! I AIN'T NEVER DONE NUTTIN' THAT'S WRONG!" than I would someone who admits that they actually wanted to find out for themselves to know what all the fuss is about. If you've smoked pot more than 15 times, and you're in the general age that the FBI is recruiting, then you're likely beyond the odd social experiment into being a regular user. I'm not disparaging pot, but using pot regularly is no different than being an alcoholic: It's much more sad than it is cool.

    9. Re:mmmmm... Pot by lommer · · Score: 1

      ummm... no, "have you smoked pot > 15 times" does not constitute a "complex question" (in legal terminology). Put it this way, someone who has never smoked pot could respond no and be perfectly honest. Hint: 0 is less than 15 :-)

      Whereas someone who has never beaten his wife could not truthfully respond no to the question "have you stopped beating your wife lately?".

      If they had asked "Have you stopped smoking pot?" then you would be correct, but they didn't. So next time use a little logic before u post.

    10. Re:mmmmm... Pot by smithmc · · Score: 1

      I'm not disparaging pot, but using pot regularly is no different than being an alcoholic: It's much more sad than it is cool.

      Oh, really? How regularly does one have to use pot for it to be "sad"? Once a week? Once a month? Hell, if you started at, say, 16, you could have used pot once a year and still get up over 15 uses before deciding to apply for the FBI.

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    11. Re:mmmmm... Pot by loraksus · · Score: 2

      leave the poor reefer alone, he was baked out of his skull when he wrote that. . .

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  19. So? by TheKubrix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is this considered newsworthy? All branches of the military require a given level of physique, same with virtually all law enforcement departments, not to mention fireman, rangers, and private security.

    What else did you expect? Next there will be a story on how stupid people can't join the FBI.....

    1. Re:So? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 2

      Next there will be a story on how stupid people can't join the FBI.....

      They can't?

      Could've fooled me.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    2. Re:So? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Since when did police departments require a certain level of physique? I've seen way too many beer-bellied donut-chomping cops to believe this one. Unless the requirement is only for new recruits.

    3. Re:So? by boskone · · Score: 1

      It varies from dept to dept. Most have a physical requirement to start. Many also have an annual thing after that, but some don't.

  20. Just like any other police department by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did someone think that when they were applying
    for the FBI, that they were doing anything besides
    applying for a job as a police officer? And they're *surprised* when met with physical requirements?

  21. Guns by t_allardyce · · Score: 4, Funny

    Its always been my dream, to one day pull a gun and badge on someone and yell "Federal Agent, DONT MOVE!" or something cool like that. Unfortunately here in the UK theres nothing with any really catchy names, "Flying Squad" sounds lame, "MI5" sounds lame, the only cool thing i can think of is "Secret Service" but you would probably have to wisper it because its secret.. :( Even the police dont have cool 4-letter things like NYPD or LAPD. "Swansea Police, FREEZE!"

    I think its important for all geeks that want to join the FBI to get fit, and cherish their ability to pull guns and shout catchy phrases even if they have desk jobs. Mulder had to pass the physical, Scully had to pass the... mmmmmmm.. she definatly passed it :)

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Guns by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Its always been my dream, to one day pull a gun and badge on someone and yell "Federal Agent, DONT MOVE!" or something cool like that. Unfortunately here in the UK..

      .. pull a gun? Don't you mean hit them with your walking stick?

    2. Re:Guns by t_allardyce · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the police normally carry lame little sticks, but if someone has so much as a water pistol they break out the mp5's and kevlar :)

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    3. Re:Guns by rodgerd · · Score: 2

      Flying Squad doesn't sound lame, it sounds corrupt. Every few years 8).

    4. Re:Guns by zangdesign · · Score: 2

      the only cool thing i can think of is "Secret Service"

      That's as maybe, but in the UK, you get to say the magic words: "What's all this, then?" and don't even have to sound pretentious!!!!!

      --
      To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
    5. Re:Guns by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      Hell, to us Americans, just shouting "Scotland Yard, DON'T MOVE!" would be catchy. Of course, I'm sure it isn't that much of a novelty over there in Britain.

    6. Re:Guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not too catchy to me.

      Try not speaking for the whole country next time.

    7. Re:Guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hell, to us Americans, just shouting "Scotland Yard, DON'T MOVE!" would be catchy. Of course, I'm sure it isn't that much of a novelty over there in Britain.

      No, it happens to me three or four times a day.

    8. Re:Guns by Eidolon909 · · Score: 0


      Dude, British Law Enforcement guys get the best lines to say to criminals. Maybe you're just jaded because you are a Brit, but to outsiders they sound damn cool..

      Catchy phrases like, "Guess what Punter, you're nicked."

      Or to hear a criminal say, "Fuck, its the Knock!"

      Or to hear a criminal say, "Its the fucking Bill!"

      Knock Knock.

      Plus.. Royal Flying Squad might not be cool.. but "Thieftakers" is pretty fucking boss.

    9. Re:Guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or even a table leg.

    10. Re:Guns by beowulfcluster · · Score: 1

      I'd say being able to go 'You're fucking nicked, me old beauty' ala John Cleese would beat anything the FBI could come up with.

    11. Re:Guns by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Yes, but i just think that the FBI does better...

      "Federal Agent!" - It rolls of the tounge nicely

      "Federal Agent, I'm Armed!" - When Scully says that its just so hot!

      And my all time fav.

      "Ahhhhh, Clear! Clear! FBI! freeze! get down on the ground little boy! get down or I will open fire!" - When they took that kid, i cant remember where it was, but there was a great photo of someone pointing a semi-automatic at this boy - nicely done FBI - they teach you that at the acadamy?"

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  22. FBI tiny keybords...? by BeyondALL · · Score: 1

    So, the feds bought thos tiny keybords so fat-fucking-burger people can't put their fat fingers at one key at the time...?

    --
    "If you keep an open mind people will throw a lot of garbage in it."
  23. http://www.fbijobs.com/ by Monkelectric · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Go apply today :) They really demand *alot* of agents. IF you do their application it tells you to expect to be worked 10 hours a day. I applied when I got out of college but wasn't even considered because I said I wouldn't consent to be posted *ANYWHERE IN THE US* at their discression. There were also some strange questions like, "Have you used marijuana more then 15 times?" So 14 times is ok?

    Check out their policies http://www.fbi.gov/employment/policies.htm

    --

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    1. Re:http://www.fbijobs.com/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are other federal law enforcement agencies that deal with cyber crime too, and they have a less stringent application process. The Secret Service (financial crimes), US Customs (cyber-smuggling, warez), and the DEA are good examples. For instance, their minumum age is 21, as opposed to 23 for the FBI (an important factor for me, because I'll only be 22 when I graduate).

    2. Re:http://www.fbijobs.com/ by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2
      "Have you used marijuana more then 15 times?" So 14 times is ok?

      Acctually, 15 times would be OK aswell.

    3. Re:http://www.fbijobs.com/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, an infinite amount of times would be ok because they don't quantify the time frame.

    4. Re:http://www.fbijobs.com/ by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2
      Actually, an infinite amount of times would be ok because they don't quantify the time frame.

      But logicly the time frame would extend infinitly to the past if not specified (well, more likly to your birth, but the same affect, unless you could smoking during pregancy).

    5. Re:http://www.fbijobs.com/ by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You showed them!!! How dare they expect to post you anywhere in the US at their discression. Obviously you should only be posted within driving distance of mommy and daddy. How else are you going to get your laundry done every weekend?
      And you have to get your allowance too, didn't they consider that?

      How far was it from your collage to home? More than 10 minutes?

    6. Re:http://www.fbijobs.com/ by Monkelectric · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Hey, fuck you troll

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    7. Re:http://www.fbijobs.com/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would hope they would've disqualified you based on the fact that you obviously can't spell.

    8. Re:http://www.fbijobs.com/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he didn't want to be stuck in some town in bumblefuck USA, where ignorant rednecks like yourself live. You know, the type of idiots who can't spell "college" correctly because they only have a 4th grade education....

    9. Re:http://www.fbijobs.com/ by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

      OH NO!!!!! I had a typo in a Slashdot submision. How can I hold my hed up in public anymore? :-P

      Listen here, it's called the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation because it is a FEDERAL agency. Since it is a FEDERAL agency, they have job positions all over the country. Why would they want to hire someone that won't leave their current hometown? Why not hire another applicant that is every bit as qualified, but who is willing to relocate as needed for the first few years?

      Many people move to other areas of the country, away from family and friends, or with wife and kids, just to have a better job. And this yahoo is proud that he refused to make that compromise? Oooooh, I am sooooo impressed.

      And by the way, I am an ignorant hick, not a redneck. I also joined the service to actually see more of the world than my parents backyard. And I'll have you know, I certainly have above a 4th grade edukashun, I have attended 4 different colleges. One day, I may even finish a degree at one of them. :^)

  24. doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by deft · · Score: 2

    interesting balance working here.

    some of the programmers i know are brilliant at what they do because they have very little interest in social activities, physical activities, or leaving their monitors at all. almost all of there time is spent learning and soaking up new data. -generally- i find them pretty un energetic and hard to work with in groups sometimes.

    but, if they were doing physical activities, getting out more, they may be better to work with, easier to pool knowledge, and have more energy and focus.

    but would they be as tech smart and on top of things? at what point is the 'geek specialization' hurting the group interaction and thus the goals of forming a unit that works well to serve the fbi and its goal?

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
    1. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Insightful
      but would they be as tech smart and on top of things?

      After flirting with exercise for about two years, I finally started working out on a seriously regular basis about four months ago (every weekday, 1 hour, rain or shine or apocolypse).

      I find that I have increased energy and, as an extention, less need for caffine and a generally clearer head (esp. during those hours after lunch when everyone else is half-asleep). IMO, I absorb information much more easily and am better able to "wrap my head" around things.

      As a bonus, I find that the time I spend working out (I run and lift free weights) is rivaled only by my morning shower in terms of inspiration potential -- you're concentrating only on the mundane task at hand, and your brain is free to dedicate extra cycles towards solving problems.

      That's just one geek's observations; your milage may vary.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    2. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are a "true" geek then the social interaction that you might get by actually "seeing" other people is going to disqualify you from being a geek.

      Contrary to popular belief home schooling is not all that it's cracked to be. Part of education is learning social skills (something the stereotypical geek is lacking).

      I don't care if your I.Q is infinity If you don't have the social skills to interact with others you're about as worthless as tits on a boar hog.
      That is why the F.B.I and most other places that actually PAY people to work for them usually require some experience (maybe to see how well you work with others.) If your an asshole then surprise you don't get the job; No matter how good you can program a linked list or a binary tree.
      IF YOU CAN'T WORK WELL WITH OTHERS THEN YOU PROBABLY ARE NOT QUALIFIED FOR ANY JOB.

    3. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by Tralfamadorian · · Score: 1

      Contrary to popular belief home schooling is not all that it's cracked to be. Part of education is learning social skills (something the stereotypical geek is lacking).

      This is false because one gains social skills other places besides school.

      For example, my sister, who is homeschooled is far more social than I am. I attended public/private schools my whole life.

    4. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "This is false because one gains social skills other places besides school."

      Assuming one ever *goes* other places.

      In too many of the home-schooling families I've encountered, the school was the *last* outside influence to go, not the first, and the socialization was not replaced with anything substantial.

      Parents often get into the home-schooling thing out of distrust of the system, and a desire to shelter their children from influences outside the home to the maximum extent possible.

      For those activities where it is necessary to be in public, it is rare that the children encounter the same people on a regular basis.

      It's bad enough with working parents where the child has no extracurricular activities (either he goes home and watches tv until -and after- the parents get home, or he goes to the parents' place of business and waits while they work into the evening.)

      But if you even take the other schoolkids out of the picture, well, we might have an early reader or a marshmallowhead, depending on whether he was provided with reading material or tv, but as far as social skills? Doubtful.

    5. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by Pedrito · · Score: 2

      ...and am better able to "wrap my head" around things.

      That must be some sort of Indian yogi exercising you're doing. I'm pretty sure if I wrapped my head around anything, I wouldn't even abe able to type.

    6. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I find that I have increased energy and, as an extention, less need for caffine and a generally clearer head

      Everybody is different. Just because it makes you feel hunky dory does not necessarily mean it will make others feel significantly different.

    7. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by Swix · · Score: 0
      your milage may vary


      Ya, I got six feet and I passed out, whats that? .002 KM. Sure cleared my head, well rather the coffee table.
    8. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by cameronk · · Score: 1

      I find that getting up an extra hour earlier so that I might be able to go for a run or swim before work makes me feel much more relaxed and focused for the rest of the day. I will echo that response to NewBalance. Especially cool about the company is that they just incrementally improve existing models, so that their shoes are very easy to buy online. You get a better fitting shoe, at a better price, without leaving your computer. What could be better?

      --
      "...What is good for General Motors is good for America." -Charles Wilson, Secretary of Defense and fmr President of GM
    9. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see some pretty boy like you try and catch someone like Kevin Mitnick. These guys live on an entirely different plane from people like you.

      And they can hack circles around these FBI fruitcakes.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    10. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by shess · · Score: 1

      So, what point are you making? Bad parents are bad parents? You want a prize with that?

    11. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a bonus, I find that the time I spend working out (I run and lift free weights) is rivaled only by my morning shower in terms of inspiration potential...

      Yeah, a good morning game of "drop the soap" inspires me too!

    12. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by Wavicle · · Score: 2

      Everybody is different... But research suggests that exercise has the effect the previous post stated on a substantial majority of the population (rounded to the nearest percent, I think it was about 100%). Maybe the places that make these claims are just way out there... Places like Johns Hopkins University for one.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    13. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by bmajik · · Score: 2

      specialization is for insects.

      id rather work with someone that knew 10% about 10 subjects than 100% about one subject. I want co-workers that are adaptable, that know just enough to get the job done well, and who know that there's more to learn if necessary, and how to learn it.

      the number one problem i have with people at work is _not_ that they dont know enough about a particular thing. its that they dont see the whole picture. they dont have what knuth calls the fundamental difference between compsci and other sciences - the ability to shift layers of abstraction quickly and often when analyzing a problem.

      that whole "well rounded person" thing they were pushing at college ? turns out its important after all :)

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    14. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1

      "You get a better fitting shoe, at a better price, without leaving your computer. What could be better?"

      Given that we are talking about exercise, wouldn't it better to go by foot to a shop selling them???

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    15. Re:doughnut crumbs in the keyboard by Archon-X · · Score: 1

      Extra brain cycles?

      Well, I'd say you'd meet the geek requirements! :)

  25. Not joining FBI is the least of your problems... by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I saw a study the other day which concludes that being a couch potato is worse for you than a reasonably serious tobacco habit. So, not being able to join the FBI is the least of your problems -- being a blob with high blood pressure whose heart is being transformed into a ten- or twenty-year time bomb ranks a lot higher.

    Don't be content to be a fat fuck, and don't let yourself off with "Gee, I'm just too busy to exercise" or "Exercise is for stupid jocks" excuse. There are better ways to flirt with death than to sit on your ass 18 hours a day chugging Dew and eating Ho Hos.

    Here's my 20 minute-a-day, 4 times a week solution: Get out and run. Two and a quarter miles or so in about 20 minutes will put you in reasonably good shape. It doesn't hurt to squeeze in some work with free weights, either, but you can work up to that. In any event, start off slow and work up to your goal over a couple of months, and *don't* let yourself plateau too early.

    Oh, and good shoes are really important. I highly recommend New Balance.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  26. It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    .. it was the background check that scared me. What if I was a stupid teen and I did knock over a few mailboxes with a baseball bat [which I didn't..], would they use that against me?

    So worse case is I don't get the job and then I get brought up on charges of some stupid thing I did in my youth.

    "The Background will routinely encompass your entire adult life (age 18) and earlier years as necessary to fully resolve issues that arise. Information developed of a derogatory nature will be forwarded to FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C., for adjudication."

    How many people can answer these questions with a response of No?

    1. Have you used marijuana at all within the last three years?
    2. Have you used marijuana more than a total of 15 times in your life?
    3. Have you used any other illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991) at all in the past 10 years?
    4. Have you used any other illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991) more than a total of five times in your life?
    5. Have you ever sold any illegal drug for profit?
    6. Have you ever used an illegal drug (no matter how many times or how long ago)while in a law enforcement or prosecutorial position, or in a position which carries with it a high level of responsibility or public trust?

    1. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by geekoid · · Score: 2

      I can.

      People do stupid crap when they are kids, the FBI knows that, and quite frankly has better thing to do then try to prosacute someone for some minor infraction they did as a kid.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How many people can answer these questions with a response of No?

      Pretty nearly everyone, I should imagine. Oh, did you mean truthfully answer no? Well, that's different.

      Of course, anyone who gets serious about pot is unlikely to get serious about anything else, except pizza, so the portion of geeks who can answer those questions truthfully might be a bit higher than for the general population.

      I think that the FBI has always set very high standards for everything except your expected salary and lifetime earnings. There, their expectations (and their employees!) have always been on the low side. That's probably why they're having trouble hiring.

    3. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by DeltaBlaster · · Score: 1

      I can answer No to all of those as well... Wouldn't pass the physical portion but theres no way id work for the FBI either.

      --
      (This Space For Rent) ....($50 A Month).... (Contact The Voices In Your Head)
    4. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many people can answer these questions with a response of No?

      The vast majority of us. Next question?

    5. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 2

      Except for number one, they're all No for me...and I suspect it's the same for many people (though I'm sure many who answer 1 also answer 2 with "Yes"). Excluding pot, most people don't use or sell illegal drugs.

    6. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by angeles13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      no problem.

      but then, i grew up as a fbi agent's kid.
      too many moves and too many schools before graduating high school.

      it's more of the boyfriends that were the trouble.

      --
      design is art - art is design
    7. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Funny
      > How many people can answer these questions with a response of No?
      >
      >1. Have you used marijuana at all within the last three years?
      > 2. Have you used marijuana more than a total of 15 times in your life?
      >3. Have you used any other illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991) at all in the past 10 years?
      [ ... ]

      Tack: "Yes sir! I can answer 'no' to all six questions sir!"

      f3i: "...and can you say that truthfully, Mr. Tackhead?"

      Tack: [embarassed] "Sir, I'm applying for the job of computer geek. I had no life in high school. Or college either. I have no life now. So yes, sir, I can truthfully answer 'no' to all six questions, but do you guys really have to keep rubbing it in?"

      f3i: "Well, uh, no, we're not trying to embarass you into admitting you had no life, it's just on the form..."

      Tack: "And besides, steroids? Does this body look like I've ever even exercised it since 1991, let alone tried to bulk it up artificially? Sir? Sir?" :-)

      Actually, I rather enjoy reading government forms as historical documents. Because there's no effective mechanisms for getting rid of dumb policies, only ways of adding them, every government form is a reflection of the past 10-20 years of legislative cruft for whatever government department has to deal with said cruft.

      I mean, steroids haven't made headlines for... gee, about eleven years. I know it's been eleven years since steroids were news because of the date on the form, that indicates the passage of some "for the childrun" law on February 27, 1991, indicating that it was no doubt the issue-du-jour about a year or so earlier.

      (If you think that's silly, try reading the cross-references and subforms on every line of your tax return. There's stuff in there - railroad pensions, etc - that goes back the 1930s.)

      Prediction: A question saying "...had more than 30 MP3s or 3 DiVX ripz a collection of unlicensed music, shared more than 30 MP3s or 3 DiVX ripz with people not already licensed to listen to the music, burned more than 30 MP3s or 3 DiVX ripz to removable media, after [some date in 2004]" will eventually appear on FBI recruitment forms.

    8. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by q-soe · · Score: 2, Redundant

      1. Have you used marijuana at all within the last three years? - NO
      2. Have you used marijuana more than a total of 15 times in your life? - No
      3. Have you used any other illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991) at all in the past 10 years? - NO
      4. Have you used any other illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991) more than a total of five times in your life? - NO
      5. Have you ever sold any illegal drug for profit? - NO
      6. Have you ever used an illegal drug (no matter how many times or how long ago)while in a law enforcement or prosecutorial position, or in a position which carries with it a high level of responsibility or public trust? - NO

      Not hard is it really ? what are you trying to say here - the majority of the population can answer NO to all of those..

      --
      I refuse to argue with Anonymous Cowards - if you want a discussion get an account....
    9. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me.

    10. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Arcaeris · · Score: 1

      I can truthfully answer 'No' to all of those.

      For some reason - though I could pass the physical requirements - now I feel like a total loser. Hell, I even spent a month in Amsterdam...

    11. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by rowanxmas · · Score: 1

      I can truthfully say that I can answer "NO" to two of those questions. However, I would also fly through the physical examination, as I climbed a 9000' mountain on Sunday.

    12. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Stonehand · · Score: 1

      I'd be more worried about questions regarding associating with foreign nationals -- especially for people with college degrees. Graduate school, in particular, pretty much guarantees that a LOT of your friends and other associates will be foreign nats.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    13. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      "1. Have you used marijuana at all within the last three years? - NO

      2. Have you used marijuana more than a total of 15 times in your life? - No"

      What if the applicant lived in Holland for a while?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    14. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also, if you answer 2 with a yes (or even a no, if yuove done it >5 times but less than 15), then #4 also has to be a yes.

    15. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by eggnet · · Score: 1

      Well, that depends. Is underage drinking "using an illegal drug?" I bet that would change a lot of people's answers.

    16. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by the+way,+what're+you · · Score: 2, Insightful
      However, I would also fly through the physical examination, as I climbed a 9000' mountain on Sunday.

      And it took you long enough! I almost lost my erection before you climbed all the way down.

      --
      example.org - powered by Linux!
    17. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 2

      I can. some of us don't need to be fucked up to enjoy ourselves

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    18. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Alkaiser · · Score: 2

      You didn't use or sell drugs...I fail to see where the implausibility of finding someone like this lies.

      Hell, nearly every programmer I hang out with fits these requirements. The ones I know that don't fit are the ones who are more than likely to go, "Wait, you've got a gun...and you're threatening my life? F*ck that, here are the exploitable security flaws in our system!"

      I also don't know who couldn't carry an M-16 through their little course. If you're under 6 feet, don't work out, and are in the range of 250+ pounds...don't try to be a cop or and FBI agent...sorry...them's the breaks.

      --
      Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
    19. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on. I've smoked pot probably hundreds of times, and haven't touched anything harder. I might do mescaline once if I can get my hands on some stuff I'm sure is pure, but that's it. #1 and 2 for me, and by the time I'm worried about applying to the FBI, #1 will probably no longer be an issue.

    20. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my Canyonero!

    21. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can answer no to every single one of them. I don't know what kind of losers you hang out with.

    22. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I climbed your girlfriend too. Sure seemed bigger than 9000' though....

    23. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you saying, all Dutch people smoke pot?

      This is retarted. Almost all people can answer NO to all the 6 questions. Virtually everyone can say no to all 6 questions if 'after age of 18' is appended to each.

      Just because you're a pot smoking slacker doesn't mean most people are.

    24. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 2

      I can answer those questions with a No... FBI, here I come! Oh yeah, I'm fat... nevermind.

      --
      Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
    25. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Ruis · · Score: 1

      OK, This question really interests me. I myself can say no to every single one of those questions. I also know quite a few people who can also say the same. I'm on the other side of the fence than you thinking, "Are there really that many people who can't answer no to all of these questions?"

    26. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Lovejoy · · Score: 1

      How many people can answer these questions with a response of No?

      Lots and lots of people. Most of them, in fact.

    27. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could argue you yourself are a loser, I agree with them. Then again, I'm just like you.

    28. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by tswinzig · · Score: 2

      How many people can answer these questions with a response of No?

      The fact that you think these questions would be hard to answer "No" to is really amazing.

      It's true... some of us have never used/sold illegal drugs.

      What, alcohol doesn't alter your mind enough for you?

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    29. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by CrosseyedPainless · · Score: 2

      How sweet. And you think you can speak for the majority because....?

    30. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Galvatron · · Score: 2

      No, it's not. Same with the military. They only mean drugs that are illegal for everyone, not age-based legality.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    31. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by tshak · · Score: 2

      It's not unreasonable to expect an adult to behave responsibly at 18 or even younger - it's just that we're generally treated like kids. I don't mean to sound pias, but I know a lot of people who would easily pass these six questions.

      --

      There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    32. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by fisgreen · · Score: 1

      As someone who's very familiar with Federal background checks, it's really not all that important that the answer is no to all these questions.

      The key is honesty. They realize not everybody turns into a saint when they turn 18.

      As long as you tell the truth, and convincingly prove these things are solidly in your past, you'd be amazed what gets excused.

      And yes, they do polygraph (especially following last year's debacle with Robert Hanssen).

    33. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Reziac · · Score: 2

      No, no, no, no, no, no. Any questions?

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    34. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by bracher · · Score: 1

      5. Have you ever sold any illegal drug for profit?

      wait? so if I didn't profit, I'm still ok? whoo-hoo!!! I mean, I might have failed econ but at least I won't fail the FBI questionaire.

    35. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting AC for obvious reasons. Yeah, I have a clearance. It is not what you
      did in the past that they really care about. It is set up so no one can
      come up and blackmail you by exposing your past.

      Pretty simple really. Tell the truth and you will pass their specs. I did
      and voila! A clearance. I will admit it is hard to do but so be it. It kept
      me working.

      ac

    36. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by jred · · Score: 2

      It's not so much that alcohol doesn't alter your mind enough. It's more the death thing. I've known at least half a dozen ppl. who've died due to alcohol (including my mother). I've known zero who've died due to pot. Hell, I've never even heard of anyone dying from pot. Concievably you could claim gang deaths as being caused by pot, but I'd lean more towards, um, being in a gang.

      So, to cut myself off & sum it up, alcohol is mind altering enough, but it's too *life* altering for me.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    37. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by the_rev_matt · · Score: 2

      I can answer them all with a response of no. So that makes at least one ;)

      If you want to talk demographics, I'm a white male in my 30's, grew up in Silicon Valley where I lived until after college. No, I'm not religious or conservative by any stretch of the imagination, I just find drugs to be boring.

      --
      this is getting old and so are you

      blog

    38. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Flarelocke · · Score: 1

      Dude, you've been mind-fucked. The 10-20% people who have problems with drugs have been made newsworthy by not having any better problems, as well as the fact that it's(or was, anyway; dunno about now) on the rise. Only about 40% of people have actually used drugs.

      Most likely, the inaccuracy in your perceptions arises from the crowd with whom you run. Or, more accurately, the portion of that crowd that talks about themselves with confidence. So, if you have three other people who talk about their lives as if everyone was like them(these people tend to "have a life"), and if you have none who *don't* use drugs, then you think everyone uses drugs(except for you, which in some cases means you think you should start) If, on the other hand three do and one does not, you think 75% of people use drugs.

