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."
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
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.
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."
...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.