Slashdot Mirror


Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores

An anonymous reader writes "A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test. Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected." Update: 04/16 22:01 GMT by T : Mea culpa. This story slipped through; consider it a time-machine / late-April Fool's day joke, please.

260 comments

  1. Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Published: September 09, 1999

    1. Re:Seriously... by grayshirtninja · · Score: 3, Informative

      Slashdot is usually slow, but this is just ridiculous.

    2. Re:Seriously... by writermike · · Score: 1

      If I haven't seen it, it's new to me! :D

      --
      If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
    3. Re:Seriously... by by+(1706743) · · Score: 2

      You might find this interesting, too.

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

      That came up when the article was in the Firehose.

    5. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I found a typo in the middle column, 3rd line from the bottom:

      Always will we remember the character of the onslaughter against us.

      Should we call the publisher? Maybe there's time to get it fixed.

    6. Re:Seriously... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      It's a glitch in the Matrix. Among other reasons, it can happen when they republish something.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What race of people need worry about a High IQ ?

      Hmmm Discrimination against Whites!!
      , How many With a Face that isnâ(TM)t white need to worry about High IQ (1 or 2?)?

      Screw those liberals!
      This is no different than a jury selection.
      No liberal Judges or lawyers allows smart Jurors !
      their butts are tossed back the Jury pool real fast
      This is a similar discrimination

    8. Re:Seriously... by Adam+Appel · · Score: 1

      Thought is was 10 years and 2 dollars late. Thanks for exactness.

      --
      They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
    9. Re:Seriously... by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      I don't think the juror thing is limited to liberal lawyers -- I'm pretty sure no lawyer wants intelligent persons as jurors because people who lack intelligence are easier to manipulate. =p

    10. Re:Seriously... by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      In other news the plaintiff died of prostate cancer last year, the police department in question no longer exists, and the judge who ruled on this case quit his job and became a spokesman for the gay rights movement. Wtf - only 12 years... did they even have internet back then?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:Seriously... by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah the excuse was that it's not discrimination because they refused to higher ANY high IQ applicants. So by that same standard, if you refuse to hire any black people you are not discriminating either. Wtf - only in America, land of the double standard.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re:Seriously... by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apparently Slashdot has the same policy.
      j/k

    13. Re:Seriously... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      This is still the most ridiculous story I've heard in a while. There is no such thing as an IQ that's too high when dealing with high risk, high stress situations. Every time your adrenaline gets going your IQ is halved. So if a cop has an average IQ (100) and sees a teenager that could be reaching for a gun (or a handkerchief), bang suddenly that cop is a retard with an IQ of 50. If you ask me (which no one is) we would be better off with all the 150 IQ judges out patrolling the street (should probably give them some backup), you might even be able to discuss something with them. High IQ people are most likely kept out of the police force because they cause to many problems internally. What i don't understand is if the guy in the story was so smart, why didn't he change a few of his answers to wrong ones?

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    14. Re:Seriously... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it is always interesting to see news from just before the Moon got blasted out of its orbit.

    15. Re:Seriously... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      When asked what I do for a living during jury selection, I state very clearly that I design satellite communication links and associated hardware, and am currently involved in leading edge research and development.

      I have never failed to get excused by the defense attorney except for the time the prosecutor did me the favor. *shrug* Maybe it was a weak case.

    16. Re:Seriously... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      Can't argue the halving of IQ when the adrenaline gets going.

      My own IQ marker has alway been the size of a group of males. Individually, any one of the boys might be pretty bright. But, two boys together share half the IQ that they started with. Three boys together halve their IQ's again. By the time you get four boys together, they don't have enough smarts to pour piss out of a boot. Larger groups are likely to die of asphyxiation, because they aren't smart enough to breathe.

      Combine my law with yours, and get a group of 4 adrenaline junkies together, and they probably suck the IQ out of anyone around them. Kind of like a black hole sucks energy and matter.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    17. Re:Seriously... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Can't argue the halving of IQ when the adrenaline gets going.

      My own IQ marker has alway been the size of a group of males. Individually, any one of the boys might be pretty bright. But, two boys together share half the IQ that they started with. Three boys together halve their IQ's again. By the time you get four boys together, they don't have enough smarts to pour piss out of a boot. Larger groups are likely to die of asphyxiation, because they aren't smart enough to breathe.

      Combine my law with yours, and get a group of 4 adrenaline junkies together, and they probably suck the IQ out of anyone around them. Kind of like a black hole sucks energy and matter.

      Well, now I understand the "Jackass" movies...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    18. Re:Seriously... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      Most of the time your right which is why we go to war, break office equipment playing games, and get into pub fights, but large groups of males have done some pretty incredible things. I'm not saying it wouldn't of happened if a woman was there (it may of even happened faster) but the guys have proved them selves. It may be a case that the heard is only as fast as its slowest member, then throw in increased adrenaline due to peer pressure and bingo you have your retard.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    19. Re:Seriously... by HughsOnFirst · · Score: 1

      If you had a PhD. in comparative literature ( I don't BTW ), it would be the prosecutor who would be kicking you out.
      In NYC Voir Dire , they always seem to ask what magazines or newspapers you read. Mention the NY Times , Nature , The New Yorker , IEEE Spectrum , or the Economist and you will never be on a jury.

    20. Re:Seriously... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      No. If you take a test and score too low, you get rejected, so we've already established that you're allowed to discriminate by IQ / intelligence. If you're saying that it's discriminatory to disqualify people who score too high, then you can't justify disqualifying people who score too low, either.

    21. Re:Seriously... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      Adding a woman to a group of males simply introduces another 0.6 multiplier to the IQ-drain effect.

    22. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not saying it wouldn't of happened if a woman was there (it may of even happened faster)

      How large does the group have to be to start confusing distant homophones like have and of?

    23. Re:Seriously... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "So if a cop has an average IQ (100) ..."

      Impossible!
      Since they are weeding out the higher scores, it's statistically certain
      that cops have an average IQ of much less than 100.

      PS. Unless they are weeding out the exact same amount of lower scores,
      but from my personal knowledge, they don't.

    24. Re:Seriously... by mrxak · · Score: 1

      This story sounded rather familiar...

    25. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Grandad (a plumber) passed down this similar saying: "One boy's a boy, two boys are half a boy and three boys are no boy at all", where "boy" meant an apprentice.

    26. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That worked really well for Hooters.
      "You are too fat to work here" lost them a lot of money.

    27. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't thing the group of males need to be that big to confuse distant homophobes.

    28. Re:Seriously... by pspahn · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as an IQ that's too high when dealing with high risk, high stress situations

      Have you never been in a situation where you over-analyzed something?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    29. Re:Seriously... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      I meant the IQ was average, this man would of been a genius in his field.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    30. Re:Seriously... by Dr+Max · · Score: 1

      Yes, but i don't think you need to be all that smart to do that.

      --
      Rocket Surgeon.
    31. Re:Seriously... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      No. If you take a test and score too low, you get rejected, so we've already established that you're allowed to discriminate by IQ / intelligence. If you're saying that it's discriminatory to disqualify people who score too high, then you can't justify disqualifying people who score too low, either.

      Not necessarily. Or really at all.

      You can discriminate for hiring on any factor that isn't protected. Race, gender, religion, etc. are protected by federal and usually state law. The protected factors can also be discriminated against when it's a bona fide job requirement: a casting director who needs a white male actor can't be sued for turning down a black applicant for the same acting position.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    32. Re:Seriously... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      It's not so much dynamics of any given group, behind all those great thing, but of rules and procedures. And their evolution of sorts, the decent ones having greater probability to be passed down (and tweaked) . Working them out took us a lot of time - something like 99% of existence of our species has been as small groups of hunter-gatherers (so on a fundamental level, that's our core and why we do "stupid" stuff)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    33. Re:Seriously... by pubwvj · · Score: 0

      "My own IQ marker has alway been the size of a group of males. Individually, any one of the boys might be pretty bright. But, two boys together share half the IQ that they started with. Three boys together halve their IQ's again. By the time you get four boys together, they don't have enough smarts to pour piss out of a boot. Larger groups are likely to die of asphyxiation, because they aren't smart enough to breathe."

      Your rule might apply to jocks and such but the smart people I hung out with got smarter as a group.

    34. Re:Seriously... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      We, as computer geeks, retain the right to comment upon, criticise, repudiate, chastise and, ridicule any decision, judgement or conclusion made by any one, at any time, now past present of future? as so feeds our shared intellectual mood.

      That one can be considered to intellectually defined to be considered for policing duties, is always to be condemned, reviled and mocked, whether past, present or future?.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    35. Re:Seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, this proves we have lived in an idioicracy for the last twelve years.