      Couple this with the fact that, in my experience, only one in ten people talk about themselves in the fearless manner requisite to discuss heavy topics like drugs, and what you have is a seriously skewed view of reality.

      I can answer No to every one of those questions. I can answer without a doubt that every one of my friends could answer No to all but #2. The proportion is even larger for females.(You're probably saying "Oh", rather than disagreeing with that statement. Females tend not to be taken into account in our views of "people". For the record, females feel the same way about men)

    39. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by extra88 · · Score: 2

      A month?! I feel like a putz for not trying something while I was in Amsterdam for just a weekend. I don't want to smoke anything but they have it in many other forms.

    40. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      I haven't done any of these things ...

      (Well ...) When it comes to pot, I've never smoked but I have inhaled (*) ... at rasta beaches in the carribean. :-)

      (*) Raise your hand if you caught the 'hidden joke' there ;-)

    41. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by AmbientNightmare · · Score: 1

      NO NO NO NO NO NO And hey, I'm graduating college this year, and am in good shape. However, I tried to be a RIO for the Navy, and they wouldn't let me for childhood asthma, so as far as I'm concerned, screw the government. (at least until I'm elected supreme chancellor for life) [I'm a PoliSci major!] I want a politics Category damnit!

    42. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by gnovos · · Score: 2


      3. Have you used any other illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991) at all in the past 10 years?
      4. Have you used any other illegal drug (including anabolic steroids after February 27, 1991) more than a total of five times in your life?


      Yes and Yes! I took Sudafed all the time while I was staying in Japan (where it happens to be QUITE illegal)....

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    43. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by ahaning · · Score: 1

      Let's consider two hypothetical people. One would answer 'no' to all of those questions, and the other would answer 'yes'.

      Person 1: This person hasn't used, sold, nor seen illegal drugs in their entire life (to their knowledge).

      Person 2: This person has used pot a couple of times. They've also sold a bit of stuff. So, they know what it looks like, how to use it, and what someone looks like when they're using it. They also know what it costs and what the dealers are like.

      Which one would you want running around catching "bad guys"?

      Personally, I'd want the second one. He would probably be able to spot strange things sooner than the other guy. The first guy sounds kind of wimpy, not like a police officer or FBI agent.

      Perhaps that's what they're going for. Anyone that would lie and say they hadn't used pot when they had (since it's "the right thing to do") would be a liar, and thus unqualified. Anyone that was telling the truth wouldn't be very knowledgeable about the people with whom these agents and officers are dealing. And, anyone that told the truth and said that they had done one or more of these things would be both truthful and knowledgeable.

      --
      Withdrawal before climax is very ineffective and those who try this are usually called "parents."
    44. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by StandardDeviant · · Score: 2

      Unless you went to college. ;-)

    45. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      There are lots of urban legends about people who submitted these high-level questions and where truthful - as in yes, they had smoked dope more than 15 times throughout their high-school career. Thus they were rejected but a record of this fact was kept. Years later when they needed a security clearance for some job or another, they were unable to acquire it because of the original rejection.

      So, beware guys, this shit does go on your permanent record, and this is not some bullshit high-school principal intimidation technique either. You never know what kind situation you may find yourself in 10 years down the road, don't tell them anything that they might use to screw you later.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    46. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What are you saying, all Dutch people smoke pot?

      This is retarted. Almost all people can answer NO to all the 6 questions. Virtually everyone can say no to all 6 questions if 'after age of 18' is appended to each.

      Just because you're a pot smoking slacker doesn't mean most people are.


      What are you saying, all pot smokers are slackers?
    47. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What are you saying, all pot smokers are slackers?
      Yes. Absolutely. Probably communists, too.
    48. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Person 1: This person hasn't used, sold, nor seen illegal drugs in their entire life (to their knowledge). (emphasis mine)
      That "seen" bit is an assumption. You can see without using. Also, they could have used drugs (non-pot, or pot <15 times) 10 years ago or more.
    49. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I can answer no to all the above. The only illegal drug I've ever done was beer (I was under 21).

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    50. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they want somebody even less interesting than a Techbore?

    51. Re:It wasn't the physical requirements.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can. And that includes underage drinking.

  27. The best training equipment by anomalousman · · Score: 1

    I imagine an M16 must be some kind of special, American training equipment to help you get in shape.

    Unless you mean the gun, but I don't think that you can take what the interview panel says seriously when you're pointing an automatic weapon at them. Even if they seem very sincere and polite.

  28. Remember, we are at war by GuyMannDude · · Score: 2

    Far more inane is the requirement on marijuana smoking.

    Well, it's inane to you because (I'm guessing) you feel that marijuana should be legalized. However, we are supposedly at war against drugs so it's actually a consistant stance for the FBI to take. I'd bet that the FBI would reject your application if their background check revealed that you sent a check off to Osama, too. From the FBI's standpoint, using marijuana (even a one-time experimentation) is like giving money to an enemy we're at war against.

    Look, personally I believe in legalizing marijuana. But you can't fault the FBI for this requirement. It would be pretty rediculous if the federal government had an official "no drugs" stance against drugs and then the FBI decided they were going to convienently ignore drug use in reviewing applications.

    GMD

    1. Re:Remember, we are at war by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      granted, but I think his point is more like this:

      Have you ever played any computer game for more than 2 hours at a stretch?

      Sort of, like, dude, if you're a hacker, you're most likely a geek, and if you're a geek most likely the answer is yes.

      It's kind of like asking sex workers to work for the FBI, but only those who have never "smoked the pipe".

      You might as well ask for politicians who have never lied. (That's a bunch I'd like to see take the lie detector test upon swearing to uphold the constitution)

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    2. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like how the CIA is supposed to defend democracy by instituting dictators

    3. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you be at war against a plant that has never harmed anyone?

    4. Re:Remember, we are at war by Golias · · Score: 1
      You're exactly right.

      I'm also willing to discuss legalizing pot on a rational basis with anybody, but if you take the FBI exam and tell them you have toked 15 times, you are effectively telling them you deliberately violated the law 15 times. Not to mention the fact that to use any illegal substance that often, you would probably have been a customer of a dealer at one time or another, which associates you with some genuine low-life people. (That's probably the one factor that kept me away from narcotics as a teen: the dirt-bag thugs one must deal with to get them.)

      We pot legal, I would imagine the FBI would relax that requirement. But it's not, so they haven't.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    5. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because this is America and we can declare war on whomever or whatever we please.

    6. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps if you declared war a little less often, you wouldn't get your asses kicked so frequently.

      By any reasonable objective standard the war on (some) drugs has been a complete failure.

    7. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you definitely don't want to do is lie to them. It's frighting all the things they end up finding out when they do a background check for your secret/top secret/etc... clearance

      On a side note a friend of mine just got his secret clearence. He is mid 30s now, but did experiment some with X and pot when he was in his early 20s. He was truthful about it and got his clearance without and problems.

      You could also just respond "Know thy enemy" when asked about drugs ;)

    8. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly.

      First, we have the right not to incriminate ourselves. War, or not, asking someone to snitch on themselves is self-incrimination. The fact the FBI is doing it makes it all the worse.

      Second, we have the statute of limitations. After a period of time, it isn't a crime anymore.

      Third, we supposedly have the presumption of innocence in this country.

      Considering the FBI is the Government, these types of questions are simply abhorent.

    9. Re:Remember, we are at war by boomer_rehfield · · Score: 1

      "I would imagine the FBI would relax that requirement."

      Why? Food's legal...they haven't slimmed down those requirements... There is no reason for them to accept people that smoke. Give me one good one. I'm not going to stand on the fencepost here, but you can't knock them for thier job requirements, that's just silly. This is our government we're discussing...

      --
      Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
    10. Re:Remember, we are at war by Golias · · Score: 1

      On a side note a friend of mine just got his secret clearence. He is mid 30s now, but did experiment some with X and pot when he was in his early 20s. He was truthful about it and got his clearance without and problems.

      Interesting. It makes you wonder if the drug questions are just a way of screening for people that will lie to them about nickle & dime stuff like that. I could see why they want to eliminate such people.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    11. Re:Remember, we are at war by boomer_rehfield · · Score: 1

      "Food's legal...they haven't slimmed down.."

      GAH...that really was unintentional...

      --
      Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
    12. Re:Remember, we are at war by Qrlx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But the war on drug *users* has been a great success! Our prison population is about four or five times what it was twenty years ago, thanks to mandatory minimums that send drug users off for 20 years for possession.

      The standard by which the war on drugs is a raging success is: Correction Corporation of America. They are our nation's sixth-largest imprisoner, behind the Feds, California, FLA, and so on.

      Even better, CCA has no motive to rehabilitate their prisoners, since that might reduce the recidivism rate. If they rehabilitated drug users, they might work themselves out of a job.

      Follow the money, the war on drugs is just another way to fleece the tax base (like when prisoners are mistreated at a private prison, the state who sent them to prison has to pay the damages, because the corporate entity is shielded.)

      Check out nomoreprisons.org for more info. Not that I agree with all of what they have to say.

      And kudos to America, the Land of Opportunity. The land where the same people who brought you the ease and convenience of the Colonel's Original Recipe saw that the War on Drugs created a market for privatised, for-profit prisons.

    13. Re:Remember, we are at war by Golias · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not exactly.

      First, we have the right not to incriminate ourselves. War, or not, asking someone to snitch on themselves is self-incrimination. The fact the FBI is doing it makes it all the worse.

      Second, we have the statute of limitations. After a period of time, it isn't a crime anymore.

      Third, we supposedly have the presumption of innocence in this country.

      The rights you mention apply to a crime you are being arrested for, but have nothing to do with security clearance screening.

      If, during the screening, you say "I smoked a fat bag of crack in 1982," they can not convict you for drug posession, because of all three reasons you cite (self-incrimination, statute of limitation, presumption of innocence), but they can choose not to hire you.

      That is as it should be. You do not have an inalianable right to an FBI career.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    14. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, we have the right not to incriminate ourselves. War, or not, asking someone to snitch on themselves is self-incrimination. The fact the FBI is doing it makes it all the worse.


      You're an idiot. If you're a US citizen, you have the right to not incriminate yourself in a criminal case. That has nothing to do with applying for a job with the FBI.

    15. Re:Remember, we are at war by Golias · · Score: 1
      Why? Food's legal...they haven't slimmed down those requirements... There is no reason for them to accept people that smoke. Give me one good one.

      I didn't say they should change the regulation if pot were legalized, I merely speculated that they probably would, the main reason being political expediancy. They don't currently ask you if you consumed hard liquer 15 times in your life, and alchohol approximately as bad for you as pot.

      [bracing for flames from the NORML crowd... who can't come up with a acronym that spells a word correctly but think they "know", better than anybody else, that pot is far safer than booze...]

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    16. Re:Remember, we are at war by kenmtraveller · · Score: 1

      I've likely smoked pot more than 15 times, and I've never bought it from anyone, nor had it in my possession for longer than necessary to pass the joint ;-) I agree that it's a silly requirement. I have a CS degree, 10 years of development experience, I'm not at all overweight, I'm a decent shot, and I've travelled to 20 countries, including China and Pakistan, yet the FBI won't have me. Perhaps I should apply to the CIA! They obviously have a different take on the "War on Drugs". Ken

    17. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so right brother!

      And let us not forget that the war on (some) drugs has provided ADDED VALUE in almost eliminated the right to vote on the part of our more undesirable citizens.

      You know, blacks and hispanics from lower economic classes. These people have the audacity to be critical of our social policies and question our economic motives. They should be thankful that we give them wonderfull prison jobs too, so that they can perform repetitive tasks for pennies an hour.

      Thank god we managed to come up with a distinction between powder cocaine and crack cocaine. It helps us to manage the penal system in a more uhhh effective manner....

    18. Re:Remember, we are at war by boomer_rehfield · · Score: 1

      point...

      I think it would take a while for them to make sure that there really were no more effects to their organization than having alcoholics work for them... once that time has passed I could see it being possible...I think...heh...

      --
      Carpe Canem - Seize the Dog
    19. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may wish to review your comment a little more carefully before you accuse your straw men of poor spelling.

      The only accurate argument that the horrible "NORML crowd" would have to present in my view would be this one:

      Alcohol has been responsible for many thousands of well documented deaths each year as a direct result of its immediate action upon the body. Marijuana has never been linked to a single overdose death. In fact, it is considered impossible to die from smoking too much pot.

      Therefore, it appears more than reasonable to assert that Alcohol is, in fact, altogether more harmful than marijuana. I, for one, am more concerned about the lies the DARE people are telling my children in public school than the NORML school.

    20. Re:Remember, we are at war by Qrlx · · Score: 2

      Amen and Amen.

      I would write more, but I'm smoking b0ng h1ts and my response wouldn't be very sesnical.
      \
      Someone's gonna mod this comment down...oh well

    21. Re:Remember, we are at war by Xaoswolf · · Score: 2
      They don't currently ask you if you consumed hard liquer 15 times in your life

      why would they, hard liquer is legal and perfectly fine to drink. Pot however is not legal, and as such, it is illegal to smoke. The FBI is there to uphold the law, it's the judicial system that is supposed to determine whether the laws are constitutional or not. If someone is going to ignore the laws, then what makes you think that they are going to uphold and inforce them?

    22. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A thoughtful comment to be sure:

      Marijuana, like campfires, can cause death by smoke inhalation. An excellent reason to put people in jail, yes comrade?

      I can theoretically kill myself with a rubber band too...

      I don't believe the post asserted that marijuana was harmless, only that marijuana is less harmfull than alcohol.

      I would love to see any evidence of someone dying in the way you described. No?

      If I had mod capabilities tonight i would rate this comment:

      +5 (doubleplusgoodthink)

    23. Re:Remember, we are at war by WhoCouldItBe · · Score: 1

      You're right. A lot of what they do with the clearance background checks is see how trustworthy you are. Sure they go and make sure you're not too much of a risk, but if you smoked a bowl in college, it's not going to be a big problem if you're honest about it. For the most part they don't care as long as you weren't a habitual user, and as long as you're clean now. And that makes sense - people under the influence have the nasty habit of saying things that maybe shouldn't be said. And putting drug use itself aside - one of the big problems with drugs is that it is still illegal, and users tend to end up associated with...well...people you wouldn't want to be associated with.

      But in any case, if you try to cover anything up - and you get caught at it, you're screwed. Lying on the app is far worse, and is certainly going to disqualify you.

    24. Re:Remember, we are at war by WhoCouldItBe · · Score: 1

      Uh...they ask these same questions about drug use when you get a security clearance.

      The form clearly says that anything you report regarding drug use will not be used in any criminal proceedings.

      I suspect the same is true for the FBI apps as well.

    25. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd bet that the FBI would reject your application if their background check revealed that you sent a check off to Osama.

      He takes checks now? I smell a QP! woot!

      Wow, I wonder if people will ever think for themselves. Chalk one more up to propaganda.

    26. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "dirt-bag thugs"? Guess I've been going to the wrong people? Do these guys have a good dank hookup? Cause I've pretty much been dealing with rich college brats. I think the more intriguing point to press would be, what pot smoker, who feels so empassioned by his love of herb that he wouldn't lie about it to the feds would want to work for those cocks anyhow? More importantly, what human rights respecting individual would take a lie detector to prove they didn't commit an act that inherently hurts no one?

    27. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Look, personally I believe in legalizing marijuana. But you can't fault the FBI for this requirement. It would be pretty rediculous if the federal government had an official "no drugs" stance against drugs and then the FBI decided they were going to convienently ignore drug use in reviewing applications.

      Why can't you fault them for going against policy. The US screamed rape when African nations said the hell with drug patents and they were going to India for low cost generics when millions are dying of AIDS. Then, when less than a handful of Americans died of anthrax, we told the world they could shove their antibiotic patents because we'd do whatever we had to to provide enough for ourselves.

      We're a bunch of duplicitous bastards and that's all there is to it.

    28. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If someone is going to ignore the laws, then what makes you think that they are going to uphold and inforce them?

      No shit -- you really don't know any cops? If they were all on the up and up, there'd be no need for the code of silence. Conclusion?

    29. Re:Remember, we are at war by elixx · · Score: 1

      Funny... they certainly didn't have a problem with sending checks to Osama in the past...

      --
      No, Beowulf clusters can't imagine in Soviet Russia.
    30. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, no kidding. Cops are some crooked assed bastards.

    31. Re:Remember, we are at war by Golias · · Score: 2
      You missed the context of my post entirely, didn't you?

      Try reading in "nested" or "threaded" format instead of "flat" so you can follow the discussion.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    32. Re:Remember, we are at war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember when they had a sort of amnesty in the mid 80's. They gathered a bunch of us in a room to fill out a followup to our security clearances. Our security chief said that we should fess up and tell them about any drug use from our University days. A friend next to me said he was gonna take Nancy Reagans advice and "just say no to drugs" when he answered the question about drug use.

  29. Vision is even more idiotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The Feds and SSA are both ridiculous when it comes to their vision requirements. Try nearly perfect vision. I mean, how many hardcore computer geeks are going to have 20/60 uncorrected vision?

    They'd probably get a ton more applicants if they relaxed that requirement.. But they are stuck in the mode of thought "physically chase down suspects" rather than "trace suspect to physical location then send in the Yes^H^H^HG-Men" for all Agents, rather than foot soliders.


    Another reason to have some sort of civil service for specialized roles.


    Then again, I don't know how I'd feel sentencing someone to life in prison for defacing Microsofts freakin website either.

  30. Fat Bastards by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2
    I can just see the applicant pool now...

    D'ya think Am Sexy. D'ya have any baby's around. Which way to the Gent's I've got to leave some evidence...

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  31. Ethics. by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

    "In order to be a good computer security person, you must think like a black-hat hacker and be able to understand the tools and methods of the dark side," Sweeny said. "Right there, you are in a very gray area, in the feds' opinion."

    That's the MAIN problem, hacker are believed to be criminal. Discrimination is a handy tool for people wanting laws passed, ala DMCA.

    1. Re:Ethics. by Resist148 · · Score: 1

      Well, isn't someone who breaks into computers illegally commiting a crime? So wouldn't that make them a criminal? Shouldn't we treat criminals like criminals?

  32. Its not just physical fitness by smoondog · · Score: 2

    uncorrected vision not worse than 20/200 (Snellen) and corrected 20/20 in one eye and not worse than 20/40 in the other eye. All candidates must pass a color vision test.

    Considering many males are colorblind and many have poor vision, this is another problem. The FBI is shooting themselves in the foot by having overly demanding entrance requirements.

    The FBI should hire experts in the field they are going to work in. Have officers with guns do the dirty work and scientists do the research. This is the way law enforcement should work.

    Then salaries could also be distributed to be competitive to get the correct people for the job.

    -Sean

    1. Re:Its not just physical fitness by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      " The FBI is shooting themselves in the foot by having overly demanding entrance requirements. "

      You are assuming that their requirements are creating a dearth of recruits or a surplus of jobs. Probably, even with these requirements, they are swamped with applicants, who are COMPETING for the jobs.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Its not just physical fitness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add one part rent-a-cop, one part fat slob hacker, get one FBI agent.

    3. Re:Its not just physical fitness by rodgerd · · Score: 2
      The FBI should hire experts in the field they are going to work in. Have officers with guns do the dirty work and scientists do the research. This is the way law enforcement should work.


      Re-read the article. They do exactly that - you can sign up for a lab job exempt from the Agent requirements. You don't get guns, arrest poweers, and all those cool things, and you don't get the kudos of being an agent. That's what these guys are whining about - they want to be agents, not lab guys, but they don't want to have to pass the exams.
    4. Re:Its not just physical fitness by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      Have officers with guns do the dirty work and scientists do the research. This is the way law enforcement should work.

      "A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools." --Thucydides

  33. Re:It's not the physical reqs that turn away peopl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    With the five year 'wait', the security expertise would be dangerously out of date by the time the agent gets to do his real job...

  34. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    heh, im fat.. i dont eat hohos and drink soda, i drink lots of water and eat salads and not a lot, but i just dont do any exercise so im fat.

    but i cant run as you suggest, especially 2 miles, i can barely walk 1 mile (if i can at all).. if i ran id pass out after about 100 feet. so whats your suggestion?

    (p.s. if i ran 2 miles, im 100% SURE id DIE, literally.)

  35. Martial Arts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I must admit after being into martial arts for quite some time Ive found many hackers/computer geeks who also do it. Although I do know a couple who probably shouldnt have been. One had extreme trouble immitating and another suffered from black-outs. I'd say at any one time my club compromises around 1/4 computer geeks.

    Come on admit you all need it to stop from being beaten up!

  36. Physically fit is acceptable, but, by Gaccm · · Score: 2

    If you read the think at the fbijob site linked in the article, it will show all the requirements. It serisouly looks like a sucky job, you must have great health, great hearing, great vision, be less than 37 yrs old, and you will get a starting pay of ~45,000. Also, people need to have knowledge in computer science, hard science (phyiscs, chemistry...) foreign language, and other stuff. The big problem (as mentioned in the article) is that the fbi excepts the new recruits to be like normal fbi agents and run around and go after the bad guys in the real world. Have they never heard of specialization? The only way i can explain it is that the fbi are getting deluged by applicants and have ultra high requirements for that reason.

    --

    Only dead fish swim with the stream...
    1. Re:Physically fit is acceptable, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can anyone in the know comment on the pay? I agree that 45k is ridiculously low considering what they ask for. How about someone with 5, 10, 20 years of serious background - what's the most someone can make compared with the 'outside'? For example, someone with 5 years net sec experience on the west coast can make 75-100k. Is that even a dream in the FBI or should I stop thiking about joining now?

    2. Re:Physically fit is acceptable, but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      45k is peanuts to what your average "one man show" security consultant can make. if you're working for yourself, you have no overhead. you could gross 45k working 2 days a week.

      to build up your reputation, get a job at a local provider of onsite technical services for small businesses. get to understand how the whole "consultant" game works. make friends with your employers clients (ethically of course), show off your talents and the rest will fall into place.

      soon, you'll quit the job with the consulting firm and start invoicing their clients directly for $75-150/hr. you need your own health care, but thats only $200/mo. you'll need someone to handle your taxes (family members come in handy here).

      work for yourself, not someone else. especially not you know who...

  37. You must first chase bad guys with a gun? by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    Has the FBI even considered using more nonlethal methods to capture criminals? I mean, haven't they learned their lesson after Waco and *shudder* Ruby Ridge (where a sniper shot an unarmed woman dead, while holding a baby in her arms)?

    As for me, I'm:
    Good at stopping hackers (and knowing their techniques for breaking into systems)
    Drug free - and will remain so, from the womb to the tomb
    Not overweight
    No criminal history

    But oops! I'm not a college graduate. And I abhor going after someone with a machine gun when tear gas, flash bang (knockout/stun) grenades and other nonlethal options, are equally as effective, and now readily available.

    Oh well.

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:You must first chase bad guys with a gun? by Skyshadow · · Score: 2
      But oops! I'm not a college graduate. And I abhor going after someone with a machine gun when tear gas, flash bang (knockout/stun) grenades and other nonlethal options, are equally as effective, and now readily available.

      Well, "equally effective" is a bit of a stretch.

      Aside from that, pretty much what you're indicating is that you'd be a good researcher but a pretty poor law-enforcement agent (cops, FBI guys, DEA, etc all have one big priority: don't take any chances that might not let you go home that night. This includes killing people you think are threatening you).

      Where the FBI really needs to improve, probably, is structurally -- recognize that researchers and experts shouldn't necessarily be inferior to agents and adjust to give them an appropriate amount of influence.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    2. Re:You must first chase bad guys with a gun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got all your qualifications, and a BSc in CS
      pity I'm not a citizen and therefore potential evil person in their eyes.
      think I would have a problem with the machine gun aspect as well, although I'm all for killing in self-defense, which would be majority of situtations.

    3. Re:You must first chase bad guys with a gun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "from the womb to the tomb"

      Haha, I'm sorry, but that sounds really gay. It sounds like something a bad motivational speaker would say.

    4. Re:You must first chase bad guys with a gun? by Tackhead · · Score: 3, Interesting
      > Where the FBI really needs to improve, probably, is structurally -- recognize that researchers and experts shouldn't necessarily be inferior to agents and adjust to give them an appropriate amount of influence.

      What you said. It's a cultural problem.

      Why not allow researchers the time/flexibility to pursue leads with publicly available information, and then pass that information on to agents to do the takedown stuff?

      I can think of lots of ways to monitor areas of the 'net for suspicious activity (illegal types of pr0n, spam for illegal types of pr0n, traffic analysis of PGP-encrypted messages, and I'm choosing to ignore software/music piracy) that, while not necessarily actionable in and of themselves, would be the missing pieces that would make open-and-shut cases.

      "Agent X, here's a letter. It doesn't matter that you don't understand a word of it. Take this in front of a judge. He may not understand a word of it either, but he'll probably authorize the request. The ISP will understand every word, and will hand you all the evidence you need to take $BIGNUM bad guys down."

      (Come to think of it, aside from the legal boilerplate, the subpoena to the ISP need only contain three words: "grep", a regexp, and a filename. The regexp and the filename will depend on what department Agent X works for, but the approach is the same.)

      Before anyone says that's unreasonable search and seizure, the regexps I'm thinking of can be based on publicly-posted or freely-given information such as IP addresses, timestamps, and other data given out by the suspect him/herself.

      Investigators (maybe "investigators" isn't the right word. "Oracle" sounds nice. As in, the Agent asks the Oracle where to get leads for such-and-such a kind of case, and an anonymous voice from within the Oracle says "Start looking here") could be given $$$ bonuses based on the number of successful takedowns Agents made, and Oracles who provide too many bum leads get fired. Agents could continue to get the fun stuff like like kicking down doors and shooting badasses.

    5. Re:You must first chase bad guys with a gun? by phriedom · · Score: 2

      What makes you think they don't do this already? They have lots of non-agent employees. What makes you think some of them aren't "Oracles"?

      --
      Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
    6. Re:You must first chase bad guys with a gun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Including, of course, unarmed women with babies in their arms. (That was the BATF, but BATF, FBI, what's the difference?)

  38. comic book guy by Sebastopol · · Score: 1


    "Worst application ever."

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  39. but imagine the plus side..... by Mr.roboto · · Score: 1

    at least you get the GUNS to play with :)

    --
    Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
  40. Not fat, not scrawny. by GuyMannDude · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're not just ruling out the fat ones. They're rejecting all the ones that don't have a buff bod and those who wear glasses. Remember, a gentlemen agent not only has to be smart but has to be good looking enough to seduce the sexy Russian and Chinese evil hacker agents that he will undoubtably encounter in exotic locales. Don't you watch the movies, man? Everyone knows this shit!

    GMD

    1. Re:Not fat, not scrawny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skinner from the X-files was bald and wore glasses! I think everyone I see in the higher up has glasses, plus, its just as easy to get contacts.

    2. Re:Not fat, not scrawny. by Cynikal · · Score: 1

      you could always join the bad guys...
      i mean, if fat bastard got in, anyone can

    3. Re:Not fat, not scrawny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skinner from the X-files was bald and wore glasses!

      Um, I don't know how to break this to you, but um.....The X-Files is a fuken PHONEY TV show!!

    4. Re:Not fat, not scrawny. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Um, I don't know how to break this to you, but um.....The X-Files is a fuken PHONEY TV show!!

      Yer shittin'me. Really. Huh? Well? Maaaaaaaa!!!

    5. Re:Not fat, not scrawny. by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      They're not just ruling out the fat ones. They're rejecting all the ones that don't have a buff bod and those who wear glasses. Remember, a gentlemen agent not only has to be smart but has to be good looking enough to seduce the sexy Russian and Chinese evil hacker agents that he will undoubtably encounter in exotic locales.

      This illustrates the fundamental difference between Kirk and Bond. Bond is suave and impeccably dressed and seduces women to help him complete his mission. Kirk, on the other hand, is fat and dressed in a velour jumpsuit. But he simply sends Spock to complete the mission so he can devote his full attention to the seduction of alien babes.

      The moral of this story: be like Kirk.

  41. FBI rules make sense... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At least to me. The FBI is in the business of finding and arresting the "bad guy". So it makes sense that all of their agents be in top physical condition and that folks work the street for awhile before specializing. That way the agents know how to put together a case from the ground up, and not have it kicked on a technicality.

    That being said, I would think that they would try and increase their cybercrime fighting abilities by increasing the number of civvies they hire, and giving them more clout. Course with the egos involved that last one might be a bit of a toughie...

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  42. The practices are strange... by Steveftoth · · Score: 3, Interesting

    but don't forget that they want people who can do more then one thing. It's stupid to hire people that can do one and only one thing well in law enforcement. These are the people who need to be able to do a multitude of things to 'survive' at times.

    They are just saying that you should be able to do many, things and may be required to be a 'normal' agent from time to time. If they actually get what they want is another matter altogether.
    Maybe the computer job pays really really well compared to a normal agent?

    1. Re:The practices are strange... by Alsee · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's stupid to hire people that can do one and only one thing well in law enforcement. These are the people who need to be able to do a multitude of things to 'survive' at times.

      Exactly. As a computer specialist sitting in an office all day you never know when you're going to have to chase a suspect up a fire escape.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:The practices are strange... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's stupid to hire people that can do one and only one thing well in law enforcement. These are the people who need to be able to do a multitude of things to 'survive' at times.

      You mean like ``walk and chew gum''?

      Lets see, for local cops, the two things are eat doughnuts and take bribes.

      For the FBI, the two things have been terrorize americans and overlook evidence of terrorist activity. Neither of those seem to actually require using the hypothetical skills of the agents.

    3. Re:The practices are strange... by distributed.karma · · Score: 1
      > It's stupid to hire people that can do one and only one thing well in law enforcement.

      They probably don't like Unix either.

      --

      --
      If you moderate this, then your children will be next.

    4. Re:The practices are strange... by danielobvt · · Score: 1

      The one FBI tech office that I know of, actually does expect that. They are the only federal law enforcement for in the immediate area, so in the back of their office there is quite a nice little armory. If the call came in for federal backup, these guys are expected to drop everything, grab weapons and respond.

  43. laptops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    compare that with the newer IBM (a series) thinkpads which weigh in at around 7 lbs bare. The gun doesn't seem so bad after all.

  44. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Cubeman · · Score: 1

    Start walking 0.75 miles then. You can use a pedometer (or whatever it's called). The key to exercising is to gradually build up. Each day walk 0.1 miles farther than the previous day, and before you know it, you will be walking 5 miles. Then you can start to add a slow jog for say half a mile, and then over weeks build up.

    The main problem with exercise is attitude. It's all about attitude; if you are negative you won't get anywhere. Just think, if you eat correctly and slowly add exercise, you can be a computer geek AND in shape! Think of the women...

  45. British Federal Agent...? by Blackstealth · · Score: 1

    MI5 is, in effect, a trimmed down version of the FBI - concerned primarily with threats to national security and major crimes. The "Secret Service" doesn't exist as such, officially it's MI6 or SIS (Secret Intelligence Service) although now the majority of the work of MI5 and 6 is encompassed by GCHQ.

    And now I'll have to kill you...

    1. Re:British Federal Agent...? by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just tell me.. what cool phrases are there? i need something that says "hey, you know, im important, and i carry a gun, and your criminal scum that needs to get down on the ground..."

      --
      This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    2. Re:British Federal Agent...? by perky · · Score: 1
      i need something that says "hey, you know, im important, and i carry a gun, and you're criminal scum that needs to get down on the ground..."


      um. "Yardie Mo-Fo on da scene, so yo' better gimme some repect. bitch"? Fortunately the majority of police in this country don't carry guns, and those that do simply say "POLICE!". And that's the way it should be.

      --
      "The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
    3. Re:British Federal Agent...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take your pick in the UK.....

      DISC
      GCHQ
      DSTL
      MI6 (SIS)
      MI5
      NCIS
      SIB
      GTAC
      SO19
      S06(CCU)
      PT17
      14ISC (The Det)
      FRU
      MRF
      SAS
      SBS

  46. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and after 10 years of running, my ankles and knees seize up. 250 pounds falling one foot several thousand times is a lot of stress on your joints. Exercise is too hard on your body. I'd rather be careful with my body, and not do anything too stressful, like walking briskly, or more than necessary. If you have to walk more than 1 mile to do anything, there is probably a way to do it with the computer instead. That's what we invented them for, to save us from having to do dull physical tasks, like walking, or running. ;)

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  47. Thank god for McDonalds by DavidLeblond · · Score: 1

    Thank god for McDonalds for giving us new healthier fries. Now we'll have no problem getting into shape for the FBI!

    1. Re:Thank god for McDonalds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The new oil only changes reduced a few of the saturated fats. The caliore count in the food is exactly the same.

  48. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful
    but i cant run as you suggest, especially 2 miles, i can barely walk 1 mile (if i can at all).. if i ran id pass out after about 100 feet. so whats your suggestion?

    Two steps:
    1. Recognize that your excuses are all self-defeating bullshit.
    2. Work up to your goal.

    Seriously, the only things keeping 99% of us from being healthy are the convenient little excuses we make for ourselves (some people have medical problem, but few are so serious as to preclude an active lifestyle).

    Look around and tell me how many really fat 40 year olds you see. Now, how many 50 year olds? 60? Am I getting through here?

    Being active gives you a lot of things: it makes you more physically attractive to most people, you'll have more energy, you'll fit into a single airline seat, you'll be stronger and generally more able to keep up with life, but the biggie is still this: If you're fat, you're going to die before you have to.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  49. Then they are at the mercy of a script kiddy... by mekkab · · Score: 2


    It's really simple. Either a few prodigy agents get through and carry the entire beurau, or they will be duped time and time again by kiddies with half the skill set of a mitnick (and most of what he did was social engineering!)

    If the gov't is too stupid to keep up or farm out, then they deserve to be left behind.

    and $45k?! Whatever!

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  50. Fatmos? CmdrSize48? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0




    HAHAHA you lard asses, better start masturbating a littler faster, you'll never join the Elite Guard(tm).



  51. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by tandr · · Score: 1

    ... or having sex?

  52. Re: there isn't a M16 in counterstrike by UberQwerty · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is, however, an M4A1, which is pretty much the same thing. It's a little smaller, and a little lighter, and it's what the army uses now anyway.

    --


    PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
  53. 20/200? by xenocide2 · · Score: 2

    Thats pretty damn poor vision. The definition of legally blind is being 20/200 with corrective lenses. I can understand the reasoning behind it: lose your glasses and transform yourself into a blind agent. Not cool. If your vision is correctable with lenses then you're good to go. Colorblindness on the otherhand, probably excludes a significant number from participation. I can think of a scenario though where that might be an issue (however unlikely and theatrical it might be): cut the red wire instead of the green wire and transform yourself into a dead agent.

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

    1. Re:20/200? by AlphaOne · · Score: 2

      Seeing as I'm a "color deficient" individual, I just wanted to point out that the majority of people who suffer from some sort of color vision anomaly have absolutely no difficulty in determining which wire is the red one (or green one, etc).

      There has been the rare occasion where I can confuse red and brown or yellow and green wires in my electronics projects, but only when the wires are so tiny magnification is almost a necessity anyway. With magnification, I can pick out the correct color.

      I am green-weak, meaning that I see fewer shades of green than the average Joe, but I see saturated colors just fine. It's only undersaturated (too dark or too light... pastel) colors that give me problems.

      Oddly, those with green weakness can confuse reds as well... this is because the green sensitive cells in your eye are not so much to see green as to differentiate it from red.

      Most Police departments nowadays use the Munsell D-15 test for color vision screening. This is a more "real world" color test and most people with common red/green deficiencies (like me) can pass it. It is only people who simply are completely unable to see a color group (such as red or green) that fail.

      The old method, which is to use isochromatic random dot fields (the ones where you must tell the examiner what number or figure you see), is so sensitive some people with completely normal color vision will fail.

      --
      All opinions presented here aren't mine.
    2. Re:20/200? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 20/200 uncorrected (both eyes). Without correction, I'm fairly helpless. Anything beyond the reach of my arms is a blur. Can't drive a car without correction.

      Corrected I'm 20/20. I wasn't always 20/200, the 200 number started at about 30 or 40 when I was in my preteens. When I was around 25 it stopped increasing. Been stable for 4 years now.. Ugh I'm gonna be 30 next year :)

    3. Re:20/200? by millerjl · · Score: 1

      really doesn't matter if it's correctable or not... one pair of broken glasses, lost contact lenses, etc... and you end up with a dead agent because they can't see the bad guy pulling the gun. and even if it is correctable you are still looking through sights with lenses that are of a strong prescription and things get fuzzy all on their own from refraction, etc. the way the lens works with the curve of the glass and such...

      As to color-blindness, no prosecutor in his right mind would want a color-blind person collecting/testing evidence for a criminal case. It opens SOOOO many doors for reasonable doubt that a defense lawyer would love to have. I looked at being a forensic chemist (i have an aunt who is a real CSI)... when I saw this requirement and realized the ramifications of my color deficiency, oh well....
      For the record: Green == Orange, Blue == Violet, brown and red are more or less similar depending on hues. .. i taught chemistry and physics for 8 yerars so i think i have a pretty good handle on what i can and can't see concerning color. that was a trip doing demonstrations and color analyses on stuff knowing that things were working based on student reactions, but yet not seeing the "full picture". i understood the phenomena and taught it well IMHO. i had one group of kids that really enjoyed testing the limits of my "deficiency"... like writing in green chalk on the board "this is orange", vica versa, and then in the correct colors to see if i could tell/notice. a good time was definitely had by all!

      --
      --- I never lie when I have sand in my shoes.
  54. Common misconception about obesity by Loundry · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't be content to be a fat fuck, and don't let yourself off with "Gee, I'm just too busy to exercise" or "Exercise is for stupid jocks" excuse. There are better ways to flirt with death than to sit on your ass 18 hours a day chugging Dew and eating Ho Hos.

    It sounds like you suffer from the false belief that obesity is simply a matter of laziness. Trust me, there are plenty of lazy people who are not obese.

    The rise of obesity in American society has many factors, and I think that laziness is a very small one. A much more important factor would be the insane number of carbohydrates that we consume now as opposed to one hundred years ago. Do you know how many millions of gallons of soft drinks (50 grams of carbs per can) people go through in a year? To put it in the proper perspective, consider that humans used to drink exactly zero gallons of soft drinks in a year. And add to that the fact that soft drink manufacturers continue to raise the portion size of their products. Notice that snack makers (carb factories) and restaurants (carb factories) are doing the same thing. It's merely pandering to the "get more for your money" desire which is almost inextricable from the American psyche.

    Also, 99% of diets will fail (read: make the dieter gain more weight, not less) if the dieter is already over 100 pounds overweight. Telling these people, "Get off your ass you fat fuck!" does not help. In fact, I think it exacerbates the problem that you deplore.

    New balance sucks. Ecco rules the universe! Then again, I'm biased: I value my knees too much to be a runner. ;)

    --
    I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    1. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      The rise of obesity in American society has many factors, and I think that laziness is a very small one. A much more important factor would be the insane number of carbohydrates that we consume now as opposed to one hundred years ago. Do you know how many millions of gallons of soft drinks (50 grams of carbs per can) people go through in a year? To put it in the proper perspective, consider that humans used to drink exactly zero gallons of soft drinks in a year. And add to that the fact that soft drink manufacturers continue to raise the portion size of their products. Notice that snack makers (carb factories) and restaurants (carb factories) are doing the same thing. It's merely pandering to the "get more for your money" desire which is almost inextricable from the American psyche.
      That's the problem. If you look at most other countries they don't have the soda that the US has. Not like it is in the US anyway. I just got back from Japan where most people drink water and tea. There are some sodas, but not many. How many fat japanese people do you see? Walk around the US and most people are overweight in the US. They sit there and consume more food than necessary and drink soda and wonder why they gain weight. I'm naturally underweight, and have to eat a lot ot maintain weight but it's easy enough to not drink soda. Most people don't even drink it because they like it after a few years, they drink it because it's part of their hobby.

      Laziness and poor dieting causes many health problems. I challenge anyone to just cut out drinking soda. Period, end of story. Just don't drink it. You wont miss it after a few weeks. When you go to a restaurant drink iced tea or water. Your teeth with thank you, and your body will love you. You will feel better, and generally healthier. That's just one small thing to cut out. Then, if you feel you have escaped from the habit and want to enjoy a soda have one every so often. Drinking a glass of wine a day is better for you than a soda.

      Also, 99% of diets will fail (read: make the dieter gain more weight, not less) if the dieter is already over 100 pounds overweight. Telling these people, "Get off your ass you fat fuck!" does not help. In fact, I think it exacerbates the problem that you deplore.
      People fail on diets because they are weak and don't follow the diet plans. It's because food is a security blanket in US culture. It's because it's a habit that's been formed since they were growing up. Excercise is not the end all answer, but you must excercise if you want to take your diet seriously. There is a good reason why I have 8% body fat. I watch what I eat and excercise right.

      New balance sucks. Ecco rules the universe! Then again, I'm biased: I value my knees too much to be a runner. ;)
      Amen, I bought my first pair of Ecco shoes about 2 years ago and will never go back for my daily shoes. I have surgically reconstructed ankles and a floating kneecap, so running isn't an option for me so I can't say anything about that.. :)

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    2. Re:Common misconception about obesity by mizhi · · Score: 2

      It's a combination of both lack of exercise and too many carbohydrates + a greasy diet. Most people want the simple cure all solution to keep healthy (note that I said healthy, not thin), and it's simply not any one thing. Nor is the cause any one thing.

      --
      Humorless sig goes here.
    3. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Skyshadow · · Score: 2
      The rise of obesity in American society has many factors, and I think that laziness is a very small one. A much more important factor would be the insane number of carbohydrates that we consume now as opposed to one hundred years ago.

      Well, of course you're right that dietary changes are a big part of it. However, don't underestimate the effect of a sedetary lifestyle.

      I know of whence I speak here: Up until a few months ago, I was one of those all-waking-hours-in-front-of-a-screen types. I exercised very inconsistantly, and I tried to control my weight through diet. The problem was, frankly, that I just didn't have the willpower (or the knowledge) to *always* eat right. So you're right when you say most *diets* fail -- what I really needed was a change in the way I live.

      I've been working out pretty steadily for about four months and I'm slowly taking off the weight I put on (I'm 6' 3" and 205; I'm hoping to even out about about 180 or so). I also made some other changes, like quitting candy bars and switching to diet soda, but nothing all that radical (I still have the occassional In & Out Burger, I still drink regular beer, etc).

      Anyhow, I think my biggest point was that you shouldn't just disregard your health or assume that you're helpless to control your weight or fitness level. If I was able to adopt a semi-healthy lifestyle, anyone can.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    4. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Skyshadow · · Score: 2
      People fail on diets because they are weak and don't follow the diet plans.

      That's not really fair. Most diets fail because they're a basic aberration -- to get lasting results, you have to alter your lifestyle (and alter it to something you can *live with*), not just do something specific for a few months.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    5. Re:Common misconception about obesity by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2

      I'm 6' 3" and 205; I'm hoping to even out about about 180 or so

      LOL, I'm about 6' 1" 180 trying to get to 200 ;) I eat tons of healthy stuff, but I think that I am just too active to gain any weight. Between the gym, surfing, and golf (4 hours walking in the heat IS exercise) I stay fairly active. I typically view myself as too thin, so instead of taking down the 205 to 180 you should work on using the stored energy you have there and turning it to muscle :)

    6. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Huogo · · Score: 1

      I'm 5'11 and 145 lbs, which is bordering on underweight. Compared to me, you are not too thin :p

    7. Re:Common misconception about obesity by drasfr · · Score: 1

      Diet can work if you are motivated, and want to change your lifestyle.

      Here is my example.

      I had several big changes in my life, came to New York from France 4 years ago... Changed my way of eating, and lazyness to cook (In the first year I was here, I did not eat a single time home...) Come on... bring on Burger King, Mc Donald, Wendy, Pizza, I knew every single restaurants/fast food/dinner around my company and home !! Man it was good !!! Oh wait !!! I went up from 175lbs to 230lbs (and 5"11)!! What's my cholesterol level ? off the charts... blood pressure ? way up my friend ! my liver ? Doctor told me I'll die of a liver problem if I don't stop drinking, WAIT, I am not drinking Doc ! just eat crap ! oh yea... and my girlfriend left me...

      Anyway, I decided to do something, move, went to a gym club, hired a personal trainer 3 times a week, at 7:30 in the morning (believe me I am not a morning person !!). It is expensive, but it is worth it. In 4 months of that, exercising, lifting weights, running 30mn every other day, I lost 30lbs. Wow, I started to look not too bad, and I had dates again ! yea... oh... no, it was bad...

      I met a new girl (She's my wife now !!) , and she was SUCH a fine cook, she LOVED to cook, my home cooking, anything I wanted, man it was good !! And we were going out to good restaurants 2/3 times a week... oh yeah.. and physical exercise, gym ? well gone. why bother ? I have a new cute girlfriend...

      Wow... I had a good time then, and you know what ? In about 6 months of that, I gained what ?? 40lbs !! and then, there was something, family meeting between my parents, her parents, etc around christmas to announce we're getting married, and some photos taken. I came back home, looked at them on the computer, and I died... did not recognized me. Althought I was feeling already the past few months my body changing.

      I decided to change again before my wedding, I bought a treadmill, bowflex, and japanese PS2, and DDRs. YEAH...

      and you know what ? diversity, I changed my eating habit, completly, eating light, no more soda, fried food, burgers, etc... exercise 20 to 30 minutes a day, sometime more on DDR because it IS fun. (oh yea... added bonus is I can go to arcade room now and I score pretty well...). Anyway, I lost 55 lbs, went back down to 185lbs, and I am not finished yet, goal is back to 175lbs, and have this nice 6pack I never had before that I have beginning of a shape now...

      and you know what ? my doctor predicted me a long life, all my blood test are completly normal, my liver went back to normal, my high blood pressure came back to normal, I have SO much more stamina, energy to do things, concentrate, I am a different man, and girls look at me again (oh wait... I'm married now...)

      anyway, all of that to say that when you gain weight, your whole body changes in a really bad way, you probably also shortened your life a lot. People notice it, but most of the time they are too polite to tell you. You tear off your clothes, etc...

      When you loose weight, you only have benefits (except buying new smaller pants and oh yea, reducing the size of my wedding ring, I loose it now !!), and YOU FEEL GOOD !! Full of energy, stamina, new strenght. Your whole body will tell you thank you, and friends will now say something, "Wow you look great now, it's amazing the change !".

      The moral is, if you want to loose weight, IT IS POSSIBLE, motivate yourself, find something that suits YOU, take a 20/30 minutes a day and DO IT !! No BS you're busy and working 12 hours a day ! I was too, just get up earlier and exercise, it'll give you more energy for the day!

      It's been more than a year now, and I have never felt as good as I feel now, and healthier, except when I was a teen.

    8. Re:Common misconception about obesity by dpilot · · Score: 1

      6'4" and normally 172 lbs, down recently to 162 lbs because of short-term (2 weeks into 4 weeks worth) disruptions around the house. Most people don't sympathize too much with this problem. It's easy to eat more, harder to eat more of the right things.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    9. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Reziac · · Score: 2

      On the flipside, there are plenty of obese people who are not lazy. Take a tour thru midwestern farm country -- you'll see plenty of 300 lb. men and women who work their chubby asses off, doing hard physical labour, from dawn to dusk, 365 days a year. And any one of them can toss a 100 lb. hay bale 10 feet without feeling it.

      And if I became a runner, my knees would never speak to me again! But I walk about 5 miles a day and do a lot of low-grade lifting just in the course of my regular work. Which is doubtless part of why I weigh the same at 47 as I did at 17, tho I was in much better overall shape at 17.

      "Exercise is wonderful. I can sit and watch it all day." -- Larry Niven

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    10. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's nice that you blame restaurants and the like for obesity. While certainly most such foods are not healthy for you if eatten on a regular bases without other suplementary food, I think there's more to it than simply the guilt of food manufacturers.

      Since the introduction of mechanization of various sorts, the actual physical exertion individuals have had to express has gone greatly down. Jobs involving rather sedatary work, such as sitting, means the protein, carbohydrates, and the like which would normally be used to rebuild breaking down tissue and collect fat deposits for times of short famine are now being stored almost wholey as fat.

      The inclusion of more food per person outputted has actually meant a surplus of food, driving down cost and encouraging individuals to not only eat more but to eat more expensive foods, ie meats and cheeses, more often. In this day and age, three meals should include two meals of strictly vegetables and fruits, no other food group. The third meal can be a meat filled meal, as protein is needed but no where at the scale it was needed in the past.

      In general, the less meat and cheese you eat and require, the less reconstruction of tissue is being performed which means genetic replication errors as well as formation errors for damaged cells will be produced and you should live longer.

    11. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      That's not really fair. Most diets fail because they're a basic aberration -- to get lasting results, you have to alter your lifestyle (and alter it to something you can *live with*), not just do something specific for a few months.

      It's absolutely fair. If someone is too weak to alter their diet than they shouldn't complain. I have my own habit-based issued. If it is something that is important enough, I break the habit and don't go back. If I try and fail, it means I'm too weak to do it. Same thing with people who are overweight and want to be thin.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    12. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Gulthek · · Score: 2

      "New balance sucks. Ecco rules the universe! Then again, I'm biased: I value my knees too much to be a runner. ;)"

      Or you can have it both ways. I have a pair of Ecco boots for utilitarian purposes, and a pair of NB's for athletics.

    13. Re:Common misconception about obesity by eheien · · Score: 1

      I'm very curious where you got the belief that carbohydrate consumption causes obesity. I've heard this before, but never seen proof of it. In fact, a quick search on the web shows the National Institute of Health and American Obesity Association not mentioning a single thing about carbohydrates causing obesity, but mentioning plenty about fat intake and exercise. Also, other websites in fact repudiate the claim that carbohydrates cause obesity. Could you please give us some scientific sources for this claim?

    14. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      People fail on diets because they are weak and don't follow the diet plans.

      You were doing OK until you fell into this load of bullshit.

    15. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's absolutely fair. If someone is too weak to alter their diet than they shouldn't complain. I have my own habit-based issued. If it is something that is important enough, I break the habit and don't go back. If I try and fail, it means I'm too weak to do it. Same thing with people who are overweight and want to be thin.

      So you are the measure and the arbiter of all things. You arrogant shit, you haven't the vaguest idea in hell of what others have going on in their lives. Smug son of a bitch.

    16. Re:Common misconception about obesity by The+Rev · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The rise of obesity in American society has many factors, and I think that laziness is a very small one. A much more important factor would be the insane number of carbohydrates that we consume now as opposed to one hundred years ago. Do you know how many millions of gallons of soft drinks (50 grams of carbs per can) people go through in a year?

      Surely failing to count how many cans one has drunk or how much food one has eaten is in some way lazy?

      I mean, noone made these otherwise sensible citizens drink all that sugar did they? They could have drunk diet sodas instead couldn't they?

      Regardless of the reasons for be obese, people should take personal responsibility for their health.

      It's not my fault, it's Pepsi's, honest!

      You know even if someone has a genetic propensity for being overweight, they could still do a little exercise.

      I do agree what diets will almost certainly fail. A permanent change in lifestyle, not some temporary starvation is the only long-term way to control weight or improve physical fitness.

      It seems to me that in the western world (where I live), people are more and more likely to find an excuse for their circumstances outside of their own home. They had a bad childhood so they're bad people. They were poor so they steal.
      Give me a break! I grew up poor and I stayed in school, didn't do very well, but am at least employed. I take complete responsibility for my life and my actions and my condition. Period.

      Finally: if the next time you go to a restraunt they give you a bigger portion than the last time DON'T EAT IT ALL!!!!!

    17. Re:Common misconception about obesity by mfh · · Score: 1

      These midwest farm people who weigh 300 pounds but do heavy work all day - what do they eat? I'm guessing:

      Breakfast: Bacon, egg, ham, sausage, white bread, butter, syrup & pancakes, whole milk, etc.

      Lunch: Burger, other meat, some veggies.

      Dinner: Steak, various potatoes, burgers, pork chops, some veggies, gravy, etc.

      Is it a surprise that they're overly beefy for the amount of physical work done during the day? (no pun intended).

      --
      The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    18. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 2

      Being obese is not healthy. But you can be a little bit overweight, but still in a reasonably good physical shape if you work out on a regular basis.

      Even if you don't lose weight, working out is good for your health. Now, I just gotta do something with the massive amount of cognitive dissonance I am experiencing right now...

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    19. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      Grrr! STOP this crap damnit. The problem is not carbohydrates. It's simple sugars which are a FORM of Carbohydrates, but not ALL carbohydrates that are the problem. A good, balanced diet for most people is 60/20/20 Carbohydrates/Protein/Fat for some people their bodies don't handle carbs the same way and they have to go 20/60/20 instead. But Pasta is mostly Starchy Carbohydrates and is good for you. Sugar is the enemy here, not Carbs.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    20. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      Since we're talking about how thin we are, I'm 5'7" and 124lbs, I have less than 4% bodyfat, and I bench 180lbs and can run a mile at a steady 7mph.