    36. Re:Seriously... by Eudial · · Score: 1

      You think that's big news, wait until you get a load of this!

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    37. Re:Seriously... by damnfuct · · Score: 1

      You can attribute it to further blood loss from the brain

    38. Re:Seriously... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Could you elaborate on all of that? What have they got against that PhD, or those publications?

    39. Re:Seriously... by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase my business law professor:

      Lawyers don't like smart jurors because it makes their case hinge around just the smart jurors. All the other jurors who might not grasp the the finer points of the case end up having these things pointed out to them by the smarter jurors, and establishing a deferential relationship to the smarter juror who they believe to have a better understanding of the case than they do.

      Once the smarter juror makes his stance known, other jurors are biased to agree.

      Also, that smarter juror takes much more work to persuade since they'll want to pick apart all the arguments presented. It's harder to impress your point of view on a highly critical person. Lawyers don't like the idea of having the case hinge upon that smart juror's murky predisposition, nobody REALLY knows what someone else might think of your case, especially someone you've only known for a few minutes! Lawyers prefer being able to influence the juror's opinions so that the lawyer can have at least some confidence that if he works hard enough on his case he can influence the outcome.

      Also, the publications the GP just mentioned are stereotypical of liberals, and when cited in sequence implies a strong bias one way or the other in a case. If a bias is an obstacle for a lawyer, they have the juror removed. So essentially, a bias in either direction will cause one side or the other to excuse you. If the list was more balanced it may not be a problem.

    40. Re:Seriously... by HughsOnFirst · · Score: 1

      The NY Times and The New Yorker aren't particularly liberal if you live in NYC, it's about the only way to get reasonably complete movie and show listings without all the ads for transvestite hookers.

      If you listed the wall street journal, the national review ,physics today, the cato journal, reason, air and space smithsonian, aviation week, the bulletin of symbolic logic, and the new york review of books , you would get booted just as fast. Any evidence of critical thinking or reading seems to disqualify you for jury duty.

      I once saw a guy excused for not watching television.

    41. Re:Seriously... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I think that that is sad. The court should be biased towards finding people who are open minded, and willing to ask questions.

      I don't know all the history of the way we [I'm Canadian, but I'm sure the US is similar] do things, but in order to really give a person a fair trial, we need "educated" people who think. Some of the problems are complex, and we can't just let a guy go, just because the situation is hazy. We can't simply punish him either.

      I put "educated" in quotes, because I am not asking for a university education, or something like that. I'm thinking more in terms of skilled, trained, and well taught, to include more than just those with degrees.

      A good way to create this system is to limit what lawyers can talk about, if they don't bring in jurors who also have experience and training in that area. It might also be good to limit what they are allowed to ask the jurors when filtering them out. Another good thing to limit the amount of jurors that a lawyer can filter.

  2. Not unexpected... by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

    First class people choose first class people; second class people choose fourth class people; third class people choose ninth class people; and so on; and so on.

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:Not unexpected... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      And politicians - where do they fit in?

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Not unexpected... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      What's the square of a googolplex?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:Not unexpected... by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Classless people choose classless people?

      0^2 = 0

    4. Re:Not unexpected... by causality · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First class people choose first class people; second class people choose fourth class people; third class people choose ninth class people; and so on; and so on.

      It's a failure of the moderation system that I need to scroll past a dozen irrelevant comments about the article's date before I find one that addresses the actual topic. Anyway...

      Not only are you right about this, but the logic the judge used was quite faulty and I can trivially demonstrate why:

      Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

      Using that logic, they could discriminate racially or on religious grounds. "Anyone who scored too black was rejected" or "anyone who scored too Muslim was rejected". I mean hey, they apply that standard to everyone so it surely could not contradict the principles of equal protection. That's why this is absurd.

      I'll never understand what it is about a law degree and a bench that fundamentally distorts someone's ability to use solid logic. If I can see the flaw in seconds couldn't this judge maybe think on it a bit before committing it to a ruling that will affect a man's life?

      It's as though the judge had a personal objection to having high-IQ police officers and was looking for an excuse to disallow them.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:Not unexpected... by arkenian · · Score: 4, Informative

      Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected.

      Using that logic, they could discriminate racially or on religious grounds. "Anyone who scored too black was rejected" or "anyone who scored too Muslim was rejected". I mean hey, they apply that standard to everyone so it surely could not contradict the principles of equal protection. That's why this is absurd.

      I'll never understand what it is about a law degree and a bench that fundamentally distorts someone's ability to use solid logic. If I can see the flaw in seconds couldn't this judge maybe think on it a bit before committing it to a ruling that will affect a man's life?

      It's as though the judge had a personal objection to having high-IQ police officers and was looking for an excuse to disallow them.

      So I actually went and looked up the original judgement and appellate judgement on this because it was so weird. The actual argument the HR department made was that smart people would quit quickly and they chose less smart people so they wouldn't get bored being a patroller. The Court determined that they had reached this decision on a rational basis (while noting that the truth of this was beyond the scope of the Court's right to decide, for a variety of reasons) and that since they were applying the policy evenly, there was no grounds for the officer to complain.

    6. Re:Not unexpected... by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Of course he'd want to disallow them. Smart cops are nothing but trouble for the dumb ones, messing up the scams and challenging idiotic practices and policies. Or, if you're a cynical left-wing pseudo-anarchist wacko like myself, you could say that it's a waste of a brain, since a smart cop is just as (in)effective as any other. If your IQ is so high as to be notable, you should be doing something more intellectual with your life. Like making sandwiches (really freakin' awesome sandwiches!)

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    7. Re:Not unexpected... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      First class people choose first class people

      And the people at the very bottom believe everything they read, no matter how ridiculous, and then comment about it before finding out it was a bogus story.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Not unexpected... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Well no not really. In Canada if a university grad applies they're nearly an automatic hire here for policing. That's part of the problem we're facing actually. University grads, in general smart with no life experience.

      Terrible combination, when you consider that it's life experience and understanding a person is well the main point of policing here.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:Not unexpected... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      At the top controlling everything. This whole "politicians are stupid scum" is just what they love you to think.

    10. Re:Not unexpected... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Zero squared is still zero.

      Negative zero squared is still an imaginary imaginary number; imaginary squared.

      Take your pick; the US is still a two party system.

    11. Re:Not unexpected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A speaker on fitness, Covert Bailey, had an answer to this one. At one of his talks he was asked what would happen if one got down to 0% body fat. He thought about this for a moment an then said that since the brain is mostly fatty tissue then a 0% body fat person would only be good for politics.

       

    12. Re:Not unexpected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Posting anon because I used to work for one of the companies involved in a very similar case.

      The issue with PD's and the like was that, after considerable testing, it was learned that extraordinarily bright people might well be drawn to these jobs, but after an unusually short period of time they find the positions unfulfilling and boring. Then they quit. It's very expensive to train police officers. Having them leave a couple years later because their bored is a serious problem.

      Whether or not that's a valid reason to decline someone employment is an argument to be had elsewhere... but it's not that the PD's feel threatened by bright people. Or at least, that's not why the testing companies recommend avoiding exceptionally bright people.

    13. Re:Not unexpected... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Does this apply to mod points also?

    14. Re:Not unexpected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Negative zero squared is still an imaginary imaginary number; imaginary squared.

      Umm... no. There's no such thing as "negative" zero.

      I get that you were trying to make a "politicians are worthless" joke, but a statement that unbelievably stupid kills any humor it might have had faster than Amy Winehouse kills my boner.

    15. Re:Not unexpected... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Whoooosh ... that's why it's an imaginary imaginary number.

    16. Re:Not unexpected... by omfgnosis · · Score: 2

      Uh. "applying the policy evenly" is exactly the same insane logic. You can't apply a discriminatory policy evenly. If this is defensible, then so are minimum-IQ poll tests.

    17. Re:Not unexpected... by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Mmm, sandwiches.

    18. Re:Not unexpected... by omfgnosis · · Score: 2

      Make duration of employment a condition of employment, with only very clear exceptions.

    19. Re:Not unexpected... by shentino · · Score: 2

      The issue isn't that politicians aren't stupid scum. They are.

      The issue is that they are not actually the ones at the top controlling everything.

    20. Re:Not unexpected... by Mogusha · · Score: 1

      Of course there is such a thing as negative zero. Just check out one's compliment.

    21. Re:Not unexpected... by Miseph · · Score: 1

      How about we use a number that is both negative and infinitely close to 0, then apply our math to that instead? Basic principles of calculus are basic.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    22. Re:Not unexpected... by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Or IEEE 754 / 854.