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    21. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I hate you! :) I'm 6'1" 200 lbs. I'm middle of the road fitness-wise. I don't run much these days, but I walk several miles a day on the weekends, and sometimes after work, and I have no problem running up the stairs to my 3rd floor office.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    22. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I don't think I eat that much. Certainly I ate much more in my 20's when I weighed 130! But I do drink quite a bit of Coke.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    23. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Reziac · · Score: 2

      You're right about the farm diet (except no burgers) -- but try doing heavy physical work all day without eating plenty of animal protein and fat. You'll soon find yourself brainlessly plodding along like a beast of burden, *feeling* starved all the time no matter how much grain you eat.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    24. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I'm naturally underweight, and have to eat a lot ot maintain weight "

      Then stop talking. You have no credibility in this conversation.

    25. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Kintanon · · Score: 2

      I've spent the last 6 months trying to gain 6 lbs to get up to 130, for a while I was up to 129.7, then KABOOM, I dropped 5 lbs in 3 days and I haven't been able to get back over 125 since then. It seems to have coincided with me cresting the 160lb mark on my bench press a few weeks ago. I guess I just put on enough muscle that the extra protein and calories I've been eatting isn't enough anymore. Bah...

      Kintanon

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
    26. Re:Common misconception about obesity by balloonhead · · Score: 1
      There are more aspects to obesity than just exercise. However, the simple facts are that (calories in) minus (calories out) must be zero to stay the same weight, negative to lose weight, and positive to gain weight. It really is that simple.


      In a few isolated cases, e.g.: high dose / long term steroid therapy (don't pretend that asthma inhaler is doing it!) will cause an increase, much of it water; thyroid disease (reduced (or, more uncommonly, increased) metabolism and therefore calorie use); some problems with absorption will reduce effective calorie intake (and cause weight loss). Other than these and a few very finely printed other things, it's about wha you eat, and how much exercise you do.


      America's obesity (75% of the population by 2010 predicted! Woo Hoo!) is related almost directly to the increase in food portion sizes, increased fat and carb content of the diet, and unhealthy diets ('there is no such thing as a good or bad food, only good or bad diets' although I think the deep-fried Mars bar disproves that(although it is tasty..)).


      Lack of exercise is also a big contributor - you don't need to do much exercise as long as it is regular - a few miles a week is more than most manage. What's the average, something like 4 hours a day in front of the TV in the US at the moment? I mean, come on - these are the same blobs that say it's their glands.


      There are a few cases of illness related obesity (statistically, a tiny number, and also a constant number - this does not explain the increase in the population's weight).


      The rest don't do enough exercise, and eat too much. This is proves by thermodynamics, and the modern day citizen's choice of the path of least resistance.


      P.S. I like New Balance for running, as well as Asics - not much use for anything else though but they are sort of specialised shoes.

      --
      This idea was invented by Shampoo.
    27. Re:Common misconception about obesity by Mr.Sharpy · · Score: 1

      That's because no one wants to talk about what refined SUGAR does to you. There is seriously some weird conspiracy concerning refined sugar and its effects on people. People were not designed to consume pure sugar by itself, and no one wants to talk about that. There is not necessarily a problem with all carbohydrates, but with the simple carbohydrates like pure sucrose. I think everyone oversimplifies the issue of weight control and diet. The processes that go on in the body are extremely complex and simply saying the problem is fat intake, or calorie content or carbohydrate consumption is misguided.

      I think it would be a good idea to not restrict dietary studies to calories, fat, carbohydrates, etc., but also to include the additives they put in food. What we eat may taste like something familiar (or perhaps more accurately, what we think something should taste like), but that does not necessarily mean it has any chemical resemblance to an actual natural food product. The ingredient lists of the things we eat today read like some chemical warfare agent.

  55. Re:It's not the physical reqs that turn away peopl by Stonehand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe they want people who already know what the limits of what they can and cannot do are, and how law enforcement generally operates.

    That way, the new guy doesn't bollux up an investigation by committing some mistake which a defense attorney can present as a violation of his client's rights and grounds for dismissal. They'd also likely have a better grounding in who and what you're dealing with, on the other side -- and it won't just be against stereotypical "black hats" getting their rocks off by DOSing some high-profile .com, either.

    At least, that's one possible explanation. Another is just that they cut-and-pasted requirements from their other divisions without being overly concerned about it. I'm not a Fed, so I wouldn't know.

    --
    Only the dead have seen the end of war.
  56. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you run regularly and are 250 lbs, you're probably a glutton. That's you're perogative. If you want to go that route, I recommend riding a bike. Or, if that's not what you want, join a health club and use an eliptical machine or an exercise bike (as a side benefit, most health clubs come with very good looking members of your preferred sex in the vicinity).

  57. who give's a shit about the FBI, the NSA rules by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would any self respecting geek want to work for the FBI? They have their head's stuck up their asses.

    The NSA is THE place to be.

    And I thought that way before SE Linux was released by the NSA.

    1. Re:who give's a shit about the FBI, the NSA rules by blablablastuff · · Score: 1

      Most of the NSA's IT stuff is contracted. For their actual employees, NSA uses the same GS scale as every other federal agency. A GS-12 computer scientist working for the NSA gets the same pay as a GS-12 working for the department of agriculture studying the composition of cow flops in Idaho.

  58. Fat Hackers almost an oxymoron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fat "hackers" is an oxymoron. Fat computer people are always the "no-nothing-know-it-alls" too eager to give their opinion on things they dont know enough about. Better to keep your mouth shut and let people thing you are an idiot then to open it and proove them right. Everybody knows the best "hackers" are the elusive long-haired quiet people in the back of the class that rarely talk.

  59. Oh..... by rongage · · Score: 1

    I thought that the FBI wanted the "...biggest and the best hackers..."

    I guess that should be "brightest and the best"... Oops...

    --
    Ron Gage - Westland, MI
  60. fbi is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An fbi agent is an fbi agent. It's easier to have a well trained, responsible, fit and ethical agent doing the hacking work. Hacking itself is illegal, so I don't understand why the FBI would even consider hiring criminals to work for them. Working for a group like the FBI requires a combination of skills, not just brainpower.

    It has been shown anyway that hackers who 'turn good' can't be trusted. Just look at fyodor, the owner of http://www.insecure.org, who hacked into a slashdot troll's computer to 'get back at him'.

  61. No wonder FBI is a wreck by cioxx · · Score: 1

    Think about it. A security expert is hired to analyze security and intelligence. Who the fuck cares whether they can shoot a gun or not. I know people who have studied their ABC's and can outhack any current FBI 'agents', but sweat like Steve Ballmer at the linux convention.

    Question is, are you looking for supermodels or people who will keep the national security interests safe?

    If I was in charge, I'd even hire obese, gay midgets, as long as they helped the agency to get up-to date with computer security.

    Stupid beaurocracy tactics just like the one mentined in the above article are to blame for 9/11 attacks. I bet those FBI agents were in gym pumping iron when planes struck the world trade center.

    Your tax dollars at work.

    1. Re:No wonder FBI is a wreck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually didn't the FBI used to be run by an obese gay midget?

    2. Re:No wonder FBI is a wreck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd kill for a big fat deaf blind gay guy if we could just get some damn work done around here!

    3. Re:No wonder FBI is a wreck by rodgerd · · Score: 2
      I'd even hire obese, gay midgets


      They did that once, but it took so long to get rid of J Edgar they decided not to try again.
  62. the real threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow this sounds like the exact same politically correct bullshit that resulted in the catastrophic intelligence failure leading up to September 11th. Such as, we can't payoff some one that was a member of a terrorist group for information or if he defects.

    If someone is physically fit, they presumably don't spend 17 hours a day on a computer, thus they aren't going to be the most skilled of the selection. Simple logic. Groups don't think logically, compromises don't result in logical decisions, which is exactly why stupid stuff like this happens.

  63. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    i can barely walk 1 mile (if i can at all).. if i ran id pass out after about 100 feet. so whats your suggestion?

    sell your car. use the bus from now on. once you're more fit (walking to/from bus stop, carrying groceries), get a bike and bike everywhere. once you can bike everywhere, run everywhere. once you can run everywhere, get a car again. once you're weak again, sell the car and start over.

  64. Because they're not allowed to. by devphil · · Score: 2
    So worse case is I don't get the job and then I get brought up on charges of some stupid thing I did in my youth.

    When I was being interviewed by the feds, I asked them about some of the questions on the many-page form. Questions of the format, "Have you ever mutilated small children while dropping acid, selling crystal meth, and joining a right-wing militia/religious cult all at the same time?" etc. I asked, "are you actually expecting a "oh sure, all the time" answer? Have you ever gotten a yes answer? Don't people get freaked out that they're shooting themselves in the foot?"

    The representative[*] chuckled and pointed out that the answers you give on the form, and during the interviews, are sealed. They cannot by law turn around and bring you up on charges based on how you answered. (They can deny you the job/clearance/position/whatever because you're a meth-smoking nutcase, but they can't trick you into putting yourself in jail.)

    [*]Sweet little old lady on the outside, but damn... there is nothing more intimidating than someone who looks like your grandmother staring you in the eye while asking, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of any organization whose stated goal is the violent overthrow of the United States Government?" and no, she's not smiling.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
  65. The obvious solution by Maniakes · · Score: 1
    --
    A legparnasom tele van angolnaval.
  66. now wonder national secruity sucks by KingFOOL · · Score: 0

    All the smartest UNIX geeks are usually fat. That leaves the government with only the dumb ones. Now we know where our security problems are coming from.

  67. yeah yeah yeah. by Sarin · · Score: 2

    well I'd do it.
    I would sweat my guts out; cough my own blood up during hellish daily 30 mile drills with a 22'' monitor on my back, for 10 months untill I meet the requirements, all for uncle sam!

    As long as I can kill people with my .45 or with my bare hands, well they'd let me decide, I'm sure ,...oh.uh, wait just a sec, we were talking about a shitty nt4-sp1 (now, stay focussed) socalled-hack-by-terrorists-which-was-in-fact-just -a-bug-exploited-by-some-scriptkiddies-in-the stoneage-or-feature-you're-not-really-sure-but-the -cia-is-shutting-your-mouth -anyhow-so-you-stopped-caring-after-this-thought-r eached-you-which-was-when-you-filled-in-the-realon e(tm)-questionaire (strange how things go sometimes right?)-which-was-recorded-by-echelon-somehow-and- they-approached-you sys-admin-"ish" job here right?

    Well, never mind then!

  68. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

    (as a side benefit, most health clubs come with very good looking members of your preferred sex in the vicinity).

    Really? I've been searching for health clubs that have a large contingency of transvestite sheep, but to no avail...

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  69. Easier said than done by drsquare · · Score: 1

    It's all well and good saying 'Get out and run', but that doesn't solve anything. If people had the self discipline to exercise, they'd exercise. If they don't, then telling them to isn't going to make them.

    I am content to be a 'fat fuck', and I don't use excuses. I just don't have the self discipline to force myself to pay loads of money on some shorts and trainers, then put myself through miles of misery and pain and sweat and blisters every week for the sake of losing an ounce of weight, only to put it on again straight away when I have chippy for tea.

    Face it, exercise is miserable. It is painful. It is hard, horrible work. And unless you're running miles every week, you're not going to see any benefit from it. I tried going for a run a few months ago. After about half a mile, I just collapsed. My legs were aching and wobbling, my chest was in great pain, my lungs were almost self-destructing trying to bring in precious air. I'm not putting myself through that! I'm not a masochist.

    As for dying without 10-20 years. Good. Anything to bring an early end to my miserable existence.

    1. Re:Easier said than done by Skyshadow · · Score: 1
      "I went for a run once without working up to it, and it was hard. I can't do it."

      ...is analogous to...

      "I tried to load Linux once without ever reading anything about it or having any previous experience with computers, and it was hard. I can't do it."

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    2. Re:Easier said than done by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Working up to it? It was a bloody half a mile run. I'm not working up to that, that's the least amount of exercise possible. Anything shorter and I wouldn't have gone anywhere!

    3. Re:Easier said than done by gooberguy · · Score: 1

      I run 70 miles a week. I am 5'5" tall and weigh 110lbs. I have 2% body fat. I can run 5 kilometers in under 16 minutes. And here is what I have to say to you: People like you SICKEN me. I have to put up with higher life insurance premiums because of people like you. I have to pay for YOUR laziness and lack of self-discipline. I hope your heart explodes in a decade, you deserve it.

      D/\ Gooberguy

      --


      Karma: Meh (Mostly from meh.)
    4. Re:Easier said than done by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Well, good for you. You're such a better person because you were born with or brought up to be self disciplined. That makes you so much better than people who through no fault of their own don't have the mental strength to torture themselves every day.

      You say it's pushing up your insurance premiums? Well, tough. I don't exist to make your life cheaper. I'm not torturing myself just so you can have more money.

      Do you have the same attitude towards cancer victims? After all, you're paying for their diseases and lack of a cure for those diseases. Do they also deserve to die?

    5. Re:Easier said than done by Hott+of+the+World · · Score: 1

      You only wish you could be a foot taller huh, shorty?

      --
      | - | - |
    6. Re:Easier said than done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's cool that you're all ripped. Too bad most girls over 5'6" won't even consider boinking you, midget boy. I'm 6' with some pudge in the middle and smoke. Thanks for helping out with my insurance.

      My heart is not going to explode. It's going to be replaced with a grown one at my earliest convenience.

    7. Re:Easier said than done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am in reasonably good shape - I was a bike messenger. BUT - I HATE running. I think it's the most obnoxious kind of exercise, and I feel the same way you described. I get hot, feel shitty, and generally don't like the idea that a form of exercise I do will kill my knees in short order.

      That said, don't write off exercise because you hate running. IMHO, biking is a lot more enjoyable, because you don't just think about how much it sucks to be doing it the whole time. Swimming too - either one of those will make the overheating problem less of a problem (water or air-cooling, take your pick), and either one will get TREMENDOUSLY EASIER after only a couple of times. Believe it or not, (and I was a hefty little kid), I actually get to the point where I WANT to exercise.

      ...then I let myself get out of shape for a while and it's a bitch to get started again ;)

      anyway, I'm just suggesting that you try something other than running... you'll feel better and sleep better, no matter how much life is left in you.

    8. Re:Easier said than done by koreth · · Score: 5, Insightful
      exercise is miserable. It is painful. It is hard, horrible work.

      Running isn't the only form of exercise. I'm 5'9" and used to weigh close to 200 pounds. Now I weigh around 160. Four years ago I decided enough was enough and made some changes, some big and some small:

      • Diet soda instead of regular soda. If you're a 4-cans-of-soda-a-day geek, this alone saves you a good 500 calories a day with essentially no effort or change in lifestyle. Takes a few weeks to get used to the different flavor but you do get used to it. Later I switched to water and treated myself to a movie a week with the money I saved.

      • Swimming. My condo complex had a swimming pool. I started using it every day after work. At first I just dog-paddled around until I got tired, which didn't take long. But gradually I could stay out longer and longer and started doing different kinds of strokes around the pool. The key is gradually -- I didn't try to force myself to hit some arbitrary time limit, I just swam until I was nearly out of steam, then stopped.

      • Moderation. I sum this up as "put a little bit back." If I poured myself a bowl of cereal, I'd take my usual amount, then grab a handful out of the bowl and stick it back in the box. At restaurants I'd chop off a piece of my food and either give it to someone else or set it aside and not eat it. The idea here wasn't to go on a crash diet, just to cut back a bit while still enjoying what I usually ate.

      • Cooking. Rather than eating out all the time and getting God only knows how much fat and sugar, I started cooking my own meals more and more often. This was probably the biggest factor in my weight loss; when you control exactly what goes into your meals, you're able to control your intake of calories. Plus, believe it or not, cooking is a lot of fun once you get over the initial learning curve; it's a puzzle-solving exercise to figure out what's going to go well with what, how to optimize a recipe to take as little time and effort as possible but still taste good, etc. Unintended side benefit: after keeping at it for a few years, I'm a much better cook than most of the women I date, which can be a big turn-on!

      • Hitting a gym twice a week. Gyms are good for people who have no idea how to start exercising; they have staff members who are trained and paid to ease you into a workable exercise program. You may think only a dumb jock would work at a gym, and you'll certainly find them there, but you'll also find some of the personal trainers are smart, well-educated folks who consider it a personal achievement to get someone started on the road to fitness. The first time I visited a gym, one of the trainers recommended a series of machines I could go through, all of which allowed me to ratchet up the difficulty level at my own pace as I felt comfortable with it. I started off only being able to burn about 75 calories on a stationary bike (according to the bike's computer) but eventually worked my way up to 375 -- hardly championship cycling but enough for steady weight loss. And I got to listen to some good books-on-tape while I was at it.

      • Dancing. A little under three years ago a friend at work turned me on to ballroom dance, and it's how I get most of my exercise now. It's proof positive that exercise is not necessarily a hideous, awful affair. In many respects it's the geek's dream exercise program: it's highly structured yet intensely creative, it gets you close to attractive members of the opposite sex with essentially no effort, it's as much a mental workout as a physical one (especially for guys when the floor is crowded -- you'll have to use the same fast thinking skills you do in a good videogame) and it's a chance to be appreciated for your skills and expertise. And as a matter of fact, I'd say a good 75% of the ballroom dance guys I've met work in technology or science. There's a bit of a learning curve, granted, but name another geek-guy hobby that'll cause cute women to rush toward you but not get that far because some other cute woman got to you first!

      The point is, it didn't take a massive, up-front dose of self-discipline to point myself in the right direction. I started off slow and built up over time, and now I'm in the best shape I've been in nearly 20 years. I'm maybe a bit more stubborn than some, but fundamentally anyone could do what I've done.

    9. Re:Easier said than done by forkboy · · Score: 2

      MY health insurance premiums are higher because of skinny little pricks whose mouths write checks their butts can't cash. I used to bounce at a rough little bar in NY and call the ambulance a couple times a week to pick up the bruised, unconscious form of tiny scrappy little goofballs like you. Inside, I was smiling every time. I have to pay for YOUR mouthiness and lack of self-discipline. I hope your head explodes in a decade, you deserve it.

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    10. Re:Easier said than done by drsquare · · Score: 1

      1) Soda's horrible. Beer is far superior, but you can't get diet beer. Fortuanetly, beer is a healthy beverage with few fats or carbohydrates.

      2) Swimming? Ack. I'm not letting anyone see my fat, stretch-mark covered body. I'd sooner die.

      3) No thanks, food is my life. I could never cut down on it. Food is the reason I live. It is delicious.

      4) On the other hand, doing your own cooking means you can put lots more oil and salt in to make it even more delicious, so it is less healthy. Plus it costs more, and you need to spend years learning how to cook.

      5) Well, if you're some millionaire who can afford a gym, you may as well just pay for liposuction.

      6) Oh god, I'd rather die than dance.

    11. Re:Easier said than done by gooberguy · · Score: 1

      That would be true, but I'm smart enough to stay away from rough bars and I almost always carry a knife with me. I know I'm no good in a fight, but I can't say the same for other "skinny little pricks." You don't have to pay for MY mouthiness, because I only insult people when I am far away from them. I know I always smile inside when someone gets the snot beat out of them after talking B.S.

      D/\ Gooberguy

      --


      Karma: Meh (Mostly from meh.)
    12. Re:Easier said than done by shepd · · Score: 1

      People like you SICKEN me. I have to put up with higher emergency fees on my taxes because they're scraping another runner off the road. Then I have to put up with my insurance going up on my car because they scraped another idiot runner off the front of it. And then there's the manslaughter charges! But Judge, he ran a red light! Doesn't matter when he's not in a steel cage, it seems. Another couple of weeks in the chain gang picking up trash I guess. Or worse yet, you run so bloody much and don't end up in front of a car that I have to pay for your foot, knee and ankle therapy for the rest of your life when one of the three gives out (and at 70 miles at week it WILL). It's people like you who run all over the place all the time and waste my money that piss me off.

      I hope your knees, feet, and ankles explode in a decade. You deserve it, and at least then you won't be able to to any more damage to my tax money in the system.

      Running is for getting away from something dangerous in a hurry (or getting to something really good in a hurry), walking is for simply moving you places. Use the right exercise for the job and keep us safe.

      Now, will you stop being such a high and mighty fuck, or do you need more reasons why running is seriously damaging your body?

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    13. Re:Easier said than done by Skyshadow · · Score: 1
      and I almost always carry a knife with me

      Right. 'cause that's a good idea.

      As noted earlier, I'm 6'3", 205 lbs and am a fairly strong guy. When someone tries to start something with me in a bar (this has happened but once), I *leave*. I'd recommend you try that. Better to sting the pride than to end up beaten/stabbed/shot.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    14. Re:Easier said than done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you be any more full of yourself?

    15. Re:Easier said than done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I salute you!

    16. Re:Easier said than done by autechre · · Score: 1


      I halfway suspect that you were at least partially trolling, but what the heck:

      1) Yes, soda is horrible. I don't particularly care for beer, either; I'd rather have wine (which actually is good for you, in moderation) or vodka (which isn't, but everyone has something. Beer is certainly not going to help you lose weight; the phrase "beer belly" isn't just a joke.

      2) I don't like swimming, either; have you tried martial arts? I know a master instructor in various Chinese arts as well as karate, and he weighs at least 400 pounds.

      3) No argument there, though your metabolism will almost certainly slow as you get older (mine really has, which is good; I couldn't afford to feed my teenage self!).

      4) You don't need oil and salt to make things taste better, and cooking at home is certainly less expensive than buying pre-packaged food, let alone dining out. Don't "spend years learning how to cook"; start cooking, and get better every year. Everyone is completely capable of at least making pesto pasta from a good recipe. (By the same token, don't be a psycho about salt; there are sound scientific reasons why the right amount of it really does make pretty much everything taste better).

      5) My non-university martial arts class costs $40 per month, averaging less than $5 per hour of instruction. I am not a millionaire.

      6) "Then...die." But you might want to try some dancing first. You know, with girls.

      --
      WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
    17. Re:Easier said than done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I run 70 miles a week. I am 5'5" tall and weigh 110lbs. I have 2% body fat. I can run 5 kilometers in under 16 minutes. And here is what I have to say to you: People like you SICKEN me. I have to put up with higher life insurance premiums because of people like you. I have to pay for YOUR laziness and lack of self-discipline. I hope your heart explodes in a decade, you deserve it.

      Moron-fuck. What's really disgusting is self-absorbed bastards like you who think that anything beyond their narrow-minded lifestyle should be non-insurable. Why don't you run up your ass so the rest of us don't have to put up with your whining and puling.

    18. Re:Easier said than done by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1

      2% body fat? Isn't that rather unhealthy given that the healthy level is more like 10% for an adult male?

    19. Re:Easier said than done by Scarblac · · Score: 2

      I tried going for a run a few months ago. After about half a mile, I just collapsed. [...]

      As for dying without 10-20 years. Good. Anything to bring an early end to my miserable existence.

      Don't run, walk. If you can't even walk a mile, you're already half dead, but as long as you can still move, you can improve gradually, it's really quite a fast process. And a miserable existence? Feeling bad all the time? Well, duh, that wouldn't have anything to do with not being fit, would it. Being fat makes you feel miserable, because you don't have the energy for anything.

      You have a choice: force yourself to do a little exercise a few times a week (perhaps feeling miserable the first few weeks), or force yourself to feel miserable all the time, the rest of your life.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    20. Re:Easier said than done by Spoing · · Score: 2
      * Dancing.

      I'll agree with the dancing part & women. I'm adding it to my list of weekly activities. Salsa dancing looks like the way to go; lots of body contact.

      Dance is not recommened for geek girls looking for dates though. A former girlfriend of mine was shocked to find that most of the men who were attracted to dance clases were gay or talked into going with thier wives. I ofcourse laughed -- most real men at night are at the gym, a bar, or home watching something blow up on TV. Yet, you can't argue with the ratio -- just don't look gay if you're not.

      --
      A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
    21. Re:Easier said than done by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1
      That's fine for you, punk. But I prefer the Slashdiet: Diet soda instead of regular soda:
      No. Sugar and caffeine make a great, metabolism boosting combination.

      Swimming:
      Well, I am a human, so I guess I can swim, but all my other M&M buddies can't join in, so that's out.

      Moderation:
      Well, your post got a 5, so I really can't agree that moderation is a good thing.(unless you're positively moderating my post)

      Cooking:
      I'm an excellent chef, but only using recipes from the Anarchist's Cookbook.

      Hitting a gym twice a week:
      I'd rather hit a bank; then I can buy friends and plastic surgery. And a gun and an FBI badge.

      Dancing:
      o/
      /|
      / \

      o
      \|-
      //


      >-+o
      We all know where dancing takes us.

    22. Re:Easier said than done by DemonSlayer · · Score: 1

      Well, it you don't want to move out of your "COMFORT" zone, you will never succeed in losing weight.

      I use to be fat. I eat a big breakfast, a bigger lunch and a huge dinner everyday. When I decided to lose weight. I just eat my food in the reverse order.
      I eat a small breakfast, a smaller lunch and a tiny dinner. On top of that, I run 2 miles everyday.

      Within a month, I lost 3 inches.

      A lot of people will tell you don't eat fatty food, don't eat food with high sugar content or eat only protein. However, what really matters is not the type of food you eat. But the amount of food you eat. Try to control the amount of food you eat and maintain a balance diet. for example if you eat steak for lunch, then you should eat salad for dinner.

    23. Re:Easier said than done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's probably american. His mouth is bigger than his brain. When threatened americans respond with force, not intelligent.

    24. Re:Easier said than done by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I'd recommend walking. It's much easier than running, and it DOES make a difference.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    25. Re:Easier said than done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would agree. I used to have a similar outlook. This January I was 5'9", 290lbs and completely out of shape. I also had an eratic sleep schedule, a sedintary job (what programmer doesn't) and I ate as much as 'the normals' ate. Now I've realized that because I sit at a desk for the majority of my day I don't need to consume as many calories/carbs as the rest of the world... who actualy work for a living. Since Janurary I pretty much eat one meal a day. Food is not a joy.. it's a thing I have to do to be effective at my job. When I'm weak and tired I eat. I don't eat because I want to taste something good. I eat healthy because that's what I like. I love sushi. Big Macs and fries disgust me.

      We're tech people. We're problem solvers. When I code, I put into my code exactly what is necessary. I control my hardware. Sometimes to get the task done I need to consume a resource--memory or a spin lock. Why can't we control our bodies the same way? I am the hardware. When my blood sugar gets low and I find it difficult to function, I eat something that will assist me. If I need proteins, I eat fish. If I need energy I eat fructose from fruit. If I always feel tired, I know that I'm missing something.. so I take a Centrum complete in the morning. Today (remember I said I was 290 in Jan) I am 190 and still loosing weight. Now that I'm lighter and feel healthier I want to excercise. I love tennis now and lifting weights is totally gratifying.