    23. Re:Not unexpected... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      EVERY employer discriminates. We test our employees and if they fail the tests we don't hire them. We demand them to demonstrate their talent, intelligence and efficacy. You can absolutely discriminate based on someone not meeting a minimum IQ.

      What you can't do is apply different skill tests to different races. You couldn't for instance require all white people have a 100 IQ but all black people 110. That would be an arbitrary discrimination irrelevant to the work.

    24. Re:Not unexpected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The actual argument the HR department made was that black/gay/muslim/christian/female/old/young/... people would quit quickly and they chose less black/gay/muslim/christian/female/old/young/... people so they wouldn't get bored being a patroller. The Court determined that they had reached this decision on a rational basis (while noting that the truth of this was beyond the scope of the Court's right to decide, for a variety of reasons) and that since they were applying the policy evenly, there was no grounds for the officer to complain.

      FTFY.

    25. Re:Not unexpected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 googolplex = 10^(googol). Hence (1 googolplex)^2 = 10^(2*googol) = 10^(2*10^100) =

    26. Re:Not unexpected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or to summarise the result, maybe the reason that American police are all such pricks is that the recruitment process requires them to be stupid.

    27. Re:Not unexpected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been happening in the states for decades as far as I can tell. My uncle used to administer tests.
      The whole thing amounts to this: Smart people tend to be independent thinkers. Police DO NOT WANT people who think and make independent judgements, rather, they want those who do not question the law, just enforce it. Subsequently if you answer the tests in a way that show you to have a criminal way of thinking , you won't be getting a paycheck from them either. Cops R Stupid, Cops B Dumb, Cops got brains like your thumb. Lift that barge, tote that bale, get a little drunk and they throw you in jail.
                Personally I want smart cops, they are the easiest to sway.

    28. Re:Not unexpected... by Noren · · Score: 1

      Such a contract would not be enforceable in the United States. Indentured Servitude is quite illegal, a contract pledging it cannot be made binding. It's possible to write penalties for quitting into a contract, but you can't contract to never quit at all.

    29. Re:Not unexpected... by causality · · Score: 1

      or to summarise the result, maybe the reason that American police are all such pricks is that the recruitment process requires them to be stupid.

      You can be stupid without loving power and viewing your fellow human beings as skulls that you're looking for an excuse to crack.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    30. Re:Not unexpected... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lim x class people
      x -> Inf

    31. Re:Not unexpected... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I find that to be so discouraging. It bugs me that people could be given so much power, and not have the ability to think through things.

    32. Re:Not unexpected... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      It might be better to contract bonuses, so that people feel a positive incentive to quit, as opposed to a penalty.

    33. Re:Not unexpected... by georgesdev · · Score: 1

      So if you know that you have an IQ of 150 and are desperate of joining the police, then you can compute how many errors to make on the test to be within the police limits.
      Provided the police publishes it's IQ limits which I doubt they'll do ;)
      In the private sector, we tend to accept high IQ candidates, and just make them progress faster up the ladder.

    34. Re:Not unexpected... by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

      I don't see IQ on the list of protected classes. Maybe it's simply that there are no defenses for discrimination based on IQ.

      After all, employers need to discriminate based on /something/, otherwise the hiring process would simply be based on first-come first-serve.

    35. Re:Not unexpected... by HughsOnFirst · · Score: 1

      In NYC it is the other way around. With a large immigrant population , almost 600,000 university students, and 35.6% of over-25 population who have degrees, your average high school graduate from staten island is very much lacking in relevant life experience. At least the PDNY isn't as stupid as the cops in Boston, but still there seems to be an attitude of "anything I don't understand must be illegal".

    36. Re:Not unexpected... by causality · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

      I don't see IQ on the list of protected classes. Maybe it's simply that there are no defenses for discrimination based on IQ.

      After all, employers need to discriminate based on /something/, otherwise the hiring process would simply be based on first-come first-serve.

      This was not about whether IQ is on some arbitrary list you found. It was about the logic used to justify that fact.

      The judge made a defense for discrimination based on IQ. That's what this ruling was. That ruling, in turn, has an obvious logical flaw.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  3. Holy Old Story! by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Informative
    Anyone pay attention to the first line?

    Published: September 09, 1999

    This happened almost twelve years ago...

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Holy Old Story! by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Awww now I miss the the stupid things the government did before 9/11 turned them into wholesale Constitution tramplers.

    2. Re:Holy Old Story! by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is just in: Napoleon died.

    3. Re:Holy Old Story! by zill · · Score: 1

      Slashdot bars people with high I.Q. scores from becoming editors apparently. Unfortunately the bar was set a little too low.

    4. Re:Holy Old Story! by ElMiguel · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking 9/9/99 isn't the article's real date.

    5. Re:Holy Old Story! by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Please stand on your head, it will read 6/6/66.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    6. Re:Holy Old Story! by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking 9/9/99 isn't the article's real date.

      Well, it turns out that day did happen in history; I tend to remember it fairly well for reasons that aren't important here. Although it is interesting numerically...

      Nonetheless, it does read "New York Times Archives", so even if the date may be wrong it is not likely a recent story.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    7. Re:Holy Old Story! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Release date of the Sega Dreamcast: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcast

    8. Re:Holy Old Story! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Informative

      He was subsequently invited to apply to the San Fransisco force.

      Anybody know if he wound up there? Apparently a mayor has the same name, so it's hard to search.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    9. Re:Holy Old Story! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, actually it would read 66/6/6
      your mode 7 chip is malfunctioning.

    10. Re:Holy Old Story! by damn_registrars · · Score: 3, Funny

      Awww now I miss the the stupid things the government did before 9/11 turned them into wholesale Constitution tramplers.

      You're new here, I see - or at least newer than me. Let me clue you in on something; slashdot is a pro-conservative site.

      If you want to be up-modded, just praise Bush, Reagan, and all the greatness that came immediately after 9/11, when the government was working in your best interest. Further, calling the current POTUS the great socialist satan will accomplish similar results. You are daring to suggest that what happened immediately after 9/11 might not have been done with everyone's best interests in mind - prepare to be moderated "troll".

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    11. Re:Holy Old Story! by sortius_nod · · Score: 0

      I wasn't sure whether to mod you insightful or funny, so I posted instead.

    12. Re:Holy Old Story! by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

      I presume the "you must be new here" part was the funny element...

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    13. Re:Holy Old Story! by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Anyone else remember this guy getting on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno back in '99 and thought "Wait, has the case dragged on for this long?"

      Indeed, I was going to add that "It's a bit before my time", but then I realized that I was on Slashdot back then, too. Way to make me feel old, Slashdot. :(

    14. Re:Holy Old Story! by slackzilly · · Score: 1

      no, actually it would read 66\6\6

      FTFY

      --
      - "If one man can create that much hate, you can only imagine how much love we as a togetherness can create."
    15. Re:Holy Old Story! by causality · · Score: 2

      The politicians who call themselves "conservative"... I'd like to know what they are conserving. Certainly it isn't tax money or political power.

      The old answer to this question was along the lines of, "well, a 'conservative' is someone who doesn't want to rock the boat, doesn't want to make any sudden or drastic changes to society"... to that I'd say that the way government has become much larger and more authoritarian during my lifetime alone, or since 9/11 alone, represents a drastic and sudden departure from what were once traditional American values. Much of that was done by those calling themselves "conservative". So that definition is also a no-go.

      Maybe "Liberals" and "Anti-Liberals" would make better labels. For some reason a lot of media personalities hate the word "neo-con" or "neo-conservative" but it was created from the need to distinguish what the word once meant from what it now represents.

      Note that all I want is a smaller and less powerful government that doesn't try to protect me from every perceived threat, doesn't try to manage my life for me, doesn't try to separate me from the consequences of my decision-making. I don't want their brand of "for my safety" and "for my own good". I don't want there to ever be a law against consentual activity among adults. For those who find that distasteful, who are fearful, or who want to control what others do, there are many existing countries where you'd be happier. Why not go there instead of trying to make this one a clone of those? I want there to be at least one remaining nation with a minimal government, such that anyone who doesn't like that can go to any other nation on earth.

      Is that so much to ask? Or is this like the very worst of religion, where it is not good enough that the "infidels" live in peace and leave you alone, their very existence is offensive to you?

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    16. Re:Holy Old Story! by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 1

      Oh, I get it - because a line segment rotated 180 degrees looks different to how it started?

      Funny.

    17. Re:Holy Old Story! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me guess you got married on that day?

    18. Re:Holy Old Story! by ildon · · Score: 1

      Why must you be so cruel to the newbies.

    19. Re:Holy Old Story! by cyp43r · · Score: 1

      That's what we wanted you to think!

    20. Re:Holy Old Story! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good night sweet prince.

    21. Re:Holy Old Story! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yer all new here! Now Git off mah lawn!

    22. Re:Holy Old Story! by craighansen · · Score: 2

      http://articles.sfgate.com/1999-09-16/news/17698950_1_insurance-salesman-intelligence-test-police-chief-fred-lau Robert Jordan -- the would-be policeman from Connecticut who scored too high on an intelligence test -- is not interested in becoming a San Francisco cop, despite a personal invitation from Police Chief Fred Lau. "I don't think I could afford to make the move. It's not that I don't want to," Jordan said yesterday from his home in Waterford, Conn. ... Lau said he was not guaranteeing a job to Jordan -- or anyone else who applies with similar intellectual vigor. But Lau said that the San Francisco Police Department, which is set to hire 200 officers in the next few months, would do well with people such as Jordan, a 48-year-old former insurance salesman. Out of more than 2,000 officers who work for the San Francisco police, at least 10 have law degrees and a handful of others have doctorates, Lau said.

    23. Re:Holy Old Story! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft is the most conservative company out there. How is slashdot pro microsoft?

    24. Re:Holy Old Story! by evilviper · · Score: 0

      There are many existing countries where you'd be happier. Why not go there instead of trying to make this one a clone of those? I want there to be at least one remaining nation with a minimal government, such that anyone who doesn't like that can go to any other nation on earth. Is that so much to ask?

      Asking half the population of a continent to leave... because they're out-voting your side, and stopping you from remaking this country into your own economic fantasy land... no, that's not unreasonable at all! In fact that's much more reasonable than YOU getting the hell out, and moving to one of many other countries with an extremely weak government that doesn't even bother trying to pass any social laws or protections.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    25. Re:Holy Old Story! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, liberals today are not really classical liberal (ie, libertarian) nor are they modern liberal (a la Kennedy, Clinton). Can we just settle on calling them neo-Communists?

    26. Re:Holy Old Story! by xero314 · · Score: 2

      Note that all I want is a smaller and less powerful government that doesn't try to protect me from every perceived threat, doesn't try to manage my life for me, doesn't try to separate me from the consequences of my decision-making.

      I have an idea. Since people want very different things, we could break up the country into smaller autonomous regions that could regulate themselves. This way if a group of people want to allow gay marriage for example, they could move to a region that supports gay marriage, but it wouldn't mean that all the other regions had to.

      And since each of these regions would be to small to be able to defend themselves from larger more powerful governments, and so the people of these regions could interact and move between them freely we could create a union between all the regions

      We could call the regions "states" and we could call the over all union, "United States". We could even write a new constitution over this union and include some wording that would protect the states ability to have their own regulations. I would probably word this clause something like "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

      No that would never work. Someone would add in some clause to regulate trade between the states, so that the states didn't rip each other off, or so people didn't have to go through foreign currency exchange when they travelled between the states. And then some politicians would figure out how to us this clause as a loop hole to force regulation on the states.

    27. Re:Holy Old Story! by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Which 9/11 are we talking about exactly? I mean, if we're looking for 'old stories'..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    28. Re:Holy Old Story! by Miseph · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot, and in 1999 it was virtually impossible for a same-sex couple to get married basically anywhere.

      I think we can safely rule out your hypothesis.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    29. Re:Holy Old Story! by slackzilly · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I thought so too :-D

      --
      - "If one man can create that much hate, you can only imagine how much love we as a togetherness can create."
    30. Re:Holy Old Story! by superwiz · · Score: 1

      I remember reading it when it just came out. I remember which cubicle I was sitting in when it just came out. As for belated slashdot posts? how much do you wanna bet this showed up because of a sorting order combined with a y2k bug somewhere in slashdot code? Oh, and since it's 1999, I can post as a non-AC without feeling like a hypocrite.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    31. Re:Holy Old Story! by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 0

      The truth is, and boy is this a hard one to offer up in mixed company, that Abraham Lincoln fucked this country over permanently by showing that the bounds set by the Constitution were freely ignorable.

    32. Re:Holy Old Story! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently a mayor has the same name, so it's hard to search.

      No, that's him. That's what a high IQ can do for you.

    33. Re:Holy Old Story! by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      Christ has risen! News at eleven!

    34. Re:Holy Old Story! by causality · · Score: 1

      The truth is, and boy is this a hard one to offer up in mixed company, that Abraham Lincoln fucked this country over permanently by showing that the bounds set by the Constitution were freely ignorable.

      The way history is taught is quite ... distorted, to put it mildly. It's definitely proof of that old saying about so much of history being written by the victors. The North was the victor and Lincoln was its martyr/champion.

      Boothe didn't shoot Lincoln because he wanted slavery so badly. He did it because Lincoln was a straight-up tyrant. Lincoln would jail members of Congress for disagreeing with him. Lincoln fought an illegal war to prevent states from seceding. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. He was a dictator even if he thought he had to be a dictator, even if he meant well.

      It's amazing how much public schools downplay this fact, as though it had nothing to do with why Lincoln was assassinated. History was among several subjects I considered far too important to trust to assholes like the public school bureaucracies, so I educated myself about this and found out how short-changed I really was. Suddenly the Civil War made a lot more sense.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  4. This raises interesting new legal possibilities... by Nick_13ro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Next I propose they develop a skin pigmentation test. Those with too much skin pigmentation, too colored let's say, are to be barred from the police force. Naturally this would also be ok since the same standard was applied to everyone, right ?

  5. News from 1999 by rihkama · · Score: 1, Informative

    "Published: September 09, 1999" This is pretty much oldest news I have seen here.

    1. Re:News from 1999 by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      You must be new here then.. despite your low UID you did ask for that...

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    2. Re:News from 1999 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      732472 is low?

    3. Re:News from 1999 by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      And what about references to various religious texts?
      Jesus was born, Moses crossed the red sea, David has slain Goliath...
      And even older - Yellowstone Volcano erupted 600 000 years ago. Meteorite killed dinosaurs 65 million years ago...

      At least one of above must have been on slashdot...

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    4. Re:News from 1999 by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's a trick question, isn't it? Neither the Yellowstone Eruption nor the Meteorite could possibly have happened due to them being more than 4 thousand years ago.

    5. Re:News from 1999 by FunPika · · Score: 1

      "Published: September 09, 1999" This is pretty much oldest news I have seen here.

      http://slashdot.org/index2.pl?color=green&index=1&view=stories&fhfilter=&duration=-1&startdate=19990909&page=1 Here's plenty of older news on /. for you to read. :P Including such gems as the launch of the G4, StarOffice not being open source, initial reports of Microsoft developing the Xbox, some leaked info about Star Trek: Enterprise, and CmdrTaco adding features such as karma, the post anonymously checkbox, and metamoderation.

      --
      After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
    6. Re:News from 1999 by aix+tom · · Score: 1

      Na, they all really happened that much longer ago. Problem is, the editor of the Bible just posted them as news without checking, so everybody 4 thousand years ago thought it just happened. Bible, Slashdot, same thing. Only on different hardware.

    7. Re:News from 1999 by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      It's lower than me..

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    8. Re:News from 1999 by tprox · · Score: 1

      I wonder what happened to that "New Here" guy. I always got a chuckle from them.

    9. Re:News from 1999 by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      I'm finally considered low! My burning shame has at last been quenched! I was assuming UIDs would be in the ten-millions before anyone thought the 700,000 range was low. *joyful weeping*

    10. Re:News from 1999 by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      No, since the 2-million UID sock puppet generation arrived even I have been told that I should know better about various things when posting trolly "new-here" posts, asking people the RTFA or suggesting they mod me down. lol.

      We're the oldfags now, God I'm 29 and I'm already starting to feel that way!

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    11. Re:News from 1999 by DrVxD · · Score: 1

      Only if you're new here

      --
      Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
  6. can someone explain this? by rbrausse · · Score: 1

    I understand the judge's ruling, everyone is treated identical so everything is fine.

    But is there a rationale for accepting only candidates in a specific IQ range?

    1. Re:can someone explain this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obviously they need to be just smart enough to operate the foolproof equipment they are issued, but not smart enough to start questioning things likes orders or laws.

    2. Re:can someone explain this? by DataDiddler · · Score: 1

      I remember when this story was (actually) new. The argument was that the department would end up spending a great deal of time and money training him, but he'd end up getting bored quickly -- too quickly to make training him worth it.

      --
      Working...
    3. Re:can someone explain this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want idiots to be able to get jobs too.

    4. Re:can someone explain this? by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the real reason was that the brass felt threatened. He'd move up the ranks too fast, and any one of their own jobs would be at risk.