      I am still with you though, I have no desire to string my life out 10 or 20 years.. or even another day. I'm here to live and that's what I want to do... I don't care how long it lasts. That's why recently I've taken the idea of body control to new levels. When I need to work through the night, I inject a speedball. When I want to learn something a little more introspective and surreal than a tech manual, I inject Ketamine. Need confidence? Coke.

      All I can say is... your body is your hardware. Learn to control it. You'll be a much more effective person if you do. IMO.


      P.S. Say no to drugs

    26. Re:Easier said than done by 5KVGhost · · Score: 2

      Good post. Like you suggest, you don't need a formal exersize program. Exersize for the sake of exersize is hard for some of us to justify, but there are a lots of useful tasks that also function as exersize.

      Gardening is a good way to get started, for example. Get some fresh air, some exersize, and you end up with some nice healthy vegetables to supplement your diet and save money.

  70. Drug use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man, if I weren't so lazy/stoned, I'd submit an 'ask slashdot' on the use of drugs in the computing industry. Anyone wanna do it for me?

  71. Federal agents are underpaid by NighthawkFoo · · Score: 1

    I thought about joining the FBI after graduating from college, but the absurdly low pay turned me off. They require two years of work experience before considering a candidate, and then they hire you at a "training wage" of $45K. After you graduate from the FBI academy, your salary ranges from $53-$58K.

    I would love to be a Special Agent, but I'm not impressed with salaries that are $10-$20K below market rate. Granted, there are the warm fuzzies that you get from being one of the "good guys", but that doesn't put food on the table.

    Now we know why our agents leak so many secrets to the Russians :)

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
    - Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Federal agents are underpaid by blablablastuff · · Score: 2, Funny

      If 45 - 60k isn't enough to put food on the table, I think that weight problem may still be an issue.

    2. Re:Federal agents are underpaid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never underestimate the power aspect of these kinds of jobs. Carrying a gun and pistol whipping people is quite fun and can offset the lower salary. Then if you work your way up the chain you can gain access to valuable information you can sell to foreign governments. Oooh, nothing like being a double agent! How thrilling isn't it? Well, until you're caught and they imprison you for life, but until then you live it up baby.

    3. Re:Federal agents are underpaid by MoneyT · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't know for sure, but if the bennies that you get for working with the FBI are the same that the Air Force is offering, 45K is well within reasonable and 60K would nicely cover your expenses.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    4. Re:Federal agents are underpaid by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Well, until you're caught and they imprison you for life, but until then you live it up baby.

      Two words:

      "Exit Plan".

      Why don't they make a movie with that title? It's about time!

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  72. So what about the babe front? by GuyMannDude · · Score: 2

    I find that I have increased energy and, as an extention, less need for caffine and a generally clearer head (esp. during those hours after lunch when everyone else is half-asleep). IMO, I absorb information much more easily and am better able to "wrap my head" around things.

    Fine, fine. Whoop-de-do. Get to the damn point, Man! Are you scoring with lots of naked chicks now or what?

    GMD

    1. Re:So what about the babe front? by loraksus · · Score: 2

      i think "wrap my head around" pretty much summed it up.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  73. Re:It's not the physical reqs that turn away peopl by tunabomber · · Score: 2

    "They'll grudgingly let you past if you just do forensics, but they feel you really should chase bad guys with a gun before you chase bad guys with a computer."

    No reasoning problems here...

    "We don't trust you with a computer, so here's your gun!"

    However, mentioning that the duty of the cybercop is to chase bad guys with computer does put the fitness requirements into perspective... Man, computers are a !$%&@ to carry, especially while running, and I'm sure you've really gotta be built to throw that thing hard enough to take out the perp!

    --

    pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
  74. Lying politicians would PASS the test. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    You might as well ask for politicians who have never lied. (That's a bunch I'd like to see take the lie detector test upon swearing to uphold the constitution)

    Such politicians would no doubt pass with flying colors - because they're pathological liars.

    The "lie detector" is not actually a lie detector. It is a "polygraph", graphing several physiological indicators of stress, so that a trained operator MAY be able to interpret them to determine when the subject is lying. And it operates on the principle that the subject will be under more stress when lying than when telling the truth - either from guilt or fear of being caught.

    But a pathological liar won't be under stress. Because he doesn't CARE about whether he tells the truth. MAYBE he'll care about being caught - but maybe not - or maybe he understands polygraphs well enough to recognize that he won't be caught.

    The "calibration" questions at the start are both an attempt to convince the subject that he'll be caught if lying (to cause someone who doesn't care to worry when lying) and to guage how much, if any, stress the subject exhibits when lying (so that pathological liars can just be graded "inconclusive").

    I recall such a fellow telling me about his run-in with a lie-detector screening of a population at his job site, looking for a thief. Calibration in this test was to let him pick one of a set of three cards, put it back, then be asked "Is it the [such-and-such]?" and to silently think "No, it is not the [such-and-such]." Then the operator would tell him which card it was. The subject in question was enough of a stage-magician to recognize that the game was honest.

    So as the three cards were turned, he thought something like:

    "No, it is not the jack of hearts."
    "NO, IT IS NOT THE QUEEN OF SPADES!"
    "Yes, it is the king of diamonds."

    The operator said that there was a curious little blip for the king, but that the card was obviously the queen. "GOTCHA!" thought my acquaintence, who had just been shown that he could beat the machine.

    Not that it mattered since he wasn't the thief - he says, in a perfectly calm voice. B-)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:Lying politicians would PASS the test. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was able to blatantly lie about my name and AGE to an experienced operator who knew me but could not show on the chart that I was lying. The key is to ensure that your heart rate is high and your adrenaline pumping for even the simplest of questions. The operator will attempt to calm you down and try and level the reading but if they have no decent baseline the test is USELESS. After three attempts in which they could not establish a baseline to read from the operator said " this subject is not valid for a polygraph test" and refused to certify the test and answers as valid either way. The key was a tack in my shoe which I pressed down on regularly..OWWWWIE but it threw of the test. Note I do have security clearance and have since passed a polygraph but it is easily beatable or at least nullified.

    2. Re:Lying politicians would PASS the test. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting... the old tack-in-the-shoe is the exact thing my psychology professor named in explaining ways to disrupt the baseline in polygraph tests.

    3. Re:Lying politicians would PASS the test. by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Just be careful it's clean. My wife's cousin has mild diabetes, and has little feeling in her feet and toes. Well, after not feeling the tack in her shoe for 8 hours, finding it when removing her shoes that night, and spending a month in the hospital, she has no toes on her right foot. The tack caused mild infection, it spread, and the doctors couldn't do anything but amputate all 5 piggies.

  75. Forensics? by Goonie · · Score: 2

    I presume their forensic people don't have to be crack shots and marathon runners. Why require the same for people doing what are essentially "computer forensics"?

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Forensics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because these are the people wanting to be called FBI *agents* instead of 'computer forensics'.

      Doesn't seem that crazy a request to me.

  76. Strangely, this actually makes some sense by tunabomber · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The chronic daemons out there would know that you might have to smoke pot up to 15 times before you build up enough of a reverse tolerance to get high. So, I'm guessing that the reasoning behind the FBI choosing 15 as their "magic number" is that if you've toked up that many times, then you must have gotten high at least once, but decided it's not your thing. People who could turn down weed after getting high off of it would then be less likely to care about defending its users or advocating its legalization than somebody who smoked the stuff continuously for a period of their life.

    --

    pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
    1. Re:Strangely, this actually makes some sense by NineNine · · Score: 1

      15 times? Now, Stoner denial actually does happen (or so I'm told). But it doesn't take 15 times (or so I'm told). It's actually just a few times (or so I'm told). Jesus, if it were 15, nobody would ever become a regular smoker, and who do you think told me all of this shit? :)

    2. Re:Strangely, this actually makes some sense by Aquitaine · · Score: 1

      The FBI, CIA, or any government agency of that magnitude will not hire you if you answer 'yes' to 'have you ever done any drug ever in your life.' They may ask you if you smoke it a lot, and then if you've smoked it 15 times or more, and then if you've smoked it fewer than 15 times, just to make smoking it a few times sound harmless.

      Unless you are otherwise an extremely important individual (crack cybersecurity agent/pashtun-speaking master of disguise and languages) then smoking pot once in your life and telling them about it will preclude you from service.

  77. Other Requirements by Superfreaker · · Score: 2, Informative

    They don't mention the many other requirements. While it says you need a college degree, you would need to have gotten it without doing drugs, writing subversive papers, or anything else that a college student would do.

    1. Re:Other Requirements by karmaflux · · Score: 1

      Of course, not all college students are drug-addicted communists. I managed to get a clearance. Then again, I behaved responsibly.

      --

      REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.

  78. Promotion from within... by NFNNMIDATA · · Score: 1

    sometimes a good thing, sometimes a joke.

    Take UPS, which has a standard policy of only hiring their computer techs (and everyone else) from within if at all possible. Aha you say, I will sign on as a part-time loader or something and quickly ascend the ranks... not so fast, you must first become a part-time supervisor before you can even apply for a tech job. So basically, they want you to spend about 6 months in the trenches in their warehouses, get good enough at backbreaking labor to become a mini-manager, and then if you are fortunate you can compete with the other shmoes for a job that no one in the entire company is qualified for, including you because you spent the past 6-8 months up to your armpits in boxes and shattered merchandise.

  79. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know several people in the 220-280 range that are anything but fat. They're just big guys.

    They mostly do weight work though because running really does damage them. They do aerobic (stationary for the most part) excerises instead of running.

    I thought most geeks are under-weight anyway. That seems to be true of almost anyone to is "really into something", be it computers, electronics, amateur radio, engineering, cars... We just don't have time to eat. I'm "really into" all those things by the way.. I'm 5'10" and 145 lbs. I work out at least 3 times a week. I'm trying to _gain_ weight though, I just don't eat enough because I'm interested in other things.

  80. Re:The drug requirements - Not as Bad as You Think by grendelkhan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Being a former member of the armed services that held a Top Secret clerance my entire career (and honorably discharged, before you ask), the "requirement" is there, but, provided that you are HONEST with your interviewers and stay off the stuff during your tenure, you will pass this part just fine.

    The real source for trouble is financial dealings. If you've bounced checks, forget about it. Money, not sex, drugs, or ideology, has been the root of most espionage cases over the last 40 years.

    At any rate, I was honest with my screeners, didn't touch drugs while I was in, and I had no issues with this area. Now, my ex-wife on the other hand...

    --
    Wu-Tang Name: Half-Cut Skeleton Get your own Wu-Na
  81. well good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While the FBI 'hacker' is out running laps i'll
    sit back with my cheeseburger and my console,
    getting better at what I do, while prettyboi
    builds muscletone. I hope he can wiggle that
    shivvy little ass through some fiber at full
    speed.

    Whatever. Sounds like GW logic.

    But, so long as CmdrTaco eventually disappears,
    I don't care what happens.

  82. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meh. I'm content to die at 39.

  83. diet failures by coyote-san · · Score: 2

    > People fail on diets because they are weak and don't follow the diet plans.

    Bullshit. The reductionists want to reduce diets to simple matters of protein, carbs and fats, but the explosion in obesity during the past decade proves just how fallious their arguments are.

    Diets fail because they fly in the face of what humans (and other mammals) evolved to handle. E.g., as the recent Time magazine article mentioned, if you have a mixture of about the same protein, carbs and fat rats will eat a modest amount of each. If you go heavy on the carbs, e.g., as recommended by most diets (but not the Adkins, Zone and Carbohydrate haters' diets), the rats will stuff themselves. Do that enough, and you have very fat rats.

    From a macronutrient perspective, this makes no sense. From an evolutionary perspective, this is obvious - it's behavior designed to take advantage of seasonal windfalls.

    But as others have pointed out, this is a disaster in an age when water fountains have been removed from many offices, but free soda is readily available in the refrigerator.

    Another good point that the Time article made is that milk isn't just fatty sugar water. The presence of calcium in milk affects the way your body processes sugar and fats (I don't recall the details), so if you switch from soda to low-fat milk you may have more calories and definitely more fat, but you'll lose weight because your body handles it differently than it does carbs alone.

    So, if the best nutritionists in the country are admitting that they're having to revisit almost everything they think they knew, who the hell are you to pronounce everyone who's failed to lose weight on a diet a weak-willed loser?

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    1. Re:diet failures by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      So, if the best nutritionists in the country are admitting that they're having to revisit almost everything they think they knew, who the hell are you to pronounce everyone who's failed to lose weight on a diet a weak-willed loser?

      First off, don't put words into my mouth or say I said things I didn't. It makes you stupid and wrong. I never said that they were weak-willed losers. I said if you want to lose weight, it's something that involves breaking the habits you got into. Excercising and eating the proper foods. There are plenty of diets that work. I'm not talking "I'm dieting" diets. I'm talking diets, as in what I eat and many others. Planned meals, or at least the way I do which is specify roughly the categories I will eat.

      Bullshit. The reductionists want to reduce diets to simple matters of protein, carbs and fats, but the explosion in obesity during the past decade proves just how fallious their arguments are.

      You say it's bullshit? Have you ever stayed on a diet plan for over a year? 3 years? 5 years? I've been on a diet plan watching carbs and most things I injest, and it's now habit. This is what I eat this many times a week. I did it to gain weight. I can also tell you that it's a lot harder for me to gain weight than it is for someone to lose weight, because I've been surrounded by friends who have changed their diet permanently and with excercise lose tons of weight. It's all about habit. It's like biting your nails. If you don't stop, you are too weak to. End of story. If you think it's bullshit, maybe you should look at your life and find out why you are defensive about it. Not saying there is anything wrong, but when most people respond to one line of a comment that says many of the same things you said it usually indicates problems in their life.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    2. Re:diet failures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It makes you stupid and wrong.

      I was right -- he _is_ a smug son of a bitch.

    3. Re:diet failures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not saying there is anything wrong, but when most people respond to one line of a comment that says many of the same things you said it usually indicates problems in their life.

      There he goes again, practicing stupidity without a license. "I'm superior to you because I can control my weight. That makes me a qualified psychiatrist." And a bullshit artist.

  84. I have a tread-mill next to my desk... by crovira · · Score: 2

    Fat? I'm all angry muscle.

    The FBI can kiss the toned, buff ass that sits atop my sculpted, mighty thews.

    At my home-office, when the bull-shit exceeds my tolerance level, I get off the chair, hop on the tread-mill that's facing the window and the tension fades while the sweat pours off.

    At the office, I go for a jog on the Jersey City waterfront and glower at the hole that Bin Laden and his mental midgets gouged out of the sky-line.

    I have showers ten feet away both a home and at the office. I don't stink.

    The FBI are Bozos who'se buffonery is matched by the myopia of the CIA and the ineptitude of the US foreign policy.

    Once again they have ALL fucked up and Al Qeda is on the move, metastasizing because they were forced to instead of being somewhere fixed where we could spy on them, intercept their communications and catch them when they tried to get out.

    Somewhere like Afghanistan where they and the Taliban would have been a drain on Islamic resources.

    They couldn't feed themselves and they were too busy killing each other over the length of their beards (really tough on the women,) to maintain any medical, military, civil-engineering, communication or any damn other infrastructure.

    They would have ended up as shining beacon of religious folly. Islam carried through to its ultimate conclusion:

    A patheic bunch of socio-psychopaths squatting around in a circle jerk on top of a smoldering pile of rubble.

    It would have been relly hard to point to that with pride.

    But NO! Bush, et alia, had to make fuckin' Islamic martyrs out of 'em. Now they're like cock-roaches living under the stove and fridge and in the pantry.

    We'd have to FIND them. But that takes longer than a term, it costs money and it requires dedication.

    Its much easier to go after another fixed target instead.

    Yeah. Right Dubya... "IRAQ is EEE-VILLL. Ah'll kick they ass like mah daddy did." What a moron. The best part of him ran down his mother's leg.

    Next we'll be reliving M.A.S.H.instead of just watching the fucking re-re-re-runs. Bet'cha Korea's next.

    Meanwhile you'd better get ready to take it in the shorts because anybody can get into the US anywhere the cops ain't looking at that very moment.

    And they can buy box-cutters at Staple's and ram high-jacked Greyhound busses into gasoline storage tanks. Two of the faithful dead, thirty or so other passengers roasted to a crisp and a million gallons of fuel up in flames. That's not a bad payoff for people who normally strap some dynamite to their chests and "go hangout with the Yids down at the mall."

    The only good religious leader is some geek with big bad hair hipocrically crying crocodile tears and confessing in front of the audience that "Ah have Sinned! "

    The diffrence between "Blow-Job" Roberts or any of the other fat lying bastards selling "Jayzus" and Mullah Omar is one of opportunity. That's all.

    Don't agree? I don't give a fuck. I just read the history books and the obituaries. I HATE being right.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:I have a tread-mill next to my desk... by CrosseyedPainless · · Score: 2

      Your anger is *delicious*!

    2. Re:I have a tread-mill next to my desk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you realized? We're living in Rome.

      All empires fall. Chill and enjoy the ride.

    3. Re:I have a tread-mill next to my desk... by loraksus · · Score: 2

      I thought it was "ran down the crack of your mommas ass and ended up as a brown stain on the mattress"
      but ya, that also works.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  85. Am I the only one that read this part? by phriedom · · Score: 2

    "The FBI does have non-agent positions for people who are highly skilled in areas such as computer forensics (collecting evidence from computers). Those who don't qualify for agent positions can still serve as civilian employees, according to an FBI spokeswoman."

    Now the "security consultant" says non-agents are "at the bottom of the food chain." Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But that doesn't seem to be the issue everyone has with the way the FBI operates. It sounds to me like people are upset that they can't be a Special Agent, and carry a badge and a gun, unless they are qualified to carry a badge and a gun. So sweeny can still be an FBI full-time employee specializing in computer security. Whats the problem?

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  86. It's a load of crock by Vicegrip · · Score: 2

    If the army can admit people with eye correction needs so can the FBI. That restriction is a crock of shit...

    Also, if your getting your eyes smacked, it don't matter if you have glasses or not, yer not gonna be seeing straight afterwards either.

    --
    Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
  87. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Funky+Jester · · Score: 1

    The key is finding your limit and pushing yourself just a little bit further.

    As is usually the case with exercise, or learning a musical instrument, or anything else that takes serious effort, if you can suffer through two to three weeks, they you'll be fine. You'll even begin enjoying it..

    One step at a time. Good luck...

  88. FBI wouldn't want to hire hackers by jsse · · Score: 1

    like him. :)

  89. Pay? by The+Asmodeus · · Score: 1

    Forget the physical requirements. I could pass them all except the vision (which really isn't my fault). I'd love to work for the FBI though except for one thing.

    It's the pay. Anyone truely gifted isn't going to be making $50k a year in this field.. Geesh. When they realize that the agent who is a computer genius and an agent who got a "criminal law" degree are two different agents, then we can talk.

    1. Re:Pay? by hendridm · · Score: 1

      > Anyone truely gifted isn't going to be making $50k a year in this field.

      Where the hell do you live, what skills do you have, and how did you become so smart?

  90. oops by whiskey+riot · · Score: 1

    sorry when I saw the headlines I thought you meant "too phat for the FBI" - but then I read the article -sorry to have doubted -WR

  91. What a non-issue... by grent246 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wow, if you want to be a federal law enforcement agent you need to pass a physical and background check. Is anyone really surprised? These agencies hire civilians to do specialised work who don't have to meet the physical requirements. If they are hiring geeks just to support tech law enforcement they don't need to be federal agents just support staff. The actual agents who carry guns, get out of the office, and arrest people probably do need to go through training which preclude the grossly obese. Also on background checks: as someone who has gone through the process elsewhere they aren;t looking to eliminate people because they swiped a chocalate bar when they were 10 but more to weed out those who have ideologies and weaknesses that preclude them from doing the job of enfocing the law and maintaining loyalty to the govt.

  92. Don't feed the troll (nt) by Lovejoy · · Score: 1

    (nt) means "no text"

  93. Yea right by therebel7642 · · Score: 1

    Thats funny, As far as Im concerned, they can keep the stupid job. They would have to pay alot better than the outside just to put up with all the military requirements. As for me, nothing they paid would make it worth it. If I smoke pot, its my damm business. Nothings worth loosing your freedoms over.

  94. the FBI is a shambles. who'd want to work for em? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the ????? would want to work for the FBI anyway? Spying on citizens? Covering your tracks because you can't do your job right? Holy moly! Most government workers are old and inept. It's especially hard to get fired, and it attracts people looking for such security.

    Not to mention the cramp being in the FBI would put in your lifestyle. Yes, even fat-porks like me leave the apartment.

    Being in the FBI would suck.

  95. Even a little has a huge impact on mortality by coyote-san · · Score: 2

    The peer-reviewed studies are unambiguous, even modest amounts of exercise have a profound effect on mortality rates.

    As for your earlier attempt to run, ignore the assholes. Start by walking 30 minutes. Do that for a few weeks then try jogging for 30 seconds and walking for a few minutes. Over 6-8 weeks you'll slowly build up your muscles, tendons and cardiovascular system so you can run the entire distance. This isn't my idea, it's the plan developed by Dr. Kenneth Cooper, "father of aerobics," and adopted by the military for training their own people.

    A variant of this is to start by walking, then shift to a stationary bike so you can have a constant load instead of the start-and-stop load from the run-walk approach. Again, after 6-8 weeks you can run it, but in this case you'll need to be careful about number of reps since you haven't strengthened the load-bearing tendons and such.

    Finally, I do something like this when coming off of idle periods. I might spend a month on the stationary bike, but I'm developing the ability to work out continuously for an hour at a decent load, then can jump straight into ~7 mile runs on the treadmill.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
  96. Qalified Applicants??? by ehintz · · Score: 2
    most Federal agencies are having no problems whatsoever finding qualified applicants.
    Then why are they so stupid that they'll charge Dmitry instead of Elcomsoft, or not even grok Sassamans mixmaster relay? Sounds like a bunch of morons to me. Morons who are buff and have college degrees. In the San Jose office no less; the one place where you'd think the FBI would put their best geeks.
    --
    ehintz
    1. Re:Qalified Applicants??? by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      It shows a specific bias to say that those investigations were stupid.

      In some ways, it's better that stupid laws are aggressively enforced. Otherwise they are ignored, instead of repealed.

      If *every* petty copyright infringer had a risk
      of doing time, a REAL risk with a REAL expectation of prosecution, how long do you think something like the DMCA would stay on the books?

      I'm not convinced these agents were stupid at all.
      On the other hand, your beef is with the Justice department, not the FBI. It is not at all clear that in Dmitry's case, the police had any choice but to make the arrest.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    2. Re:Qalified Applicants??? by ehintz · · Score: 1
      I'm not convinced these agents were stupid at all.
      On the other hand, your beef is with the Justice department, not the FBI. It is not at all clear that in Dmitry's case, the police had any choice but to make the arrest.
      Uhm, ok, it could be a enforcement of stupid laws in order to highlight their shoddy quality. But Occam's razor says incompetence is more likely. As for Dmitry, the chain of events was: 1: Adobe presents a gift wrapped package to the San Jose FBI, 2: FBI takes it and runs with it, 3: DOJ continues to follow suit. So, yes, the DOJ pressed charges, but the FBI essentially endorsed it, and thus backs my assertation that they're idiots (esp. the San Jose office).
      --
      ehintz
  97. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by ez76 · · Score: 2
    Look around and tell me how many really fat 40 year olds you see. Now, how many 50 year olds? 60? Am I getting through here?
    The joke's on you, whippersnapper because we never leave the house.
  98. You know what sickens me? by jrwillis · · Score: 1

    People like you that feel so compelled to tell everyone they disapprove of just how much they dislike them. I could comment on how people like you sicken me because they're always too high strung, or can't feel good about themselves without putting others down, but I'll refrain from any such puerile act. Now, please go run for a few hours, because I am quite sure no one here is interested in your trolling.

    --
    Keep Austin Weird!
  99. fitness and "morals" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article states requirements of, "[possesing] a college degree, be under 37 years old, morally irreproachable ... and physically fit."

    By morally irreproachable they appear to mean, "abuse power and trust of the public in the name of your government. Extra points for detaining innocents in the name of stopping terrorism." Or is that defense of the "homeland" (motherland)?

  100. Holy shit by moogla · · Score: 2

    Oooh Mr. Big-Shot knows all his numbers and he's gonna tell us how un-healthy we all are.

    You are an abberation, I'm sorry.

    Consider yourself lucky that you didn't get the hypo-metabolic end of the gene stick.

    You gotta deal with us... you're the freak.

    --
    Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
  101. Re:It's not the physical reqs that turn away peopl by rodgerd · · Score: 2

    You can. You can join the forensics lab or other civilian support positions. You can only become an Agent - with all the legal powers thereof - if you can do everything an Agent needs to be able to do.

    The problem the people are whining about in the article isn't that they're being prevented from working in a specialised area in the FBI, it's that they want the prestigious positions without doing the work required. Kind of like people thinking they should be adminning server farms because they installed Linux at home once.

  102. this just in... by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 1

    Many FBI Agent Too Dumb to Be "Hackers"

  103. Color Blind by davemarmaros · · Score: 1

    All candidates must pass a color vision test.

    I find this especially ironic considering that on the X-Files, Mulder was colorblind [and that was central to the plot in one episode]

  104. Re:It's not the physical reqs that turn away peopl by rodgerd · · Score: 2

    How about a scenario where you have, oh, say, a drug dealer with a LAN which is not connected to the 'net and have to go on location to get access to it? At that point, if I were an Agent, I wouldn't want to be looking out for some lard-arse specialist, I'd like to know the guy doing the specialist work could cover my back in a firefight.

  105. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    (* If you're fat, you're going to die before you have to. *)

    Can you show that the total free time lost to excercise makes up for the extra life span?

  106. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by G-funk · · Score: 2

    but i cant run as you suggest, especially 2 miles, i can barely walk 1 mile (if i can at all).. if i ran id pass out after about 100 feet. so whats your suggestion?

    It's easy...

    1. Get out the front door, and carry a bit of chalk.
    2. Jog (don't flat out run) as far as you can.
    3. Mark the footpath with the chalk.
    4. Tomorrow, jog as far as you can - push yourself and make sure you go past the line of chalk.
    5. Make a new line.
    6. Goto 4.
    7. ???
    8. Profit!

    --
    Send lawyers, guns, and money!
  107. Cheapskates! by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny


    The FBI just does not want to pay for two seats when the fly you. It has nothing to do with caring for your health. If you croak early it is less pension forked out.

  108. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you need to use a while or for loop there - otherwise you can't get to the profit part.

  109. No wonder then... by ocbwilg · · Score: 2

    When I see things like:

    "They will not consider you unless you can carry your M16 through the physical fitness course without killing yourself in the process," Sweeny, maintainer of the PacketAttack website, said. "Most of the geeks I know view exercise as carrying the 80-ounce cola, pager and cell phone all at the same time."

    and

    "You won't get a position in computer security until you've worked at least five years on the beat, preferably in physical investigations," Rosenberger said. "They'll grudgingly let you past if you just do forensics, but they feel you really should chase bad guys with a gun before you chase bad guys with a computer."

    Then I realize that it's no wonder that the FBI lags so far behind the terrorists that they're trying to catch, or that important pieces of information slip through their fingers with lethal side-effects. If they refuse to hire the best people for the job, or upon hiring them refuse to let them work in their chosen field then they deserve everything bad that happens to them.

    The war on cybercrime and cyberterrorism is already lost because all of the smart guys are working for the other side. It seems that's the way that the FBI wants it.

  110. Other Federal Agent jobs by forkboy · · Score: 2

    There are still many agencies that are in need of agents with 1337 skills, and they don't have as strict requirements as the FBI. US Customs, the IRS, BATF, INS (Immigration) all have field agent/technician jobs. Their physical fitness requirements are secondary to qualifications and experience. Basically you need to be able to run a mile in under 15 minutes, then do 100 situps and 50 pushups. While that might preclude some people, it's not exactly the pinnacle of human fitness. They are pretty hardcore on the background check, though, but they're moving away from the polygraph since they're smart enough to realize it doesn't work. (Secret Service and FBI poly the most)

    As far as your college degree, what was told me to directly by a hiring manager for US Customs is that they aren't as interested in criminal justice degrees as they are science/finance/tech degrees with maybe a few CJ courses or a minor thrown in. Anyone can learn the depth of Federal criminal code in training classes. It's harder to learn the skills that matter in 26 weeks of training.

    --
    This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
  111. Scully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always wondered how a woman who is, well, about five feet tall, could make it into the FBI. I'm not complaining (hmm, Scully), but aren't there some minimum height requirements? Even with the heels? And those nice business costumes. The tight, dark-blue skirts. Those lips. *drool* Where was I?

    Isn't there some sign at the entrance of Quantico, "You must be this tall to enter"? ;-)

    1. Re:Scully by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always wondered how a woman who is, well, about five feet tall, could make it into the FBI. I'm not complaining (hmm, Scully), but aren't there some minimum height requirements? Even with the heels? And those nice business costumes. The tight, dark-blue skirts. Those lips. *drool* Where was I?

      You answered your own question.

  112. limited options by Cynikal · · Score: 1

    its thinking and policies liek that that keep the fat/smart peopel out there crackign the software and hacking the computers, and the not-so-skilled-but-really-fit law enforcement guys playing catchup always 3 steps behind..

  113. Discrimination? by Psx29 · · Score: 1

    Just because someone is fat they can't have a job that requres them to sit at a computer terminal? Isn't this kind of thing illegal in the U.S.? (Note: I myself am not fat nor do I have any plans on applying for a job at the FBI)

  114. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you show that the total free time spent not exersising is going to compensate for years of bed-riddenness, high cholestorol, trouble walking any further than your fridge or fitting into a shower stall?

  115. They won't let you near computers for 5 years by HuguesT · · Score: 1

    If you read the article they say if you want to be an FBI agent:

    - You have to be fit *and* adhere to their code of morality.
    - You need to be prepared to do operational work for 5 years at least before they give you a desk job.
    - Their computer systems are utter crap but they hope to improve them to be useful someday.

    To me that rules out all the geeks.

  116. Vision req's by Peyna · · Score: 2

    I recall looking awhile ago, and I remember that to be a field agent you have to have better than 20/200 vision before correction. I bet this would disqualify most of us too.

    --
    What?
  117. It's so you'll try counting on your fingers... by billstewart · · Score: 3, Funny
    • If they see you you run out of fingers, you probably won't pass.
    • If you're having trouble telling how many fingers you're holding up, you probably won't pass either.

    If you start counting, and break out in the giggles halfway through, you probably won't pass, unless you can recover and explain what was funny about that time without ratting on your friends.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  118. Re:The drug requirements - Not as Bad as You Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't even begin to imagine just why your wife left you, psycho...

    Isn't there something more productive you could be doing right now? Like, giving your pit-bull a crewcut?

  119. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by jareds · · Score: 1

    Can you show that the total free time lost to excercise makes up for the extra life span?

    Yes. Running for 30 minutes 3 or 4 times a week is perfectly adequate to be in decent shape. Let's say 2 hours per week. So, your lifespan would have to increase by a factor of 168/166 = 1.012 to break even. Even if you'd live to be 80 without exercising, that's only an increase of 0.96 years. The difference between being completely sedentary and being in decent shape should add multiple years to your life, so it's not even close.

  120. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by talleyrand · · Score: 1
    If you're fat, you're going to die before you have to.

    Especially in times of famine.
    --

    "My fingers Emit sparks of fire in Expectation of my future labours." William Blake
  121. BFG-9000 and a chain gun for me! by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Learning not to use the rocket launchers inside, however, was a process of Evolution In Action :-)


    Then there was the line from Night of the Comet "*Daddy* would have bought us *Uzis*!"

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:BFG-9000 and a chain gun for me! by JimPooley · · Score: 2

      Then there was the line from Night of the Comet "*Daddy* would have bought us *Uzis*!"

      Offtopic, I know, but I loved that movie.
      The other really good dialogue is
      "You're crazy!"
      "I'm not crazy, I just don't give a fuck!"

      In a desperate attempt to claw back on topic, I have to think here that the FBI are right about demanding a certain level of physical fitness from their employees. They have a perfect right to do that, and this entire piece is just another example of geeks whining when they don't get things all their own way.

      --

      "Information wants to be paid"
    2. Re:BFG-9000 and a chain gun for me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a desperate attempt to claw back on topic, I have to think here that the FBI are right about demanding a certain level of physical fitness from their employees. They have a perfect right to do that, and this entire piece is just another example of geeks whining when they don't get things all their own way.

      Sure, but then don't come crying when the "big bad hackers" chew up your poorly designed and implemented system 'cause you don't want a pasty skinned geek working on your computer system.

  122. Call us back when it gets to $500,000 by geoswan · · Score: 2
    ...it's the bind-bogglingly stupid hiring practices in general.

    Let me recommend Clifford Stall's "The Cuckoo's Egg". If you are not familiar with it, it is an account of the year he spent tracking down an interloper at the lab he worked at. As he tracked the interloper he realized it wasn't just some local teenager with a modem and an attitude. It was an experienced guy with a checklist. Stoll watched him use his lab's computer to try to tap into military computers and steal military secrets.

    The FBI are responsible for counter-intelligence, so he phones his local FBI office.

    Now Stoll first went looking for the interloper because of a 75 cent discrepancy between two different user billing and accounting packages.

    The FBI guy isn't interested in the fact that Stoll seems to have discovered a spy. He asks Stoll how large a monetary loss he can document. "Um. Seventy-five cents." "Well son, call us back when it gets to half a million dollars."

    Stoll's documentation of tracking the interloper was doggedly methodical and scientific. This all happened about fourteen years ago. I wonder how much more clueful the FBI is now.

    Stoll did mention meeting one FBI guy who was clueful about computers. Unfortunately, he wasn't all that senior. So he couldn't always co-operate, because of stupid FBI internal politics.

    Stoll's account is quite funny. Highly recommended...

    1. Re:Call us back when it gets to $500,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Stoll's account is quite funny. Highly recommended...

      Not to mention he's one of the biggest self-promoters to land on earth. He never passes up a chance to let his audience know that when the call came in that the trap was sprung, he was in the shower with his girlfriend. Sheesh.

    2. Re:Call us back when it gets to $500,000 by tigris · · Score: 1

      ROFL - too true.

      I remember a NOVA episode I saw once on hacking and they featured Stoll. They filmed a "recreation" from "Cuckoo's Egg" which depicted Stoll taking a shower with his girlfriend. Needless to say, that was one of the more entertaining NOVAs I saw when I was young.

  123. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by MoneyT · · Score: 2

    I could swear I've seen a report or two before that walking briskly is actualy healthier than running. It's less stress on the system over all (espesialy joints) and because it's not as tiring, you're more likely to continue doing it.

    --
    T Money
    World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
  124. Knees by ucblockhead · · Score: 2

    The way to avoid screwed up knees is to avoid cement and stick to running on blacktop, or better yet, dirt.

    --
    The cake is a pie
  125. lummox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.jellybaby.ndirect.co.uk/lummox.htm this is me taking my nap, all my friends call me lummox on a Linux...

  126. Don't do that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Run on the sidewalk.

    Another one of you motherfuckers runs in front of my car again, I'm not fucking stopping.

    Assholes.

  127. Good Grief... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the fsck anyone would willingly work for the FBI is completely beyond my comprehension. Especially if you have real skills. Looking to work long hours with little reward? Looking to get shit on by fellow government employees? Looking for a real prick of a boss who you can't tell to go fuck himself, unless you want to end up in jail? Well then join the military! Don't even think about the FBI. They're worse. Guaranteed.

  128. Ballroom dancing???? HOMO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take up a martial art or something.

    Dancing? For a guy? Don't be a HOMO!

    (I don't mean homosexual/gay, I just mean a wussy wussy pussy).

    I can give you a bunch of guy things to do.

    Unless you're getting poon by dancing, then stick with Martial Arts. Kicks some frickin' ass.

    1. Re:Ballroom dancing???? HOMO! by autechre · · Score: 2


      I know this is just a troll, but you obviously don't take martial arts at all if you can't see the connection between them and dancing. My jujitsu sensei is very accomplished at Greek dancing, and we often use it to warm up; it's more difficult than what most in this country are used to due to the "odd" time signatures (plus, you're dancing in a big circle, so everyone has to keep up).

      Additionally, being a good dancer requires a lot of strength, flexibility, and balance. Unsurprisingly, some of the best martial artists I know are also dancers.

      (Interesting historical note: at various points in time, martial arts were forbidden in certain countries, probably because the leaders knew that the martial artists were the ones most likely to start revolutions. The teachers were smarter than this, however; they created dances which allowed the martial arts moves to be practiced without giving away what they were doing. My Pentjak Silat teacher refers to this as "Silat in the flowers".)

      --
      WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
    2. Re:Ballroom dancing???? HOMO! by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1


      "Additionally, being a good dancer requires a lot of strength, flexibility, and balance." ... And footwork too, of course, which is quite important both for dancing and martial arts.

      "Unsurprisingly, some of the best martial artists I know are also dancers."

      Like Bruce Lee who won a few dancing competition in Hong Kong (and recommanded dancing as a good way to improve your footwork). If its good enough for the best marital artistof the twentieth century, then it's probably good enough for us.

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
  129. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    You are not factoring in "free" time.

    Besides, having a few extra hours today may be worth more than living longer later in life. It depends on the individual. Many don't look forward to their later years that much anyhow. IOW, quality, not quantity.

  130. Here's the thing by cje · · Score: 2
    The thing you have to remember about a lot of questions like these that you'll find in background checks and security clearances: Answering "yes" is not (necessarily) going to disqualify you. The FBI could probably care less if you got a DWI on the way home from a party when you were in high school, and they're not going to throw the cuffs on you for admitting that you smoked dope in college. There are three major reasons for asking questions like this and digging into a person's record:
    • They want to make sure that you're honest. If they ask if you've ever smoked pot at some point in the past and you say that you have, even if you doubt they could prove otherwise, you're being honest with them. If they disqualified everybody who had ever experimented with pot at one point or another in their youth, there would be a lot of empty offices at the J. Edgar Hoover Building. Nobody cares (well, almost nobody) about youthful indiscretions like this, so long as they do not represent current behavior patterns. What they care about is that you're honest enough to answer the question truthfully.

    • They want to make sure that you've got nothing "on" you that can be used to blackmail you. This is a bigger issue for higher security clearances (i.e., Top Secret/SCI and above) than it is for general background checks. There are all sorts of obvious things that fall into this category such as extramarital affairs and the like. If you've got anything in your past that somebody else may be able to hold over your head and get you to compromise your position, you can bet that those boys are going to want to know about it.

    • Finally, yes, they do need to weed out the undesirables (pun intended.) If a person who is a current drug dealer, wife-beater, or alcoholic applies with the FBI, then obviously they're a moron.
    The point is this: You don't need to be an angel to pass a background check or get a security clearance. It might help, but it's not a requirement. What you need to be is honest. The chances of you getting brought up on charges for something stupid you did in your youth are virtually nil; the FBI has far more important things to do, particular these days.
    --
    We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
  131. Re:It's not the physical reqs that turn away peopl by VivianC · · Score: 3, Funny

    At that point, if I were an Agent, I wouldn't want to be looking out for some lard-arse specialist, I'd like to know the guy doing the specialist work could cover my back in a firefight.

    I know quite a few 'lard asses' (myself included) who could do a great job dropping the mouse and grabbing the gun. Heck, us fat guys better know how to shoot, we sure as hell can't run!

    Besides, where do you think you are going to tap the LAN from? The dealer's closet? Just snake a cable downstairs or, better yet, let the gung-ho guys arrest the clown and take his computers back to HQ where you can crack them while eating your doughnuts and playing some MP3s...

    --
    Viv

    Gmail invites for ip
  132. This is great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the people critisizing the FBI for having stringent requirements for agents (and just agents, mind you, as you can still be hired as a civilian employee without badge and gun) are the same fatasses who sit around ripping the FBI every chance they get.

    Yeah, like I want YOU and your 300 pounds of fat and horrible myopic vision waddling around to save the country you seem so dedicated to preserve. I can see your skills will translate well into the field, where doing things like chasing a criminal over 100ft will make you all tuckered out. You big, fat hypocrites.

  133. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Swim then. It's not hard on the body at all

  134. Re:Other Requirements; Acting Like an adult by turtleshadow · · Score: 1

    fbi OK. I recently took the the first exam at Denver, Byron G Roger Federal Building.

    I'm not not able to talk specifics on the testing but here are my impressions of attempting civil service.

    I wanted to offer my C.S degree, 12+ years IT experience; eight of them with a very large and stodgy employer. It was a decision I made long before 911. It was during the DCMA and other scandals that were happening in the USA long before then. The app was finally processed this year.

    I knew then, as all know now, the US Gov doesn't hire the best and brightest, in the quantity required.

    Special Agents from those I talked to are expected to be all purpose types -- think clone troopers but with one or two add-ons in the odd times they are needed.

    BTW talk to recuiters at fairs, approaching agents in the wild is not well taken in my experience.

    Clone troopers is not derogatory but a compliment as they are all about execution of a successful mission, at any moment regardless of environmental and mental conditions.

    Special Agents are badged & armed which means they can seize property and take custody of people within the workings of the law.

    Every Agent undergoes the same testing process -- A civil servant, Interview and Physical. DUH!

    The details are told up front to recruits in your "package". You should discuss the career choice with significant others and family.

    Your assignment could range widely depending on Bureau needs and its not likely the place where your living now. You will likely be moved out of the area your currently in (read NYC, LA) until you reach enough seniority to request an assignment (read ready to retire.)

    Special Agent is indeed a premo assignment as it starts GS10 + _possible_ relocation bonus if your assigned to an expensive area like NYC. GS 10 is 53,743 to $58,335 USD [fbijobs.com]. Not bad if your in the midwest where IT work doesn't top out at the high dollar. Its much better than most other .gov wages. There are perks such retiring with a pension not worthless .com stock.

    You could possibly get fast tracked for promo if you got skills and background to boot.

    X-Military and Law should do better due to veteran preference benefits.

    I'm rather fit at 5'11 ~170 and was a bit apprehensive of the milage required your required to run for the physical tests.

    Indeed entry testing involves endurance running -- as in pretend your running down a "perp" -- at speed -- over sometimes great distance and without the aid of a Starbucks. I was briefed its 7 or 11 min/Mile possibly depending on gender and competition for slots. In 1980 say it could have been less strict.

    Your expected to encounter situations necessitating the use deadly force. You must accept that your job is hazardous and you may be killed or maimed while executing your job or because of your job. Its also expected to be a 12 hour day on the job --- possibly on foot.

    My views on the first round testing
    1) The test is cake for anyone that easily passed Engineering Calc 100
    2) Its not all about Engineering Calc but also character, morals and healthy self respect and respect for others (read this civil values)
    3) Certain sins could be permitted if its an open secret or something can't/won't cause you to be blackmailed or otherwise manipulated for evil

    In talking with a few person's who's opinion I trust anyone with computer skills in the FBI will get to see 1) k1ddi3 pr0n to categorize for evidence 2) a lot of wire fraud case reports 3) a lot of packing tape, boxes and baggies after siezing boxen & portable media as evidence. 4) The inside of the cruiser driving from case to case. 5) Their Veteran partner when not doing 1-4.

    Passing round 1 gets you a possible scheduled (read calendar time) slot into round 2 which if passed gets you to bootcamp.

    During boot camp you have a 40K salary for 16 weeks for the pain at the famous USMC/FBI spa and playground. _No_ relocation expenses for the family; Im truely sorry if you have one and are at boot camp.

    Once out of boot camp your assigned to a Regional Bureau Office and to a Veteran for a probationary period on the order of 3 years. If you leave within your probationary years of your own accord (read not killed or maimed OTJ) you pay back Uncle Sam for all the money we spent on you.

    Your expected to compile and file accurate and timely reports. Any those who have to compile more than twice -- go to the exit please --NOW!
    Love of accuracy and case load is required here.

    I was in with ~45 persons in for my round. The prompter quoted 1:20 candidates process through Round 1 testing. A vague rememberence of 1:40 make it past Round 2 and boot camp.

    I still haven't got my results. Either I've suffered bureaucratic tape again or I washed out. Either way it was the best thing to do at the time.

    P.S. Im NOT the guy that didn't know there was a pond in the lobby :>

  135. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by shepd · · Score: 1

    >i can barely walk 1 mile (if i can at all)..

    Walk 0.5 miles twice per day then. *Brisk* walk, not slow.

    That might not be as effective as running, but if you manage your diet, it should do fine.

    I bet in time you'll find that 0.5 miles isn't enough, you'll want more, and you'll be able to to more. Either that or you've got a serious medical condition, in which case talk to your doctor and ask him if this plan is safe.

    And yeah, I need to follow that advice too.

    --
    If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  136. PLZ MOD PARENT UP (+5,INSIGHTFUL) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  137. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by friscolr · · Score: 1
    Can you show that the total free time lost to excercise makes up for the extra life span?

    bike to work. you already have to get there somehow, so bike there instead of driving and count it as exercise. it takes me as long to bike to work as it does to drive (thanks to wonderful park/path system where i live as well as lots of stop lights and city traffic), so it is a zero cost in time for exercise. others may not be so fortunate as far as biking goes, but there are other ways - i put in sets of pullups/pushups when i'm really busy on a project and know that the 5 minute break will help me every hour - it is a small amount of exercise but benefits my work.

    lots of exercise activities can have other purposes as well; canoeing/biking/climbing/playing sports/hiking with friends/loved ones can make for really good relationships and good memories. you don't have to approach it as "All I Am Doing Is Exercising".

  138. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two steps:

    1. Recognize that your excuses are all self-defeating bullshit.

    2. Work up to your goal.


    No, the proper two steps are:

    1. Recognize that you are not worth the air you breath.

    2. Kill yourself now.

    Sorry, it's the only way. Maybe you'll contribute to this universe as fertilizer, but I suspect you're just a large number of calories consumed, waste generated, and if your suicide is messy, a big cleaning bill as well.

    It's frightening to think, but we're all counting on you to at least get this part right.

  139. Re:It's not the physical reqs that turn away peopl by Martigan80 · · Score: 1

    O.k. before you go off, think about this.

    In any government job relating to the military/FBI/ or CIA one must first learn how to do the basics of the job. In the Marines no matter what job you do you're an infantry man first. In the Air Force is the same even though you are a network admin and sit on your but trying to figure out why something is broke-your still an airman you need to know how to shoot a gun don you gear...you never know what will happen in this world. And since the FBI is also limited to the amount of money they have they can't just hire some computer geeks to sit on their butts all day in front of the computer. Granted the higher ups can make some bad choices but don't blame the FBI as a whole. That's like condemning all the employees at Enron for what a few idiots did.

    --
    This SIG pulled due to lack of funding. (This damn war is costing too much!)
  140. Re: there isn't a M16 in counterstrike by Dragon213 · · Score: 1

    Actually, the M16A2 is still the standard-issue infantry rifle. The M4A1 is slowly supposed to phase out the M16 completly, but in pratice, the M4A1 is a very rare sight in anything but a Spec-Ops unit.

    --
    --CypherDragon
  141. Anyone else see a pig go flying by? by starseeker · · Score: 2

    "Dancing. A little under three years ago a friend at work turned me on to ballroom dance, and it's how I get most of my exercise now. It's proof positive that exercise is not necessarily a hideous, awful affair."

    That was number 4 on "things I will never see on /."

    Quick, someone bash Microsoft before it gets normal in here.

    It is a good point, though.

    --
    "I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
  142. Scary Thot by Tablizer · · Score: 2


    The FBI probably has the ability to take DNA samples from skin cells on one's resume and see if sender has a genetic propensity for obesity.

    Then again, the donut crumbs and grease stains are probably a less expensive clue.

  143. You've got it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, youre supposed to scream,
    "NYPD!! Bend over darkie cuz we gonna sodomize you with a plunger handle!!"

    Youre right..it does sound so much cooler.

    Now that the firefighters have been arrested by the NY mayors and have picketed Bush, I presume the whining is over and we can go back to saying out loud that the NYPD are a bunch of killer thugs, right?

    zeke

  144. Do Not Forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    • You are a DNA biocomputer
    • Exercise releases endorphins
    • Endorphins make your biocomputer "feel" better
    "Everybody is different" is your mantra of defeat. Your biocomputer will not allow "you" to be happy until you give in to the process. Dig?

  145. Who can the FBI attract at $45K? by Nonesuch · · Score: 2
    Prior to the recession, a "system administrator" (no security experience or training), a year or two out of college, could pull down $45K in the midwest, and considerably more in the CA or NYC.

    An experienced computer security person (BS plus 5 years experience plus security-specific training) in his/her late twenties can easily command $90K+ from private industry. For most people,the priviledge of carrying a gun and a badge isn't worth the salary cut (and those for whom it is worth it, hopefully they fail the psych tests).

    I don't have anything against helping the government catch real (violent) criminals, but if the feds are interested in hiring people with real-world experience, they are going to find it difficult to compete with the salary offered by private industry for experts in this field.

    Forget the disdain from the "Special Agents"...
    A more personal issue that has not been mentioned, is the special hatred all hackers, white or black hat (or any shade in between), hold in their hearts for the turncoats who dare to "sell out", going to work on the side of the prosecution.

    1. Re:Who can the FBI attract at $45K? by loraksus · · Score: 2

      So I tried to join the army engineer corps (demolition) and like, they said I failed the psyc test because I had a destructive personality. Well, like WTF did they expect?
      Shit. They didn't even mention my dedication, I had the chemical formulas for RDX and C4 memorized.

      --
      1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcfv gbhnjmk,l.;/
  146. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Dragon213 · · Score: 1

    Where does it say that if you run rugularly and are >250 lbs. that you're a glutton? I'm a 5'8, 210lb. geek that runs approx. 10+ miles a week [damn military regulations (and yes, New Balance makes the best running shoes)]. I sometimes do free weights, and enjoy running and working out. Gives the mind some free time that it doesn't have to concentrate on new information, and can process what I've already picked up that day. Plus, it's a great relaxant. I was a diagnosed insominac for years before I joined the service, and found out that working out is about the best thing to cure insomnia. Something about your body being to tired not to sleep.....(YMMV)

    --
    --CypherDragon
  147. Fat Bong Smoking Smartasses Need Not Apply by Stalyn · · Score: 0, Troll

    oh yeah no black people either.

    --
    The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
  148. Sorry Taco... by hugecrow · · Score: 1

    there's no room for you in the FBI.

    --
    Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
  149. Fat == Weapon by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Why, fat can make a wonderful weapon. You fall on the enemy and sufficate them. Plus, it serves as padding when you fall down. In fact, if you are fat enough, there is no such thing as "falling over". A ball cannot "fall over".

    I am gonna grab more donuts and Ho Ho's and become the best damned agent that ever rolled into an FBI recruiting office. I will even hand them a round resume instead of a rectangular one to be more memorable.

    I'll show them.

  150. Yeah by StandardDeviant · · Score: 2

    Dead employees tend to present management problems. They don't argue much but you can't say much good about their results... ;-)

  151. hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Piss off, fatty.

    Tell you what. If you stop posting to Slashdot for a day, I'll buy you a 12-pack of Twinkies!

    Now ain't that SUMPTIN ??

    1. Re:hehe by shepd · · Score: 1

      Hit a bone, did I? (Pun very much intended)

      It always seemed to me overweight people could take a hint easier than idiot runners. Ben Johnson comes to mind as proof that serious runners appear to lack the mental capacity to know when enough is enough, and you prove it by offering to help get a fat person on your medical taxes/insurance faster.

      Dumbass.

      Piss off my slashdot, we want more intelligence and you're just sponging from it.

      Oh, and the short slang form for somthing is either SUM'IT or SUMMIT (depending on wether you want to avoid the obvious homonym or not), not SUMPTIN. Unless you ment sumptious.

      And drop the double question mark and extra space. For emphasis use the commonly accepted fasion of a question mark followed by an exclamation point, such as this:

      Are you an IDIOT?!

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
  152. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by Wavicle · · Score: 2

    You don't seem to be factoring in "reality".

    Because in "reality" people who regularly exercise report enjoying life more, and senior citizens who continue to exercise report enjoying life more than their sedentary counterparts. IOW, quality in quantity.

    You seem bent on this hypothetical person who is 4 standard deviations from the mean who has plenty of energy, feels great all the time and is readily willing to give up a few hours now at the expense of years in the future (both raw numbers of years of life, and quality of those twilight years).

    Does your hypothetical person forego showers so that they can enjoy more quality time now?

    --
    Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
    Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
  153. A more fitting headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most FBI Too Stupid For The Hackers

  154. they should still hire you! by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's discriminatory, dammit. I don't think being metaphysically challenged should present a barrier to employment.

  155. Why Is This Such A Big Suprise? by Switchback · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why is this such a big suprise to everyone?

    The purpose of agents in the FBI are for law enforcement purposes, specifically, the enformcement of federal laws. All agents need to be able to handle, or contribute to, any type of criminal case, not just the one they have a specialty in. Just becasue you are a computer expert doesn't mean you won't be working a kidnapping or bank robbery. You have to be able to meet the standards that any other agent meets. Plain and simple. This is especially true for major events like the federal building bombing in Oklahoma and the 9/11 investigations. During these times most agents were retasked to assist in these investigations. It's not like you are going to refuse because "I don't do bombings, I do computer fraud." You're not a team player with an attitude like that and the FBI and other federal agencies don't need people like that.