      --
      Huh?
    5. Re:can someone explain this? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Or there's the Terry Pratchett argument: that a smart police officer realises that crime can pay, and the best-placed person to get away with it is a police officer. It's not good for society to have too clever a police force...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:can someone explain this? by slackzilly · · Score: 1

      Highly intelligent people tend to think to much before they act, instead of just reacting immediately? I don't believe that myself, but I guess that could be an argument.

      --
      - "If one man can create that much hate, you can only imagine how much love we as a togetherness can create."
    7. Re:can someone explain this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, cause the smart ones always get promoted....

    8. Re:can someone explain this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an invalid argument. People react according to their training. In that situation, one's training will dictate what one does more than anything else.

  7. How did this story get approved? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This happened in 1999.

    1. Re:How did this story get approved? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has the same standards for mods?....

  8. Prejudices by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

        In other news, they won't hire anyone who's too black, or too female, or ... or ...

        Applying a standard as such across the board without legitimate reasons is completely wrong. There are some legitimate reasons. Hiring a quadriplegic, a blind man, or a deaf mute to patrol may not be quite the right choice. They could be considered for equivalent (pay and status) positions. Refusing people because they are too smart, too strong, or too ... well ... any favorable trait, is insane.

        Or maybe we have it. Management scored too low on sanity tests.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    1. Re:Prejudices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, there's laws against discriminating against people on racial or gender grounds - as far as i know, while stupid, banning someone for being to smart is not illegal.

    2. Re:Prejudices by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      no, actually, today, it's the opposite. it's ok to ban someone for being too white, too male, or too straight because the activism has built up assumptions that this group doesn't ever need any protection. The irony here is that the activism has been so strong that it's actually causing a discriminatory backwash. piecemeal discrimination protection like this is the root of the problem. The law says people are not to be discriminated based on race, gender, or lifestyle, but the enforcement of these laws is very selective. only some groups are actually protected. the intelligent are not among them either.

      The real issue here is that people are being judged on non relevant attributes. If you're blind, you're not gonna make a good street cop. A wise and intelligent white male would make an excellent street cop (among other things). So would a black male..or white female..etc. Why? because gender and race are irrelevant. Intelligence and wisdom are relevant.

    3. Re:Prejudices by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I think the issue is as you put it that the standards have to be reasonable. It is typically legal to refuse to hire somebody that is overly qualified, which sucks, but unless the applicant can prove it was something else that is protected by law, there is no right to a job just by virtue of being the best qualified candidate.

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

      ".. they won't hire anyone who's too black, or too female, or ..." You think you are joking, but the blacks in New London are forever complaining about how the police force and the fire department and the city counsel "... don't include enough people that look like us..." Seriously -- this how they word it. I read The Day "http://theday.com/" regularly because I formerly resided in the area and I really think New London has so much wonderful potential. But despite the benefit of incredibly interesting history (American revolution-, whaling-, slave trade-related, to name a few), and lots of creative people and big ideas, the downtown cannot escape from a decades-long death spiral of drug-related crime, gang-related violence, poverty-related blight, and ineffectual leadership. This is the same city which ignited the wave of eminent domain-related reform laws after the "Pink House" case went to the SCOTUS.

    5. Re:Prejudices by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      it's ok to ban someone for being too white, too male, or too straight


      bull. fucking. shit.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    6. Re:Prejudices by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      discrimination knows no social boundaries. all we've done is normalized the bigotry of certain groups as some kind of 'balance' against the bigotry of others. this solves nothing.

    7. Re:Prejudices by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Sadly, I've seen the prejudices against being "over qualified" quite a bit.

          I was out of work for a while. I had lots of interviews. Some of them asked me bluntly, "Are you kidding, you're way too qualified". My response was that I'd been out of work for (6 months to 1.5 years, depending on the interview), and anything is better than nothing. I was driving myself nuts trying to find things to do.

          My girlfriend is going through it right now. 20 years in management scares away potential employers, when she's applied for everything from entry sales to mid management. Sometimes they'll say "sorry, you're over qualified". Sometimes they'll just comment on her work history as being impressive, and then pick a kid out of high school, since they'll obviously stay around when the job market gets better.

          I've only been asked once to take an IQ test for a job. It was a web developer position. When I got there, the manager was "in a meeting". They had me go to the conference room for a few tests. I noticed at the bottom, L Ron Hubbard's name all over them. Literally. At the time, I noted the names of the tests. As I recall, there were 3. Two were personality tests. One was a pathetic excuse for an IQ test. I say pathetic as in, There was only one question I couldn't answer in 30 seconds or less. I saved it, and went back to answer it when I was done with the rest.

          Since I had been abandon in the conference room by myself, and I was they were timed, I went back to the receptionist. I was done about an hour early. The manager had "just left", but they would be scheduling me for an interview in the next day or two. Really professional, I thought. Nope, it was time to review my test answers.

          I did my own research on the test afterwards. If the personality tests show a strong will, or if your IQ is too high or low, you aren't a good candidate as an "employee". It, of course, is a recruiting tool for Scientology. Once they give you the job, they pressure you towards their faith (begrudgingly calling it such).

            If you test with a strong will AND a high IQ, they are forbidden talking to you. Literally no contact at all. After about 3 days, I called to see if there was a plan to interview or if the position had been filled. They wouldn't answer my calls. I sent a couple emails. The first was asking about the position. After a week, I sent the second, just asking for my test scores. No response to either. Yippie, I'm blacklisted from being a Scientology. Someone with a high IQ and strong personality is virtually impossible to brainwash into a cult, and can in turn be a subversive power if they are brought in. Who knows how many I would have talked out of the cult if they had let me in the door. :)

          So, ya, bastards for refusing me because of my IQ and personality. Good for me that I didn't have to deal with that BS.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    8. Re:Prejudices by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Wow.

      Thanks for sharing that stuff. I appreciate knowing that others are going through similar struggles to find work. It has been very demoralizing for me. I honestly think about suicide now and then, even though I refuse to go through with it.

      It is amazing that the Scientologists would go through something like that. For a minute, I was thinking that a company just used the tests, without ill intent, but apparently not. I honestly can't believe how deceptive and organized they are. They are truly experts at being evil. A lot of times, slashdotters like to call them a cult. I am beginning to think that that is an understatement.

    9. Re:Prejudices by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          In knowing some Scientology, and examining what they've been willing to show me (as a recruitment tactic), and gleaning additional information through the wonders of social engineering, it can be said that there are many attributes which make it resemble a cult. ... and that is said with all the care of knowing that they tend to sue, harass, threaten, physically assault, and sometimes "disappear" those who make statements contrary to their agenda. Hmmm, those would be more cult-ish attributes, wouldn't they?

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    10. Re:Prejudices by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I should say though, that when I began reviewing information about them, I took what I had read as a few people had their tinfoil hats screwed on too tight. Turns out, they were right.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    11. Re:Prejudices by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I always assumed that mainstream cults were not so focused on clever recruitment tactics. I tend to be too trusting, and assume that there are a few leaders in those groups that after money and what have you, but for the most part, most of the followers are probably naive and somewhat well meaning. From what you describe, I get the impression that Scientologists tend to be in corporate offices, and have their fingers in everything. They remind me more of the mafia and the organized mobs, than they do of religion.

      So, to answer your question: they might share some cultish attributes, but they seem to be a control organization that uses religion, as opposed to a religion that uses control.

    12. Re:Prejudices by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I'd agree on the Mafia-ish traits, if they weren't trying to recruit anyone that may be a "good fit" for their group.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    13. Re:Prejudices by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if we look at the way that Anonymous protests against them, and complaints that people have, I think we really do need to put them in a completely separate class. I've never heard about them being too traditional or infringing on constitutional rights. They might, but we never seem to get those complaints about them, just as we never seem to get those complaints about the Mafia.

      In short, even if they had completely open and honest recruiting, then they would still be in another class, because of their internal practises. Maybe I'm contradicting myself. I haven't studied the organization, so I could be completely wrong on it.

    14. Re:Prejudices by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Well, I could tell you everything I know, and have heard. But that's not much better than those who would feed you select information to brainwash you, and lead you into a cult.

          Rather, I suggest researching it on your own. I will include some names (people, events, and items) and years as appropriate. Remember when searching, include Scientology to find more information. Some are relatively ambiguous terms without the "Scientology" keyword.