    Also, I've been reading about the compensation comments here. Yes, we'd all like to make more money, but money is not the reason you join a group like the FBI. I can't think of one specialty in the FBI that wouldn't pay more on the outside world. There are many reasons people join the FBI (other other agencies):
    * Patriotism
    * The opportunity to work with 'the best'.
    * The opportunity to do things that only working at the federal level will allow you (protecting the President (USSS), protecting Air Force One around the world(USAF SP), developing unique CPUs (NSA), seeing what's really involved with regard to world events (NSA, CIA, State Department), etc.)
    * Love of a particular field (e.g. law enforcement)
    * The best training in the world in your field.

    Besides, people with backgrounds in the FBI will be able to make very good money once they leave/retire.

    1. Re:Why Is This Such A Big Suprise? by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      All agents need to be able to handle, or contribute to, any type of criminal case, not just the one they have a specialty in. Just becasue you are a computer expert doesn't mean you won't be working a kidnapping or bank robbery.

      That's exactly right. Remember that Scully was a fully-qualified MD but she was still expected to show up on field operations carrying a gun.

  156. surprising... by Damned · · Score: 1

    I was reading through the whole thread hoping to find someone that felt as I do, and finally saw this. I'd posit that you are absolutely right, and this does not go only for obesity. With anything, if one truly wishes to stop a behavior, one will take the consequences. If they do not, they did not really wish to stop.

    If I am told that I must lose weight (a.k.a. stop eating so much) or I will die of heart disease/renal failure/having the weight cut off my air supply/etc., I will stop eating so much and hunger pangs be damned. I do not need liposuction, stomach stapling/shrinking surgery, or amphetamines.

    There are some that use food as a coping mechanism, but the argument above holds true for them as well. You should find a better way of coping with problems than running to food. In the cases of people of this sort, there are instances where they just choose a different way of running from their problems. They have stomach surgery or are prescribed amphetamines and take the weight off. This, however, does not fix the underlying problem(s), and these people turn to alchohol or drug abuse because they cannot turn to food any longer. These people should just deal with whatever their problems happen to be. Yes, it is difficult and most likely a painful experience, but it is far better for the person to do this than to run away from such things and hurt themselves in the process. By confronting the issues they can save much physical trouble (surgery, detrimental effects of obesity, etc.), not to mention money (surgery, medical expenses from obesity related health problems).

    It appears I've rambled on. At any rate, thank you Xerithane for showing that I'm not the only one of this opinion.

    --
    "I swear I won't break you if you let me take you where the willows never weep" -- Switchblade Symphony
    1. Re:surprising... by Xerithane · · Score: 1
      It appears I've rambled on. At any rate, thank you Xerithane for showing that I'm not the only one of this opinion.

      My pleasure, and a quote you'll probably like:

      We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.

      -- Aristotle
      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  157. Mod parent up!!! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2

    Very interesting analysis of that question.

  158. Re:The drug requirements - Not as Bad as You Think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    muahaha

  159. Works for me! by squaretorus · · Score: 2

    . Telling these people, "Get off your ass you fat fuck!" does not help. In fact, I think it exacerbates the problem that you deplore.


    While I might take issue with the use of 'these people' I have to say that being told to get off my fat lardy ass worked for me - I'm 70% my former weight and feeling and coding better for it.

    Whichever shoes I wear, a 20 - 30 min run every other morning and a swim once a week do the trick. Oh, and I never have any soft drinks, which must help!

    I almost always go to bed a little hungry because I refuse to eat after 8pm unless Im out for dinner - I read somewhere that some boxer had this rule, eat a truckload for breakfast, a bundle for lunch and a snack for supper, and nothing after 8.

    Doesn't matter what you eat - eat anything - just dont eat much of it after 4pm, and none after 8pm. And go for a run in the morning.

    1. Re:Works for me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I almost always go to bed a little hungry because I refuse to eat after 8pm unless Im out for dinner - I read somewhere that some boxer had this rule, eat a truckload for breakfast, a bundle for lunch and a snack for supper, and nothing after 8.

      Forty-five years ago, I heard someone say this as "Have a breakfast like a king, lunch like a commoner and dinner like a pauper." Some things never die.

    2. Re:Works for me! by chialea · · Score: 2

      As I can't walk in anyone else's shoes, I don't know how you deal with it, but if I do anything like that, I start passing out.

      Just be careful with it.

      Lea

  160. Don't run, just hash by hughk · · Score: 2
    You could try joining the . Yes, they run, but they make it a lot more fun. No, it isn't about smoking strange herbal substances, but there is often some beer involved. The surprising thing about it is that it does improve your fitness over the years.

    Oh, and you can usually fiund a hash chapter in most places in the world. I doubt whether it has started up yet in Afghanistan, but they are already in Uzbekistan and Pakistan as well as many places closer to home.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
    1. Re:Don't run, just hash by hughk · · Score: 1

      Whoops, sorry, I forgot to close the URL. I was talking about the Hash House Harriers.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    2. Re:Don't run, just hash by Skyshadow · · Score: 1
      Good job forgetting that URL, ya wank. You must be a hasher. I think that earns a down-down.

      On on! -- Strike Five

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    3. Re:Don't run, just hash by hughk · · Score: 2
      The URL is there, it just isn't closed off. What do you expect, I have given up my job as webmaster of Frankfurt hash so am out of practice!!!

      So, On-On to InterHash in Goa!!! - Upchuck.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  161. color blind more a nonstandard mixture. by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

    I have had times in which I have seen color differences that people with "normal" vision could not see.

    If you watch and are not bashfull about asking, you can find places where the paint on walls has been retouched in the wrong color and yet it not noticeable/dumb looking to the general population. I used to think everyone could see it.

    Sometimes I can catch my wife making mistakes when sorting socks for instance but she has good vision.

    At least one of the old dot tests has numbers that we can see that are quite hard for the normal vision folks.

  162. Re:It's not the physical reqs that turn away peopl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, part of the problem is that all of the decent jobs offered by the FBI require that you are an agent.

    Based on the "bottom of the food chain" comment in the article, it's rather likely that there are lots of qualified people who would want to work for the FBI in computer security, not necessarily as agents, but who (understandably) want some respect.

  163. Re:It's not the physical reqs that turn away peopl by blancolioni · · Score: 1

    if I were an Agent, I wouldn't want to be looking out for some lard-arse specialist, I'd like to know the guy doing the specialist work could cover my back in a firefight.

    Cover your back? No, make the lard-arses cover your front. The more ridiculously obese they are, the more cover they provide. And more bullet-stopping potential.

    You just have to make sure they don't fall backwards, or you'll get squashed.

  164. Running plan by balthan · · Score: 2

    My I recommend the Couch to 5k running plan?

  165. fitness as a character test by perky · · Score: 2

    None of the comments here have mentioned the possibility that the fitness test is not there as an end in itself. I would suspect that the primary purpose of checking that candidates for desk jobs are in shape is to ensure that they are in control of their lives and have the right attitude. Being fit and healthy is a very good indicator that you will turn up to work on time, don't go out on the piss too often, get a consistent and reasonable amount of sleep and so on. All of these things are desirable characteristics for a federal employee. And the bottom line is that if you want to be a federal agent, and you can't pass the test then unless you hit the gym and get in shape, you obviously don't want to be a federal agent badly enough.

    --
    "The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
  166. Physically unfit. by niclas_b · · Score: 1

    Geeks is usually kinda intelligent... Why is it that they can't see the connection between exercising and better health/longer life?

  167. Biking to work by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately here the extra longevity is theoretical only, since in London you would be hit by a white van or a mother in a SUV long before you reached normal life expectancy. Not that cyclists here wear helmets or have lights or obey traffic rules anyway. Our cycle lanes are a joke, about 0.8 metres wide, and sometimes only 5 metres long (!)

  168. Exceptions don't make the rules. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    The "I did it then you can do it" is BS IMNSVHO.

    And your restaurant solution is duboius: if you are not going to eat it then ask for half the normal portion (ask how big the portions are).

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  169. obligatory: by oval_pants · · Score: 1



    Hacker Beefcake! Hacker Beefcake!

  170. Physical test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Mulder had to pass the physical"

    He must have cheated...

    "Candidates must be completely available for assignment anywhere in the FBI's jurisdiction, have uncorrected vision not worse than 20/200 (Snellen) and corrected 20/20 in one eye and not worse than 20/40 in the other eye. All candidates must pass a color vision test. "

    Remember the episode where the bad guys adds this little box to the tv:s, that adds "invisible" frames that makes the people watching the tv:s go insane? Scully and Mulder skimms through a bunch of tapes and Scully goes insane but Mulder doesn't, which he later on (when he checks with the lone gunmen) belives has to do with the fact that he's color-blind.

  171. How to lose weight by jarran · · Score: 1

    If this is a problem for you, you should check out The Hacker Diet - How to lose weight through stress and poor nutrition.

  172. Still less youngens than babyboomers by BlackMesaResearchFac · · Score: 1
    It appears to me that there was a little babyboom in the more-is-more 1980s, and those kids are coming of age. I wish there was a way to get credible census information in this kind of detail, but I'll bet $1 that there are more 18-25 year olds today than there have ever been in history.
    Sorry, but this undoubtedly incorrect. The graph shown here from 1994 would plot 18-25 year olds as 10-17 year olds. The logic partly plays out in that there certainly isn't a shortage of kids coming from the babyboomers, but it still doesn't meet the ~42-52 age period of today.

    I think it just seems like there are so many kids 18-25 these days because the ecomony took a dive and it's difficult for those inexperienced people to find jobs (especially techies).

    --
    -- Scientist: You aren't going to leave me here, are you? Boagh! Thump...
    1. Re:Still less youngens than babyboomers by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1
      I'll bet $1 that there are more 18-25 year olds today than there have ever been in history.

      I dunno, I think he's right. The market for cheesy chrome crap to "decorate" your car is certainly at an all time high...

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
  173. Bottom of the Food Chain by opencode · · Score: 1

    But "in the FBI, if you're not an agent, you're on the bottom of the food chain," Richard Forno, an independent security consultant, said.

    Like Dan and Chevy Chase in Spies Like Us, right? Didn't they get the girls in the end?

    --
    "He who questions training trains himself at asking questions." - The Sphinx, Mystery Men (1999)
  174. www.geocities.com/jayseidens - Fitness works. by Havokmon · · Score: 2
    I grew up with this guy and he's ALWAYS been 'big', even baby pictures (and no, he wasn't over-fed). I think I stayed thin partly because I wrestled him all the time. In HS, I was 160, and he was around 300. I was the only one who could put him on my shoulders, spin around, and toss him in the deep end of the pool.

    He's always lifted weights, and got me into it too. As you can see on his site, he's done a damn good job of trimming down. If you have a question, I'm sure he'd be happy to answer it.

    Fitness and nutrition work for EVERYBODY, it's just a lot of large people don't have the resolve to follow-through. I know I don't, so I'm still 50lbs more than I was in HS - but that's better than the 90lbs more I was last year.

    But I can still jump cubes, so maybe Bishop will give me a job :P (Obscure movie ref)

    --
    "I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
  175. Felt Patriotic as Well ... but the $$$ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I felt the same way after 9/11. I checked the listings. The pay they are giving is the equivalent that is given to entry level -- no experience -- staff with basic CS degrees. And they often want 10+ years experience. I expected to take a pay cut, but I expected it to be somewhat reasonable. I wouldn't be able to support my family on those salary ranges.

  176. Hey doughboy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FBI is right to shun geeks. Geeks are pretty much worthless. Now scientists, programmers, analysts -- those are useful. But geeks? Useless.

    Geeks fret about things that don't matter. Geeks have an unpleasant way of interacting with people. Geeks have their own special humor, that isn't so funny at all once you realize how stunted it is. Geeks lack focus, and will expend tremendous amounts of energy on something that has no real value. Geeks truly do suck.

    This is not to say that geeks lack skills. But geeks acquire their skills in a very fragmented, unfocused, serependitous way, which is why they think becoming an "uber-hacker" is hard. In reality, it is their preparation, or lack of same, which makes it appear to be hard. In other words, geeks overvalue the little competency that they have, while they tend to underappreciate their gross deficiencies.

    The age that hackers could live inside their little bubbles and expect to be paid for it is over. Computers have become part of the world. The best computer specialists are those that partake in that world, too.

  177. There are better reasons NOT to join the FBI by gosand · · Score: 2
    I was actually considering joining, and I am confident I would have passed any physical test. I am 5'11" 175 lbs, and like working out. So maybe that disqualifies me as a true geek. Whatever. My aunt has worked for the FBI for the last 25 years, and after talking to her about it, and looking over the application books, no thanks.

    Jeez, you guys are so paranoid about your privacy that you get all bent out of shape when Microsoft sneezes. How would you feel signing your entire private life over to the agency? Think they won't check out every single detail in your past, especially nowadays? My aunt told me that they were one big family, and that they stood behind each other like a family. Sorry, that didn't appeal to me, and kind of creeped me out. I am not of the "club" or "fraternity" mentality.

    There are two areas in the FBI - support and agents. Agents are the ones who have to carry guns, and go through the more intense training. Support personnell can range from linguists to translators, to computer people. But the agents are what everyone aspires to be, even though they couldn't do their job with the massive amounts of support personnell.

    You can get into the FBI and not be an agent. Just be prepared for what you would be signing away if you did join. I don't think most hackers/crackers/script kiddies would be willing to do it.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  178. Soooo, if Steven Hawking wanted to... by Ruger · · Score: 1

    ...work for the FBI they'd tell him to take a hike?!?! Granted, Hawking's expertise wouldn't be applicable to FBI work, but you get the point. There are a lot of poeple with physical disabilities who excell in the various fields of technology that the FBI would be lucky to get...if it weren't for their ridiculous physical standards.

    1. Re:Soooo, if Steven Hawking wanted to... by saider · · Score: 1

      He could work for the FBI. He just could not be an "agent". He could easily fill the role as a civilian contractor.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    2. Re:Soooo, if Steven Hawking wanted to... by Fig,+formerly+A.C. · · Score: 1

      But then he'd have to quit his job announcing for the National Weather Service radio alerts!

      --
      Murphy was an optimist.
  179. discrimination by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting that the FBI can discriminate against the deaf and the color-blind/blind. Clear violations of the ADA, and candidates with such impairments, who are otherwise qualified (4 year degree + whatever else they need (like CCNP, CCIE)) can't be legally discounted against--yet they do and it's right there on the page! Maybe someone should sue...

  180. the FBI might be impressed if you took on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  181. FBI Needs to Slim Down on Procedure by MojoRilla · · Score: 1

    The FBI is bloated with procedure. It needs to slim down.

    As a citizen and taxpayer, I believe the FBI should have the best computer security people available. Not the best computer security people who are physically fit, or meet other non-important criteria to computer security. Physical fitness has nothing to do with computer ability. It is like saying in order for me to be a FBI agent, I need to be good looking. Even though being good looking may be very important if I ever get interviewed for the evening news, it won't help me do my job.

    The government does have a responsibility to safeguard its secrets and protect itself, so I don't mind the background check.

    Take, for example, the Olympic decathlon. There are 10 events, all of which are in the Olympics as other events. Do decathloners set world records in each of those 10 events? Could they even compete with other Olympic athletes in individual events? The answer is no. In order for a decathloner to develop the broad skills useful in all 10 events, he or she cannot become an expert in any particular event.

    It is not acceptable to have computer security agents that don't know what a buffer overflow is, because they were busy learning how to fire a gun.

    We are increasingly moving towards specialization in science. Someone said that a scientist today has only slight knowledge of things outside his or her field, but deep understanding of his or her specialty. The FBI must shed some procedural weight if it wants the best computer security possible. Otherwise, we will lose the fight against cyber-terrorism.

  182. If you want an fbi job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your only problem is that you're a lazy slob, then maybe you'll need to get off your lazy butt and do some excercise before applying?

  183. You didn't mention... by kikta · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...The Close-Quarters Weapons System (CQWS). It's a variant of the M4A1 Carbine that will potentially replace the MP4-N (made by H&K) currently used by the Marine Corps. The primary difference in our variant is that it uses a rail system for adding just about any crazy little accessory that you could ever imagine (M203 grenade launcher, flashlight, laser sight, diopter sight, etc). The diopter sight is standard and I had the opportunity to try it out at Quantico's Weapons Battlion's range with the guys of the Marine Corps Scout-Sniper Instructor School (the FBI Academy is a half-mile up the road, ironically enough). I fixed their computers all the time when I was stationed there, so this was their way of thanking me.

    The weapon is about as perfect as one could ask. And the diopter sight? Awesome. Forget iron sights. This little puppy has a suspended red dot and all you have to do is put the dot on the appropriate part of the target (chest-level @ 200M, shoulder-level @ 300M, head-level @ 500M) and you'll hit center mass every time. I even went crazy trying to get improper sight-alignment and/or sight-picture and miss - it didn't happen. If the dot appears to be on the target, you'll hit it. One of the best weapons systems I have ever used (other than the Mk-19: imagine a heavy machine gun that fires grenades) and I hope the Marine Corps adopts it.

    1. Re:You didn't mention... by prismatic · · Score: 1

      Both the M4 and M4A1 uses the attachment rail system. I'm not understanding the advantages of the CQWS. The diopter sight sounds just like an AimPoint. I'd appreciate additional information. It sounds interesting.

      --
      Brian Voils
      "A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students."
    2. Re:You didn't mention... by kikta · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I realized that I neglected to mention this after I posted. The CQWS has rails out the ying-yang. It's significantly more modular than the other versions of the M4. It's actually kinda difficult for me to describe well, but if you saw it, you would see what I mean. The diopter sight is very similar AimPoint. It will come standard (don't know if that's the case with the M4). The CQWS is an evolutionary form of the M4 line, not revolutionary. They are very similar, but different. From what I understood from them, the primary difference was beefed up railing & modularity.

  184. Look at the hard numbers by coyote-san · · Score: 2

    Have you ever looked at the hard numbers collected by university researchers? No offense, but your experience (and any other single person's experiences) really don't mean squat since there's too many unknowns - are you successful because you're still in your 20s and have high hormone levels, or perhaps you and your friends eat at a local restaurant that uses products with an unusually high selenium level. (Not that selenium actually helps, but it's been named as a possible micronutrient that helps weight loss.)

    That's why I said that the macronutrient approach is bullshit. It might work for some people, but even a cursory glance at any public space will show you that it's missing something very important.

    To be honest, the rate of obesity today reminds me (and others) of cigarette consumption in the 60s and 70s -- by then everyone knew that it was dangerous, everyone "knew" that all it took to quit was "will power," yet tobacco consumption remained high. Plenty of people tried to stop smoking, but the relapse rate was around 98%. Today we know that obesity is extremely dangerous, we all know "easy ways" of losing weight, yet something like 98% of all people who attempt to lose weight regain it (and usually more) within a year. At the same time, over half of the population is overweight or obese.

    --
    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
    1. Re:Look at the hard numbers by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Have you ever looked at the hard numbers collected by university researchers? No offense, but your experience (and any other single person's experiences) really don't mean squat since there's too many unknowns - are you successful because you're still in your 20s and have high hormone levels, or perhaps you and your friends eat at a local restaurant that uses products with an unusually high selenium level. (Not that selenium actually helps, but it's been named as a possible micronutrient that helps weight loss.)

      No, actually I have an overactive metabolism. It wont go away no matter how old I am. Some of my friends have weight problems. Most people I hang out with for a significant period of time start eating more than they do normally because they are with me and gain weight. I warn people when they start getting close to me about this.

      That's why I said that the macronutrient approach is bullshit. It might work for some people, but even a cursory glance at any public space will show you that it's missing something very important.

      You didn't say macronutrient was bullshit. You said that my statement of people being too weak-willed to do what is right was bullshit. You raised an excellent point with smoking. It does take will power. If you are too weak to cut a habit out, it doesn't mean you are a "weak willed loser" as you said, it means you are too weak to cut that habit at that moment. Most people use cigarettes, alcohol, and food as a security blanket to cope with other issues. If they can't cut it out, they need to work out those issues.

      Learning how to break a comfort-habit is hard, but it takes a lot of will power. Comfort habits are typically dangerous to your person as well.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  185. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by mike77 · · Score: 1
    Two steps:
    1. Recognize that your excuses are all self-defeating bullshit.
    2. Work up to your goal.

    all right then, what's your suggestion when one has a blown out knee, ankle, and two busted shoulders from highschool football?

    --

    --Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time

  186. Re: Obesity results from addictive shit in foods by benzapp · · Score: 1

    People who are obese are unable to control cravings for addictive substances in foods.

    Carbohydrates are NOT the cause. Have you ever seen someone stuff their face with strawberries or any other fruit even though they are absolutely delicious?

    Opioid peptides are the primary culprit. While it is commonly thought only the opium poppy produces opioid peptides that is not the case. All grains and all dairy products contain them. Grains contain them for the same reason the poppy does, to ward of insects that would eat them. Mammals produce opioid peptides to calm baby mammals and make them addicted to the mother.

    When people are addicted to cookies, cake, and any other snack food, it is not the SUGAR that is addicting, but the opiod peptides. THe surest way to tell is to put that cupcake in front of your face and then a nice apple. If you want to eat the cupcake but no the apple you are NOT hungry, but craving the opioid peptides in the foods.

    Almost ALL cases of asthma and constipation are caused by opioid peptides in foods. Abstaining from foods containing them will let you breath easier. Many people can't work out well because their respiration is so surpressed by the opioid peptides. this is also why so many athletes abuse amphetamines, they don't really help them except by reversing respiratory suppression. Also, constipation is not physically possible unless you consume some kind of opioid.

    Wheat Gluten is the worst offender, it is found in pasta. Gluten is also added to tons of prepackaged food. Gluten is decomposed into several glucomorphine molecules, one of which is 100x as powerful as the morphine molecule found in the poppy. Next is Whey, which is mostly casein, a protein which is decomposed into powerful opioid peptides. You will find Whey and Gluten in the most ridiculous places, like spiced meat. It is there not for flavor, but for the addictive high.

    Many of the heterocyclic amines which are carcinogenic and addictive in tobacco are found in cooked foods. Heating protein to extreme structures has unpredictable results, but always breaks them down into simpler amines. Some of these are beta-carbolides, which influence benzodiazepine receptors in the brain, just like valium does. Cooked meat contains these subtances, as well as cooked grains, nuts and legumes which are also rich in protein. Raw meat does not.

    Basically, eat just raw fruits, nuts, and raw fish and you will be set. You will lose weight fast, breath easier, and overcome many other health problems I haven't even touched on here.

    Remember, Emperor Nero said all the people need to keep quiet is bread and games. The SYSTEM wants you to consume opioid peptides because they make you apathetic and could care less about your life. Caffeine is the legal stimulant because it partially overcomes the sedative effects of a grain based diet, but it doesn't give you back your will like amphetamine and cocaine does. The government and the powers that be want you to eat these foods because you wont give a shit how they are running the country, or keeping you a prisoner of your own lifestyle. A lazy fat ass is also someone extremely unlikely and UNABLE To resist the will of the man. Wheat is and always has been a tool of control, to keep slaves from rebelling. Think about that the next time you eat that Twinkie.

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts
  187. Re:Not joining FBI is the least of your problems.. by SmackDown · · Score: 1

    I'm about 75 lbs. overweight. Something happened to me today to make me want to shed that 75 lbs. For the most part, I'm in excellent health, can run, lift a hell of a lot more than most of you so-called "healthy" people and my blood pressure is low. But this morning, when I sat down on the couch and bent over to tie my shoes, I got a horrendous shock of pain in my back. That extra 75 lbs up front is starting to take a toll on my spinal cord.

  188. Three is a magic number by eam · · Score: 1

    For those geeks & nerds who aren't aware, the Schoolhouse Rock 30th anniversary DVD was released on July 27th.

    Really cool. I haven't seen some of them in years.

    If you don't know why three is the magic number, you probably don't know Schoolhouse Rock.

  189. So try something else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Running works for me. I couldn't even do a half-mile when I started, and now I run 5 miles in 50 minutes, and do it all over again two days later.

    But, if running doesn't work for you ... there's hundreds of ways of exercising. And there's a dozen ways to learn about it. If you learn stuff by having someone tell it to you, hire a trainer. If you learn stuff by reading O'Reilly books, go read "Fitness for Dummies" instead. If you learn stuff by web surfing, a couple minutes at Google will get you started.

    Stay the hell away from anybody who gives you shit about the level you are currently at. That includes Slashdot. If you go the gym and somebody stares at you because you're moving the pin from "70" down to "30" when you get on the machine, stare right back. That's what I do.

    If it's your trainer who gives you attitude about that, fire them and don't pay them. Their job is to get you from level N to level N+1, not give you any shit about being at level N in the first place.

    If you're hung up on the "geeks and working out don't mix" idea, don't think of it as working out. Think of it as modding your body!

  190. Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Swimming or water aerobics.

  191. cause vesus effect by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    (* Because in "reality" people who regularly exercise report enjoying life more, and senior citizens who continue to exercise report enjoying life more than their sedentary counterparts. *)

    That is hardly scientific. For one, it does not determine the cause. It is like the old battle over whether violent people watch more violent TV because they get off on it, or because the extra TV made them violent.

    I don't feel noticably different between periods when I excercise a lot and times when I have vegged for a while. I might lose say 5 pounds and be able to bend about a little easier, but beyond that, I don't feel noticably different.

    In the short term, excercize makes my joints stiff and sensative.

  192. Why be FBI? by MikeFM · · Score: 2

    Why bother? If you just want to hack and carry a gun you can do that at home. If you really want to you could form some sort of militia that hunts down bad guys. Get enough kick ass hackers with automatic weapons and maybe we can start our own government. Finally be able to hunt down those RIAA bastards. ;) If you just want a paycheck then go work at Pizza Hut.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
  193. Bottom of th Food Chain by clovis · · Score: 1

    So? Thin and fat geeks are at the bottom of the food chain in any organization of over 5,000 employees that's not a geek enterprise. They may get paid well, or often very well, but they're at the bottom.
    Don't believe me? Call the CEO and ask him/her to meet you for lunch to "just wanted to see how you're doing".

  194. Thin guys perspective. by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 2
    I'm lazy. REALLY lazy. I just got back from a 2 km walk(!), and my t-shirt is almost soaking! I'm 192 cm tall and weigh in at around 85 kg. I've ALWAYS been thin. My brothers eat less than me (both in the way of mass and kcal/kjoule), do more demanding physical labor, whereas I work as a developer/programmer sitting at my desk 7½ hours a day. Despite of this, they're obese (~180 and 185 cm, and 125 and 120 kg respectively) and I'm the skinny guy. The younger of the two resently lost 20 kg by way of a strict diet and more exercise. He's now stuck at ~120 kg, and has been so for the last couple of months, despite sticking to his diet and exercise.