          Lisa McPherson (1995), Elli Perkins (2003), Jeremy Perkins (2003) Terri Schiavo (2005), Kaja Ballo (2008), malpractice, false imprisonment, torture, forced abortions, child abuse, "The Brainwashing manual", Rehabilitation Project Force, Oxford Capacity Analysis (No relation to Oxford University), E-Meter, Audit, Thetan, Suppressive Person (SP), WOG, Xenu (Xemu),

          And it wouldn't be complete without This video (timestamp 4:20 and 8:44), This video (timestamp: 2:36), and This video. But hey, he's just a brainwashed cult ^H^H^H^H organization member/spokesperson.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    15. Re:Prejudices by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      I'll look into the other stuff later, but I wanted to comment on the videos. I have to admit that that stuff is awkward. I think that the last video comments were right: he is on drugs. The stress must be killing him. When I watched the first video, I felt that it was all kind of subjective, until I got tired of his rambling. The second video really killed him, and the third video kind of nailed the coffin shut. If they hadn't added in the MadTV clips in the third video, then I think that the video would have a stronger effect.

  9. Like The Old Joke by kittylyst · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, as it's old news, here's an old joke to go with it: "Why do policemen always go around in threes? One that can read, one that can write, and one to keep an eye on the two dangerous intellectuals."

  10. Pwned by the1337g33k · · Score: 1

    Seriously? At a minimum slashdot editors should check when the news happened before posting it.

  11. Unlikely by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    It's likely just a way for them to avoid an age-discrimination lawsuit. Law enforcement, like the military, generally doesn't recruit new people past their early to mid 30s. If he's new, by the time he'd hit 20 years on the force, he'd be staring down 70 (he's 48, according to TFA).

  12. 1999 called... by ELCouz · · Score: 1

    and want his news back!

    1. Re:1999 called... by ELCouz · · Score: 1

      grammar fail... [ it's ]

    2. Re:1999 called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its

    3. Re:1999 called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      grammar fail... [ it's ]

      It's another grammar fail to use it's when you mean its. We won't even get started on when to use wants instead want.

    4. Re:1999 called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you warn them? About Haiti and Japan?

      http://xkcd.com/875/

    5. Re:1999 called... by ELCouz · · Score: 1

      No but I told them to register facebook.com... the world would be saved from this disaster !!!

    6. Re:1999 called... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double grammar fail. It's "its".

    7. Re:1999 called... by ogl_codemonkey · · Score: 1

      Shall we overlook the far more complete failure in the use of correct grammar in "grammar fail?"

    8. Re:1999 called... by jaroslaw.fedewicz · · Score: 1

      The Monty Python's Flying Circusss

  13. Defendant, Robert Jordan by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

    Good thing he didn't get the job. Because Mr Jordan then went on to write a series of very successful fantasy novels, gaining fame and legions of devoted Rand-Fans world wide. ALl this before his sad and untimely passing.

    --
    Huh?
    1. Re:Defendant, Robert Jordan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seriously doubt that James Oliver Rigney, Jr. would use one of his pen names to identify himself during a trial. A trial in a different country, no less.

    2. Re:Defendant, Robert Jordan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm - not so much.

      Author Robert Jordon was actually a pen name for James Oliver Rigney, Jr. - which would be obvious from a quick Wikipedia search - who lived in South Carolina.

  14. Logical much? by Xanthanov · · Score: 0

    OK, so if we institute a law to not allow people with dark skin to be police, it's okay, because this filter is being applied to everyone? Last I checked, this is how we form subsets. Define A = {p | p is a person and p has an IQ 170} Define B = {p | p is a person and p has white skin} These are completely analogous, therefore only allowing police officers from set B should be an OK law. I think we should institute a new law: Person x can only write laws if x is in the set {p | p is a person and p understands basic set theory}. QED

  15. Seriously? by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Timothy you are an idiot.

    I take it slashdot uses the same policy.

    1. Re:Seriously? by bird · · Score: 2

      Just for commenters.

      Oh...

    2. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Timothy you are an idiot.

      I take it slashdot uses the same policy.

      You repeat yourself.

      Hey, YOU are eminently qualified to be a Slashdot editur.

    3. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it slashdot uses the same policy.

      It wasn't explicitly mandated by Geek Net, but if you look at the editors' compensation and working conditions, it works out that way.

    4. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pro-tip: set your profile to ignore any posts by Timothy.

      p.s. My account has him blocked, but logging is a pain in the ass and I don't like my username.

    5. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like how Timothy being an idiot has been modded Insightful!

  16. Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

    I'm going to invoke Godwin's Law here. The Nazi's applied the same standard to everyone they sent to the camps too....

    --
    Huh?
  17. 1999... by xavieramont · · Score: 1

    In other news, Y2K expected to cause internet crash, hyperinflation, mass suicides, and martial law!

    --
    If it is natural to die, then to hell with nature. --FM 2030
    1. Re:1999... by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      What about the flying cars and robot servants we're going to have by 2010 ?

    2. Re:1999... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      You didn't get yours?

    3. Re:1999... by superwiz · · Score: 1

      and belated slashdot comments

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  18. Up Next... by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    Scientist discovers that sun doesn't move around the earth after all.

    Retro-slashdot.

    1. Re:Up Next... by zill · · Score: 1

      Scientist discovers that sun doesn't move around the earth after all.

      When object A revolves around object B, object B is also revolving around object A by definition.

      The disproved geocentric model incorrectly proposes that all objects in the universe revolve around the Earth. In actuality, only the Moon and the Sun revolve around Earth.

    2. Re:Up Next... by Beardydog · · Score: 1

      What about everything within the radius of the Earh's path around the galactic center?

  19. Another problem with the story by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Okay, as others pointed out... this story is 12 years old. But a larger issue is that the story is strictly a report of the legal ruling - it doesn't even touch on the (likely) flawed reasoning behind New London's policy. I realize Slashdotters tend to pride themselves on not reading the articles (or, often, even the submissions) - but even if this story were current, it'd be hard to have an intelligent discussion / discourse / debate over this without more information.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  20. Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This raises interesting OLD legal possibilities...

  21. Operating System by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey, did you guys hear about that guy from Finland who wrote his own operating system? What a cool little project....

    --
    Huh?
    1. Re:Operating System by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      WTF, when did the Fennoscandian region declare independence from Russia? Finland is a country now?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    2. Re:Operating System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qvid est qvod Rvssia loqveris?

    3. Re:Operating System by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Did you hear they just release a new operating system targeted at birds.

      The call it My Crow soft and apparently you pay the bill at the gates.

      Did you hear they just release a new computer targeted at unevolved people, the missing links.
      They called it an Ape hole.

      Did you hear that some people don't believe in survival of the fittest.
      Their all defective by design.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  22. Is this a Slashdot record? by joeszilagyi · · Score: 1

    For oldest necro post--13 years?

    --
    Dude, where's my packet?
    1. Re:Is this a Slashdot record? by jd · · Score: 1

      Not even close. Far, far older stories have been published as new on Slashdot over the years. Mind you, it's still impressive.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  23. Re:IQ != Smart by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    There are a few factors at play here...

    Often, people with a higher IQ will have been pushed down an academic path and had less time to do things like play with other kids.. They also often get shunned by other kids because they spend more time doing schoolwork.

    As for arrogance, someone who is predisposed to being arrogant will use any aspect of themselves to demonstrate their superiority to someone else, be it intelligence, physical strength, money etc.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  24. Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities by Threni · · Score: 1

    > Nazi's

    Why the possessive apostrophe?

  25. I wonder by overshoot · · Score: 1

    if they could apply the same reasoning to require a minimum serum testosterone level. Or maybe a maximum level of integumental melanin. After all, the same test applies to everyone.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  26. Slashdot has retconned continuity.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its now 1999 again. Buy apple stocks.

  27. Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities by dirty_ghost · · Score: 2

    He does not want to lose eligibility with the New London police.

  28. Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities by pavon · · Score: 1

    To be fair, the correct interpretation of "equal protection under the law" has been a matter of confusion since the day the 14th Amendment was passed. In your particular case however, there is additional law that states that race is one of the protected classes that cannot be discriminated against in nearly any circumstance. So the courts would cite that, and punt on the constitutional issue.

  29. Fart imitating life... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The really funny/sad/alarming/ridiculous thing about this, is that today, it could be true!

  30. Re:IQ != Smart by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

    There's many alternative explanations for your observation, but I'll offer just two:

    1. Those who are actually intelligent, instead of just highly specialized, have enough social skills that you think of them as more than just "smart".
    2. You feel threatened by smart people, so judge them more harshly than you do "normals".

    As for having "little regard for their fellow humanity (sic)", well, even someone of only average intelligence would think that half the people in the world are stupid. Imagine what Feynman felt like.

    --
    <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  31. For those that have asked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A little google research reveals that the policy at the time was enacted because they believed that smart people would get bored with police work and quit the costly training program or quit the job shortly after the costly training program despite the fact that there has never been a correlation between IQ and job satisfaction shown (according to the article....I didn't try to determine if that was true).

    As to how it worked....They used some sort of standard entrance exam to identify candidates and only gave interviews to applicants who scored within a certain range. The really scary part was that the man's "high" IQ was only 125. That still places him within 2 standard deviations of the mean of 100 (i.e. 70-130) which is where 95% of folks are generally considered to lie. This means that more than 1 person out of every 50 (and, injecting some of my own bias, likely a higher percentage of college educated people with broad experiences) are banned from serving because they're "too smart". We're not talking about geniuses here they're just bright people.

    Based on some of the decisions I've seen made by police in the past perhaps this isn't the best entrance test.

    1. Re:For those that have asked by PPH · · Score: 1

      despite the fact that there has never been a correlation between IQ and job satisfaction shown

      Now look for correlations between IQ and physical ability, eye-hand coordination (good for shooting guns), and reaction times. You will find them. So the police force ends up being populated by the fat, slow, and dumb.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:For those that have asked by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "So the police force ends up being populated by the fat, slow, and dumb."

      Sounds about right.

  32. im used to reading last week's news on slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but last decade's?

  33. what the police department was looking for by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    was dumb cops that will just blindly follow orders without conscience, someone smart enough to use critical thinking would probably get other officers, and government officials in to trouble.

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  34. Not the only government office with this rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hear Congress has IQ limits as well they are just a bit lower.

  35. Editorial Hint by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

    Here's a quick tip. If the header at the top of the page for TFA says Archives, take a second look before posting the story.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  36. Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me he has to be really intelligent to have planned ahead like this.

  37. Next time you hear cops saying how much respect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next time you hear cops saying how much pay and respect they deserve, remember this.

    Not even McDonalds turns down employees for being too smart. I don't think there's any other "profession" on the planet that would try something like this, let alone go to court for it.

  38. Same criteria for appointing Judges. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intelligence: Anyone scoring too high is disqualified.
    Color: Anyone scoring too black is disqualified.
    Religion: Anyone scoring too Jewish is disqualified.
    Orientation: Anyone scoring too heterosexual is disqualified.
    Gender: Anyone scoring too female is disqualified.

    Yup, the criteria are being applied equally to everyone making it entirely fair.

  39. The Rationale Behind It by asackett · · Score: 4, Informative

    FWIW, way back when this story was news instead of history I asked my county's Sheriff about the rationale behind this kind of thing. He explained it thusly:

    "Suppose you're an officer and you're called to a convenience store robbery. When you arrive, you find the clerk on the floor has been shot and will certainly die if you don't render aid immediately. Meanwhile, you see the robber escaping in your neighbor's car so you know it's stolen. This fits the MO of an armed robber who's been in the region for a few weeks, never strikes in the same town twice, and always kills the clerks he robs. There are no witnesses. If you render aid to the fallen clerk the criminal will escape and will almost certainly kill again, but if you pursue the criminal the clerk will certainly die and you may not succeed in apprehending the criminal anyway. What do you do?"

    I immediately responded that I'd pursue the criminal. He went on to explain:

    "It's not really important which option you choose because in the end some innocent is going to die. What's important is that you quickly choose a response and follow it through to the end. The rationale behind not hiring those of exceptional intelligence is that they'll waste time thinking through their options hoping to find the optimal solution when there really isn't one instead of just springing into action."

    It's horribly flawed logic, but that's the general consensus among law enforcement so it's self-reinforcing. You can't promote thinking leaders from within a force that doesn't include thinking officers.

    --

    Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

    1. Re:The Rationale Behind It by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know the sheriff was trying to give an example of a dilemma that's likely to come up in police work, but the example he chose seems like a no-brainer, with a very clear right and wrong answer. You call in a description of your neighbor's car so other officers can look for it, then help the clerk. He'll probably be able to ID the robber or at least provide some solid clues in the event the suspect escapes the dragnet, but he can't do that if he's dead.

      If you let the clerk die and fail to catch the suspect, you're no better off than you were before, and you have one more stiff in the morgue. Even if you do catch the robber, the dead clerk will still haunt your whole department, in the form of bad press and lawsuits.

      One option will be second-guessed endlessly regardless of the final outcome, and the other will make you look like a hero, or at least someone who tried to help.

      What's important is that you quickly choose a response and follow it through to the end.

      Reminds me of a recent case in Seattle, where a roid-raging berserker with a badge emptied his Glock into a bum who was whittling with a pocket knife, after giving him four seconds to "comply." Somebody forgot to tell him that Robocop was not a training film.

    2. Re:The Rationale Behind It by PPH · · Score: 1

      It's not really important which option you choose because in the end some innocent is going to die.

      Follow the criminal, let the clerk die. If the criminal gets away, there's a high probability that many more (not just the one) will die. There's a snap decision. From a member of Mensa.

      But that's not the true rationale. The real reason is that city councils need people who will go out and follow orders without question. Bust the rat bastard dealing cocaine in the neighborhood bar. Leave the mayor's nephew (dealing cocaine in the local high school) the hell alone. If you can't see why this is wrong, you're cop material.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:The Rationale Behind It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure leaving the clerk to die is the wrong answer. At least don't let all the clerks know if its not. However seeing as there is no high IQ limit for that job, they may all ready know more than the cops.

    4. Re:The Rationale Behind It by LateArthurDent · · Score: 1

      Follow the criminal, let the clerk die. If the criminal gets away, there's a high probability that many more (not just the one) will die. There's a snap decision. From a member of Mensa.

      Mensa must be slipping...

      The clerk is somebody who is 100% sure to die if you don't help him. The criminal could be caught before he kills again. You radio in the description of the car, as another poster mentioned. Even if they don't catch him then, there's always the possibility that when he tries to rob another store, somebody overpowers him, and he's arrested. Yes, other people might die if he escapes, and that might even be likely. The only thing you know for certain is that the clerk will die if you don't help. You help the fucking clerk.

      That said, all of this is irrelevant anyway and proves the Sheriff's reasoning for not hiring high-intelligence people is bullshit. Nobody would sit there thinking, "oh, what do I do now?" without moving. We've all come to snap decisions. We've come to different snap decisions, and we can sit here discussing the pros and cons between ourselves for a long time because there's nothing at stake. If we were faced with that decision, I'd save the clerk, you'd go after the criminal, and we'd make the decision in less a second. The other reason this scenario is stupid is that if we were cops, we'd arrive at the scene with a partner (at least). One of us would stay, the other would go after the criminal and call for an ambulance to the store and backup on the way.

    5. Re:The Rationale Behind It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tl; dr.

      I action-ed instead.

    6. Re:The Rationale Behind It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you missed the point of the GP. You arrived at a particular solution to the situation after having given it some thought (enough time to click the reply button). The GP's point was that people who were too smart were too likely to stop and assess the situation instead of making a snap and instinctive judgment/action. Which is completely ridiculous.

    7. Re:The Rationale Behind It by PPH · · Score: 1

      The clerk is somebody who is 100% sure to die if you don't help him.

      And probably die if I do try to help. I'm not an EMT and there's not much even an EMT can do for a fatal gunshot wound other than transport to an ER fast.

      The criminal could be caught before he kills again.

      That's what I'm trained to do. Apprehend criminals.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:The Rationale Behind It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you call in the clerk being shot, through that new invention called the radio, then proceed to go after the escaped assailant?

      I know it's difficult to come up with this stuff for some, but come on. A police offer cannot really ensure that the victim is going to be OK. Paramedics can't do that either. Basically if the person is going to die within the next 5-10 minutes, it doesn't matter who is on the scene to help him (unless it's Jesus himself).

    9. Re:The Rationale Behind It by asackett · · Score: 1

      Thanks for being the one who caught my point: The rationale is bullshit because smart people confronted by unfolding emergencies are no more likely to be frozen by indecision than average people. The question is intended solely to gauge the speed of the response, not the right or wrong of it.

      --

      Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

    10. Re:The Rationale Behind It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reminds me of a recent case in Seattle, where a roid-raging berserker with a badge emptied his Glock into a bum who was whittling with a pocket knife, after giving him four seconds to "comply." Somebody forgot to tell him that Robocop was not a training film.

      You're thinking of the murder of John T. Williams:

      http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012784234_copshooting02m.html

      He was a 50 year-old local totem / wood-carver with a history of alcohol abuse and troubles with his hearing. Shot for crossing the street while whittling a block of wood.

    11. Re:The Rationale Behind It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's important is that you quickly choose a response and follow it through to the end. The rationale behind not hiring those of exceptional intelligence is that they'll waste time thinking through their options hoping to find the optimal solution

      The key attribute the sheriff obliviously wants is crisis decision making. Exceptional intelligence merely broadens the options that may come to mind. Personally, I found that experience is the contributing factor here, newbies (regardless of intelligence) usually try to second guess themselves. Even a dumbass may decide to stall for time or orders.