    Don't tell ME, that it's all from lazyness. Some people are geneticly prone to being fat, while others like me are prone to being skinny. I want to loose a couple of kilos, because I don't like the love handles I'm starting to get, and I don't like the fact, that I have ~1 cm of fat covering my breast muscle. I CAN loose that weight - my brothers can't.

    Finally: if the next time you go to a restraunt they give you a bigger portion than the last time DON'T EAT IT ALL!!!!!

    Doesn't help. Like I said, I eat more than they do. At one point, I actually ate more than both of them, when they were both on a diet.

    For some people, it's their life that causes their obesity, for other people it's their genes. Kinda like intelligence - some have it, some don't.
    --
    We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    1. Re:Thin guys perspective. by xintegerx · · Score: 1

      It's called a plateau-- if he sticks with his fitness he will pass his plateau and continue dropping pounds.

  195. Strong v. Weak by Loundry · · Score: 2

    Learning how to break a comfort-habit is hard, but it takes a lot of will power. Comfort habits are typically dangerous to your person as well.

    There is a big problem I see with your take on this issue (and this really goes for everything you've written about it thus far).

    What exactly is a "comfort habit"? It sounds to me like a layman's description of why a person does a repetitive action. I think the reasons why a person overeats can be many, can be complex, can be different from person to person, and, almost always, come from years and years of psychological training. How "strong" does one have to be to be able to break that training? How does one measure the "strength" required to be able to do so? For some people, I think it may be a simple matter of willpower. For others, I don't think there is any amount of willpower which will allow them to overcome their "comfort habit," as you call it.

    I think the problem boils down to this: we don't understand well why some people overeat, and we barely understand how to measure human intelligence at all. I think it's unkind and inaccurate to label these people as "weak." I think "stupid," or "crazy" would be more accurate (but no less kind).

    In the future, we will have discrete quantifiers for all kinds of human intelligence and behaviors. It's a shame that with our astounding knowledge of physics and technology that we really are so bone-headedly ignorant of neurology and psychology.

    --
    I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    1. Re:Strong v. Weak by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      What exactly is a "comfort habit"? It sounds to me like a layman's description of why a person does a repetitive action. I think the reasons why a person overeats can be many, can be complex, can be different from person to person, and, almost always, come from years and years of psychological training. How "strong" does one have to be to be able to break that training? How does one measure the "strength" required to be able to do so? For some people, I think it may be a simple matter of willpower. For others, I don't think there is any amount of willpower which will allow them to overcome their "comfort habit," as you call it.


      Simple, comfort habit is a non-productive and destruction (or at least detracting) habit that one gets into to provide temporary relief from psychological stress. Biting nails, over eating. Most noticed is that they tend to be oral fixations, which can go pretty far into Freudian psychology.

      I think the problem boils down to this: we don't understand well why some people overeat, and we barely understand how to measure human intelligence at all. I think it's unkind and inaccurate to label these people as "weak." I think "stupid," or "crazy" would be more accurate (but no less kind).

      I didn't describe the person as weak. Go back and read what I wrote. I said they were too weak to break the habit. I consider myself very strong, and everyone who knows me (with the exception of my mother, but then again they can always find a way to needle you) would agree. Yet I can't break certain habits. Granted, all my habits that are actually destructive I've relieved myself of. The ones that I am not free of are not of enough importance to me to break. That is why I am too weak to do it, not because I can't -- because I wont.

      Weak is a relative term, it does not imply the person is weak, just too weak in that area to sacrifice the short term gain for the long term.

      In the future, we will have discrete quantifiers for all kinds of human intelligence and behaviors. It's a shame that with our astounding knowledge of physics and technology that we really are so bone-headedly ignorant of neurology and psychology.

      Many lessor known psychologists have excellent ideas regarding intelligence and basic smarts. The difference with brains and psychology is that no two brains are the same and finding common denominators between them is difficult, but they all exist. If you disassemble a brain, and put it back together is it still the same brain with the same connections and would it detect something different? Brains are funnier things, emotions are even more funny. Intelligence being altered by emotion is even more so.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    2. Re:Strong v. Weak by Loundry · · Score: 2

      Simple,

      If it really was "simple" then you wouldn't need to label it as such. Your argument should speak for itself. ...which can go pretty far into Freudian psychology.

      Are you a degreed psychologist? Your description sounds like a layman's description.

      I didn't describe the person as weak. Go back and read what I wrote. I said they were too weak to break the habit.

      Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

      Weak is a relative term, it does not imply the person is weak, just too weak in that area to sacrifice the short term gain for the long term.

      But weak in what "areas"? Are there discrete, qualitified, scientific desciptions for these "areas"? I don't think there is.

      Many lessor known psychologists have excellent ideas regarding intelligence and basic smarts.

      I'm glad you said "ideas." Maybe "vague notions" would be more accurate. Almost everything we know about neurology is based on doing studies on people who have brain damage.

      If you disassemble a brain, and put it back together is it still the same brain with the same connections and would it detect something different? Brains are funnier things, emotions are even more funny. Intelligence being altered by emotion is even more so.

      Was this intended to be convincing?

      You are making brash statements about human psychology but have no evidence to back it up.

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    3. Re:Strong v. Weak by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Are you a degreed psychologist? Your description sounds like a layman's description.

      Not degreed, no, but I have significant University-level psychology education under my belt. Thanks for asking. It is a laymans description, because not many people here are versed in psychology. Are you? Have you ever sat in on a University lecture? Much less taken classes from known researchers?

      I'm glad you said "ideas." Maybe "vague notions" would be more accurate. Almost everything we know about neurology is based on doing studies on people who have brain damage.

      That's absolutely wrong. Go read case studies books, and come talk to me.

      As for the rest of your comment, it was completely and totally insubstantial. You raised no points, or counters to any arguments I made. You fail to understand what I was saying apparently, because your responses were completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Might I suggest going and picking up "The Mind's I" as well as some case study books to broaden your knowledge. As for "Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..." I'm really not even sure what the hell you were attempting to imply. Off the wall statements tend not to bode well in debate, just a side note.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    4. Re:Strong v. Weak by Loundry · · Score: 2

      Not degreed, no, but I have significant University-level psychology education under my belt. Thanks for asking. It is a laymans description, because not many people here are versed in psychology. Are you? Have you ever sat in on a University lecture? Much less taken classes from known researchers?

      You are admitting that you are neither a degreed psychologist nor a degreed neurologist.

      That's absolutely wrong. Go read case studies books, and come talk to me.

      I notice you fail to cite any relevant case study books. How do we know that the occipital lobe does what it does? How do we know what the corpus colostrum does? In both cases, it was from studying those who had brain damage. Scores of similar examples follow.

      As for the rest of your comment, it was completely and totally insubstantial. You raised no points, or counters to any arguments I made.

      Your criticism much better applied to your previous argument, where you stated, "If you disassemble a brain, and put it back together...." How can we imagine disassembling and reassambling a brain when we only have the vaguest of notions of how the brain is interconnected in the first place?

      Furthermore, I raised one question which, counter to your dismissal, is completely relevant to the discussion. You stated that some people were too weak in some areas (to give up "comfort habits"), and I asked if there were discrete qualifications for those areas. Your entire argument is based around the notion that people are obese because they are "weak in some areas." Well, what are the areas? In your answer, are you going to give me some more layman's terms, or are you going to show me some evidence this time? I am not your enemy: I will believe everything you write provided that you can show me evidence behind what you claim.

      Might I suggest going and picking up "The Mind's I" as well as some case study books to broaden your knowledge.

      You are neither an expert nor a professional in this subject matter. The fact that you have attended some psychology classes does not impress me. Why should I be interested in your recommendations?

      As for "Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..." I'm really not even sure what the hell you were attempting to imply

      "I didn't describe the person as weak....I said they were too weak to break the habit."

      I think these two statements mean the same thing. This is what I was trying to imply. And yes, it was childish of me to do the "walks like a duck" thing. I'll try to be more direct in the future.

      Off the wall statements tend not to bode well in debate, just a side note.

      Nor does the snide and elitist attitude which has pervaded much of you've typed, including your "...just a side note" final jab. How can you expect me to be receptive to your message when you continue to condescend to me? You are going to have to become more humble and engaging if you want to convince me.

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    5. Re:Strong v. Weak by Xerithane · · Score: 2

      "I didn't describe the person as weak....I said they were too weak to break the habit."

      I think these two statements mean the same thing. This is what I was trying to imply. And yes, it was childish of me to do the "walks like a duck" thing. I'll try to be more direct in the future.


      Good that you think that, but in reality you are wrong. Even a rudimentary understanding of English can yield the logic that proves it.

      I didn't describe the stone as weak, only a diamond is tough enough to cut through it. Does it mean the stone is soft? Softer than the diamond, yes, but not soft. Same thing.

      Nor does the snide and elitist attitude which has pervaded much of you've typed, including your "...just a side note" final jab. How can you expect me to be receptive to your message when you continue to condescend to me? You are going to have to become more humble and engaging if you want to convince me.

      If I'm snide, it means that I'm discounting everything you say because it's largely irrelevant. If you perceived my side note as a jab, than you are obviously too sensitive because it was meant as a sincere request for you to attempt to keep the discussion on topic. Your entire comment thread has been completely and totally off-subject and largely pointless.

      Feel free to think I'm an elitist, I just have my opinions and stick by them. Seldom to people understand the difference between confidence and elitism, but there is a huge difference. If you presented a valid argument that was concise, easy to follow, and made sense I would consider it. However, the responses you have formulated have been less than logical and are laced with stupid.

      Prime example, you dismiss ones knowledge because they have not obtained a degree. That's just plain stupid. I have nothing more to say on that matter, or the discussion because it's not the discussion I entered, nor am I interested in carrying it on with you.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    6. Re:Strong v. Weak by Loundry · · Score: 2

      Good that you think that, but in reality you are wrong. Even a rudimentary understanding of English can yield the logic that proves it.

      Here's the first of many ad hominems that you now begin to spout off. It does not bode well for your argument.

      I didn't describe the stone as weak, only a diamond is tough enough to cut through it. Does it mean the stone is soft? Softer than the diamond, yes, but not soft. Same thing.

      I see your attempt to draw an analogy, but I don't see what the diamond is supposed to represent.

      If I'm snide, it means that I'm discounting everything you say because it's largely irrelevant.

      This is false. If you're snide, it's because you feel the need to make matters personal by "scoring points." It means you are losing the argument.

      If you perceived my side note as a jab, than you are obviously too sensitive because it was meant as a sincere request for you to attempt to keep the discussion on topic.

      Yet another ad hominem. Perhaps you should have focused on your crappy argument rather than on me. You certainly would have had a better chance of swaying me to your point of view had you done that.

      Your entire comment thread has been completely and totally off-subject and largely pointless

      This, too, is false. You tried to pull this in your last response, and I offered a prime counterexample which you ignored. I'll ask it again, because it is completely relevant:

      1. Your claim is that people are obese because they are weak in some areas.
      2. I asked you if these areas had discrete qualifications.
      3. You swept this question under the "irrelevant" rug.

      What are the discrete qualifications for the alleged "areas" that are central to your argument? This is not irrelevant. It may be uncomfortable to you (if no such qualifications exist), but it is not irrelevant.

      Feel free to think I'm an elitist, I just have my opinions and stick by them. Seldom to people understand the difference between confidence and elitism, but there is a huge difference.

      I agree. Your behavior falls under the category of elitist. If you had the evidence to back up your claims, then perhaps I would read your behavior as confidence. But you have no evidence. All you have is arrogant claims and ad hominems.

      If you presented a valid argument that was concise, easy to follow, and made sense I would consider it.

      Let's see if I can make it any more consise and easy-to-follow than this: What are the discrete qualifications for the alleged "areas" that you speak of and are central to your argument?

      However, the responses you have formulated have been less than logical and are laced with stupid.

      And yet you fail to produce a single example of this. Thus, it's merely another ad hominem.

      Prime example, you dismiss ones knowledge because they have not obtained a degree. That's just plain stupid.

      I did not dismiss your knowledge. You apparently failed to see what I was trying to show. I'll spell it out for you now so that there will be no confusion.

      You were attempting to belittle my knowledge by showing that you had attended more classes in psychology and read more case studies books than I had done. I was showing you that, since you were not a degreed professional, you really had no more right to speak on this topic than a 19-year-old punk in the middle of a liberal arts education who has just happened to have mostly-slept-through two psychology classes and scanned two case studies books that were required reading for those two classes. Who knows, maybe this description fits you perfectly. Since I don't know you, I have no way of knowing otherwise.

      Keep in mind that I have never pretended to be a professional in any of these arenas. I have posited skepticism, not belief. I'm sorry that "I don't believe it; what is the evidence?" was not consise enough for you to follow. It has made debating with you a chore.

      I have nothing more to say on that matter, or the discussion because it's not the discussion I entered, nor am I interested in carrying it on with you.

      With your tail between your legs you flee from the discussion. As usual, what you say is not nearly as important as what you didn't say. You have failed to show that obesity is caused by weakness in some "areas" because you cannot define what those "areas" are.

      Instead of trying to prove your point, you've spent a lot more time attacking me personally through condescending, snide, and insulting language. What do your psychology classes and case studies books tell you about this behavior?

      And if I'm really as stupid, hypersensitive, and illogical as you imply, then why have you wasted so much time talking to me? What do your psychology classes tell you about this behavior?

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    7. Re:Strong v. Weak by Xerithane · · Score: 1
      Yet another ad hominem. Perhaps you should have focused on your crappy argument rather than on me. You certainly would have had a better chance of swaying me to your point of view had you done that.

      No, I don't care about swaying you to my point of view. In all honesty, I think you are either an idiot, or someone who has great difficulty in authoring clear debate articles. I'm still going to answer your concise question, mostly because that question is something I have some fascination in.

      Keep in mind that I have never pretended to be a professional in any of these arenas. I have posited skepticism, not belief. I'm sorry that "I don't believe it; what is the evidence?" was not consise enough for you to follow. It has made debating with you a chore

      First, you ignored my original case statements. Second, you challenged my authority to have an opinion on the subject. Third, you brought neurology into it, which even with my brain-related paragraph, has nothing to do with it really. Fourth, you did not say, "I don't believe it; what is the evidence?" -- instead you rambled on about this and that, and salted in challenges proclaiming if I'm not a degreed psychologist, what possible reason do I have to say such an opinion which boils down to one sentence which you seem to have personal issues with.

      You were attempting to belittle my knowledge by showing that you had attended more classes in psychology and read more case studies books than I had done. I was showing you that, since you were not a degreed professional, you really had no more right to speak on this topic than a 19-year-old punk in the middle of a liberal arts education who has just happened to have mostly-slept-through two psychology classes and scanned two case studies books that were required reading for those two classes. Who knows, maybe this description fits you perfectly. Since I don't know you, I have no way of knowing otherwise.

      No, I wasn't attempting to belittle your knowledge. I was telling you that saying such things as, "So you admit you have no degree..." and "...you are neither a degreed expert or professional" is stupid, when talking about knowledege. I don't have a P.h.D. but I've met tons I know more about CS than, does that mean since they have a higher degree they win an argument even when their wrong?

      Let's see if I can make it any more consise and easy-to-follow than this: What are the discrete qualifications for the alleged "areas" that you speak of and are central to your argument?
      Fine, since you actually managed to post a related question instead of going into the neurology of it, which has absolutely nothing to do with it I'll provide some backing.

      If you are familiar with Greek philosophy, you will learn that the basic pursuit of understanding the mind and human behavior was taken by the great philosophers. Aristotle, Socrates, and many others. Perhaps one of the greatest quotes about human behavior came about through this time:

      We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefor, is not an act but a habit.

      This has held true through many, many years of devoted research. Even the esteemed but controversial B. F. Skinner had proven that habit can overcome rational behavior. Granted, in his most famous experiments of classical conditioning the habits were forced upon the subjects.

      As through the time, since the late 1800's when psychology was starting to become a real science, the main pursuit was to try to understand human memory, and also relate it to our behaviors. This is the reason as to why many obese people belong into the habitual over-eaters category. In most cases, this stems from a developmental disorder early on in life. Freudian psychology would trace this back to the oral developmental phase, but I believe rarely that is actually the case.

      Many people suffer from this eating disorder. They find solace and comfort in eating, only to do it again when the self destructive cycle repeats itself. If you look at over-eater groups, you will see that they deal with finding the cause, and breaking the habit. They don't put people on strict calorie counting diets. It's a psychological help group. Unfortunately, more people need the outside assistance instead of isolating their own issues and helping themselves. As long as they get help, they are on the right step.

      The weakness comes from the lack of insight and strength to look into their inner mind, and attempt to find why they overeat, and what they hope to accomplish. It's very hard to find out why a comfort habit exists, doubly so if it makes us miserable in turn. That is why they are too weak, not because they are weak individuals. Because they do not have the strength to break the cycle, and help themselves obtain a happier life.

      This does not match all cases, there is the obseity gene which, unfortunately, means no matter how strong the person is, life dealt them a bad hand. However, a simple glance and at American Vs. Asian or European population will show that Americans are largely overweight in comparison.

      In conclusion, purely judging a person on their weight is foolish. Judging a persons strength to accomplish and break problematic habits on their weight is not. However, if they are truly at comfort with their weight and themselves, it's not an issue. Unfortunately, the large majority of overweight people wish they weren't overweight, while eating more to comfort their sorrows.
      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    8. Re:Strong v. Weak by Loundry · · Score: 2

      No, I don't care about swaying you to my point of view. In all honesty, I think you are either an idiot, or someone who has great difficulty in authoring clear debate articles.

      If your argument didn't suck so bad, you wouldn't have to be so defensive like this. Your opinion of me is of no consequence. I don't see how you claim that my debate articles are not clear when yours are riddled with unanswered questions, unsupported claims, and unnecessary personal attacks.

      First, you ignored my original case statements.

      There was nothing to ignore. You wrote, "Go read case studies books, and come talk to me." Well, which ones was I supposed to read? Furthermore, I asked you why your reccomendation should carry any weight with me.

      Second, you challenged my authority to have an opinion on the subject.

      You are most welcome to your opinion. So is the 19-year-old college punk who slept through two psychology classes and skimmed two case studies books which were required reading. What I was saying is that your opinion didn't impress me because I had no reason to think that you weren't the college punk that I described. I've seen plenty of college kids get on an intellectual high horse after taking a single psychology class (as if college kids weren't already the smartest and coolest people on the planet).

      Third, you brought neurology into it, which even with my brain-related paragraph, has nothing to do with it really.

      I disagree. Neurology and psychology are quite related.

      Fourth, you did not say, "I don't believe it; what is the evidence?"

      In message 4205718 I wrote, "You are making brash statements about human psychology but have no evidence to back it up." At this point you could have written, "Oh, yes I do! And here is the evidence...." Instead of that, you started getting personal. What does that look like? It looks like you had no evidence and starting to get mad that you weren't getting your way.

      what possible reason do I have to say such an opinion which boils down to one sentence which you seem to have personal issues with.

      That's one hell of a run-on sentence! Anyways, you seem awfully interested in talking about my personal issues. I'm much more interested in getting you to defend your argument, which you have done an awful job of doing thus far.

      No, I wasn't attempting to belittle your knowledge. I was telling you that saying such things as, "So you admit you have no degree..." and "...you are neither a degreed expert or professional" is stupid, when talking about knowledege.

      In message 4207303 you wrote, "It is a laymans description, because not many people here are versed in psychology. Are you? Have you ever sat in on a University lecture? Much less taken classes from known researchers?" This is what I was referring to when I wrote that you were attempting to belittle my knowledge, and this happened before I wrote, "You are admitting that you are neither a degreed psychologist nor a degreed neurologist."

      I don't have a P.h.D. but I've met tons I know more about CS than, does that mean since they have a higher degree they win an argument even when their wrong?

      You're still missing the point.

      Fine, since you actually managed to post a related question instead of going into the neurology of it, which has absolutely nothing to do with it I'll provide some backing.

      Yay! I *finally* get an answer out of you! Next time, skip all the personal attacks and just provide the evidence for your claims.

      If you are familiar with Greek philosophy...

      And you accuse me of digressing!

      As through the time, since the late 1800's when psychology was starting to become a real science, the main pursuit was to try to understand human memory, and also relate it to our behaviors. This is the reason as to why many obese people belong into the habitual over-eaters [google.com] category. In most cases, this stems from a developmental disorder early on in life. Freudian psychology would trace this back to the oral developmental phase, but I believe rarely that is actually the case.

      What does this have to do with the qualifications of the "areas"?

      Many people suffer from this eating disorder. They find solace and comfort in eating, only to do it again when the self destructive cycle repeats itself. If you look at over-eater groups, you will see that they deal with finding the cause, and breaking the habit. They don't put people on strict calorie counting diets. It's a psychological help group. Unfortunately, more people need the outside assistance instead of isolating their own issues and helping themselves. As long as they get help, they are on the right step.

      More layman's terminology. Again, what does this have to do with the qualification of the "areas"?

      The weakness comes from the lack of insight and strength to look into their inner mind, and attempt to find why they overeat, and what they hope to accomplish.

      So now the "areas" have become something having to do with looking into one's "inner mind," whatever that is.

      That is why they are too weak, not because they are weak individuals. Because they do not have the strength to break the cycle, and help themselves obtain a happier life.

      And now the "areas" have something to do with breaking a cycle.

      This does not match all cases, there is the obseity gene which, unfortunately, means no matter how strong the person is, life dealt them a bad hand.

      If this is true (and I've seen no evidence that it is), then it works against, not for, your argument.

      However, a simple glance and at American Vs. Asian or European population will show that Americans are largely overweight in comparison.

      And why is this? According to you, it is because obese people are "weak in some areas." I think the causes are more complex than that, and weakness is a grossly inadequate term to try and describe them. What is the difference between emotional strength and emotional intelligence? I see no reason to treat them as separate or different things.

      In conclusion, purely judging a person on their weight is foolish.

      In conclusion, there are no discrete qualifications for these "areas" you speak of and are central to your argument. I think your argument comes off as one that is manufactured by an arrogant, know-it-all college kid, not one based on sound research and solid evidence. The fact that you had to sink to invective when your claims were challenged supports this.

      I don't think you're an idiot. At this point, I have no confidence that you can generate anything which will support your argument.

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    9. Re:Strong v. Weak by Xerithane · · Score: 1
      If your argument didn't suck so bad, you wouldn't have to be so defensive like this. Your opinion of me is of no consequence. I don't see how you claim that my debate articles are not clear when yours are riddled with unanswered questions, unsupported claims, and unnecessary personal attacks.
      My argument doesn't "suck so bad." It's merely that you are taking argument in something so fundamentally simple as, "people are to weak to break some habits." So, yes, I do stand by one of the two. Although I'm leaning towards both at this moment because of gems like this:

      First, you ignored my original case statements.


      There was nothing to ignore. You wrote, "Go read case studies books, and come talk to me." Well, which ones was I supposed to read? Furthermore, I asked you why your reccomendation should carry any weight with me.

      I disagree. Neurology and psychology are quite related.

      You disagree? Astounding. Yes, they are, but not in this case. Peoples inability to break habits has nothing to do with neurology.

      What I was saying is that your opinion didn't impress me because I had no reason to think that you weren't the college punk that I described. I've seen plenty of college kids get on an intellectual high horse after taking a single psychology class (as if college kids weren't already the smartest and coolest people on the planet).

      Well, for starts, I'm actually literate and can understand what people are writing. Such sentences like, "case statement", are lost on you. I suppose asking for you to actually comprehend what is written is too much, so I'll merely stop attempting to expect logical understanding of what I wrote.
      Do you even know what a case statement is? Do you know it has nothing to do with Case Study literature? Why the hell did you even say that? I could recommend a few, but I think they would be lost because you'd probably argue something else.

      Yay! I *finally* get an answer out of you! Next time, skip all the personal attacks and just provide the evidence for your claims.

      There was no answer that I hadn't already given. Go back, it's there. Not my fault you choose not to read it, instead furthering an argument that has no point.

      And why is this? According to you, it is because obese people are "weak in some areas." I think the causes are more complex than that, and weakness is a grossly inadequate term to try and describe them. What is the difference between emotional strength and emotional intelligence? I see no reason to treat them as separate or different things.

      Take off the stupid-vision for just one second, please. Understand I am not calling this people weak. In no way. For the 5th time. They are not weak. They are too weak to break a habit. That does not mean they are weak. Damn, man, how hard is it for you to understand that? Second, it is obviously more complex. The harder the habit, the more underlying issues to deal with. It's as simple as that. I thought I made that point discussing comfort habits and self destructive cycles, but again, it seems to have been lost.

      If this is true (and I've seen no evidence that it is), then it works against, not for, your argument.

      You have never heard of the obesity gene? And you are even talking to me on this subject? Go read a newspaper. And it does work for my argument, I'm saying "Those that are not plagued with the obesity gene, and are obese are too weak [in the single area of breaking the habit of overeating] to break the [complex and traumatic] habit of overeating."

      I can't lay it out to you any more verbose than that. If you choose to find argument in that, then go to your local university with the sentence above (The one starting with "Those that..." and ending with "...habit of overeating.") and go converse with a psychology teacher. They will tell you that the word "weak" in that sentence has nothing to do with that person other than the fact they do not have sufficient self-power to break the habit at hand.

      If you do not understand after this point, I will actually start personally attacking you. At this point, I'm merely speaking my frustrations with your abundant stupidity to misread half of what is written.
      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  196. Too many episodes of The Bill by kubrick · · Score: 1

    "Right son, you're nicked."

    --
    deus does not exist but if he does
  197. DDR by Hyottoko · · Score: 1

    I know it was only a few days ago, but in case anyone out there is looking for the perfect way to lose weight, theres always this: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/28/213220 4&mode=thread&tid=127 Just got my pad a few weeks ago and ive lost around 10 lbs...

  198. Re:It's not the physical reqs that turn away peopl by mlippert · · Score: 1

    That way, the new guy doesn't bollux up an investigation by committing some mistake which a defense attorney can present as a violation of his client's rights and grounds for dismissal.

    The FBI? Are you kidding?!?!! The FBI doesn't release any documents to a defense attorney! Those are classified!

    :-)
    Mike

  199. Watch out for those diet drinks... They are bad!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch out for those diet drinks. The fake-sugar compounds were poorly tested, and have extraordinarily bad side effects. Nutra-sweet, when exposed to even moderate heat, breaks down into methyl alcohol and formaldehyde -- Both of which do really nasty things to the human nervous system.

    Run a google search to see what I'm talking about. Most people can handle a drink or two without problems. But it doesn't scale well. Drink to much, keel over. A small percentage of the population can't handle any at all.