    12. Re:The Rationale Behind It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well not exactly flawed logic. They also don't want independent thinkers(who tend to be smart people), mucking up a bust with a judgement call about the law.
      Who with any brains would enforce all the bullshit unconstitutional garbage legislation out there? No , it takes a "special" sort of person who just has it sorted down to black and white in order to keep his brains from hurting. Yup, you guessed it, it's that old football hero you went to school with. Dumb as an ox and they gave him a gun. RUNAWAY! RUNAWAY!

    13. Re:The Rationale Behind It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a number of things cops are trained to do to increase the chance the victim will live. Personally i would like the cop to try everything humanly possible to save my life even if it meant the bad guy might get away.

    14. Re:The Rationale Behind It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody else is making the point that only stupid people can make that decision quickly is absurd.

  40. suspend timothys editing priviliges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you can't bother to RTFA, you shouldn't be posting stories

    1. Re:suspend timothys editing priviliges by PPH · · Score: 1

      Join the police force instead.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  41. Follow Up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What was the follow up to this story? It says he tried to appeal. Did he get it?

    1. Re:Follow Up by eulernet · · Score: 1

      According to http://www.adversity.net/0_PoliceFireMuni/PFM_intro.htm, which explains why he was rejected, he appealed, but lost.

      Now, he seems to work as a prison guard ( http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33193&page=1 )

      Mr. Jordan, 48, is a life-insurance salesman who had dreamed of a second career protecting and serving, with an eye on the pension.

      ...

      MR. Jordan said he would appeal the ruling if his lawyers are willing to continue the case now that he has used up his savings. In the meantime, he is supplementing his insurance business by working for $26,000 a year -- $15,000 less than he would make as a New London patrolman -- as a state prison guard. ''In those dormitories, there's 110 inmates and one of you,'' he said. ''Your mouth better be connected to your brain.''

  42. Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    I accidentally the Nazi's. Do you think they will want them back?

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  43. Re:IQ != Smart by Aldenissin · · Score: 1

    As for having "little regard for their fellow humanity (sic)", well, even someone of only average intelligence would think that half the people in the world are stupid. Imagine what Feynman felt like.

    I often have, among others. Feynman loved to teach. I asked an ex professor friend of mine if he'd heard of him. He said he didn't, until he said, "Oh yes, he teaches concepts!"

    I.Q. is flawed because while memory is great, what makes someone intelligent is what they can create. If you understand the concepts, then the rest falls into place quickly and easily. If you only "memorize" parameters and processes, then you can't as easily create a solution to a different but related problem. (Like with division, I got in trouble for doing it "my" way, but it showed I knew what I was doing. They wanted me to use their process and memorize it, but it didn't help me understand what exactly what all of those numbers meant in the real world.) You don't discover for yourself, which is the joy in learning. He was indeed a great teacher, and I think he could teach anyone almost anything, provided the time and that they weren't retarded. Even then, you might be surprised. As Mr. Miyagi said, "No such thing as bad student, only bad teacher." All you need to teach anyone something is their interest.

    Although I have little if any real science to back this up, I can offer the anecdotal evidence that the majority of high IQ people I know are collectively dumber than a box of rocks. They are quite knowledgeable when it comes to certain fields of expertise but just can't hack Real Life. They're arrogant jack-asses with little regard for their fellow humanity.

    Ignorance is merely "lack of knowledge". Stupidity is wanting to stay ignorant. (for whatever reason, including some form of ignorance or overconfidence) Stupid does not mean dumb, which is more of a retardation. There are a LOT of intelligent, stupid people. I think most are likely just ignorant of the fact they aren't half as wise as they think.

    Related comic...

    --
    Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
  44. Re:IQ != Smart by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

    Dude. What the fuck are you on?

    --
    <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  45. More old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I heard Micheal Jackson died!

  46. Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

    Wait, you can't invoke Godwin if you're the first guy in the thread to mention Nazis, that's just ... incestuous!

  47. Oh my God.. by multipartmixed · · Score: 2

    ..did you tell them about Haiti? And Japan?

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  48. Cops are so fucking stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cops are so fucking stupid. Good.

  49. Son, what have you been smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    slashdot is a pro-conservative site

    Read a few intelligent design related threads, and let me know what you say then.

    1. Re:Son, what have you been smoking? by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      I think a huge proportion of the commenters on Slashdot lean right-libertarian. Not sure how this works with the other poster's suggestions (probably very little) but on principle it's possible to be both conservative and not a scientific imbecile.

    2. Re:Son, what have you been smoking? by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Eh, it's difficult to pigeonhole /.ers into any one specific group. Bring up an article on regulation of some kind, and you'll have a handful of libertarians fighting against a huge number of people who think the libertarian position on such issues is ridiculous.

      The only constant I've seen is that haters are gonna hate.

    3. Re:Son, what have you been smoking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only constant I've seen is that haters are gonna hate.

      STFU, n00b.

  50. Re:IQ != Smart by Aldenissin · · Score: 1

    I got lost apparently and forgot to finish with the thought that I think Feynman wasn't an intelligent, stupid person, but rather "well rounded". I would surmise that what he "felt like" was not that even half the world was stupid, as he could get most of those he came into contact with to understand... he was very good at that, as that is what he did.

    Thank you nagging girl friend for interrupting me! (lies, I know, they don't exist if I am here, but I have to put down some excuse right?)

    --
    Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
  51. He doesn't sound intelligent by OnionFighter · · Score: 1
    What I don't understand is how someone who is supposedly intelligent can say this:

    ''I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.''

  52. Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, since this is 1999. Doesn't it depend on what the definition of "race" is? More importantly, if intelligence is at all hereditary, then he is being discriminated against because of his ethnic background (since ethnicity is essentially a closely shared hereditary line).

  53. Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities by shentino · · Score: 1

    The Civil Rights act says differently.

  54. Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why? Its not the same.

    It is the same, but not the same.

  55. How cute! Slashdot has the same rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't idiots be baned from the decision making of Slashdot? I mean, this aleged police rule is the rule for Slashdot moderation?

  56. Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities by DrVxD · · Score: 1

    Because he's attempting to 'pass' the police IQ test?

    --
    Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
  57. I'll let it go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's too easy to turn it around and have dumb people claiming discrimination.

    But I've been the target of similar discrimination. I'm white and I'm smart but I've found myself in situations needing a minimum wage job. I've applied to flip burgers. I didn't have a chance in hell. Rational being that based on my profile I wouldn't last very long in the job. It's still discrimination.

  58. Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows that smart people don't like donuts and would never fit in.

  59. So is the rumor true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that police are filtered out by intelligence. I heard it was because a) intelligent cops are more likely to abuse their power, b) cops need to react before they think. Less intelligent cops can be trained to react but you cannot teach an intelligent person to not think.

    The problem is that in the end I have no respect for cops.

  60. Ma Bell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was denied a job because I aced the test. First I was told I failed. When I didn't believe that, I went to his superior. He said that my scores were too high. I didn't let on that I was told I had failed. I then confronted him with what I was told earlier. I got the job.

    Right at two years I was transferred to a position that no longer existed. They fired me and then fought to deny me unemployment benefits. I argued my case at the unemployment office and won. I pointed out that I was hired under a veteran's program and that they had to keep me on the job for a minimum of two years or they don't get federal funds. I showed that all other veterans hired under this program lost their jobs at two years, and they too were transferred to a non existent job classification and had their unemployment benefits contested. ( I knew the other veterans in this region who were hired under this law).

  61. Re:This raises interesting new legal possibilities by DamienNightbane · · Score: 1

    I wasn't aware that communists, homosexuals, gypsies, and jews were a different color.
     
    Sure, their souls are pitch black, but outside they're more or less the same color as any other German.

  62. Mod parent up by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

    Wow, Scientology always finds new ways to shock me as to how far they'll go.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  63. OMG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG! How?!?!

  64. Life mimics fiction! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Life mimics fiction! A quote from the film Payback:

    "Crooked cops. Do they come in any other way? If I'd been just a little dumber, I could have joined the force myself."

  65. bar me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so as long as all blacks are barred or all gays or all woman than its ok?

  66. A Suspect Classification? by Bdiah · · Score: 1

    I do hope this gets looked at by the higher courts, more for amusement's sake. Generally, the federal courts are required to protect against discrimination (or at least apply strict scrutiny) only when a statute or test involves a "suspect classification". What exactly does that phrase mean? Sandra Day O'Connor would have said that it meant any characteristic that was immutable to a person's identity (race, gender, etc.). I don't think we can be entirely confident that this is still the way the current Supreme Court would analyze the issue though, considering that they are hesitant to rule on cases involving sexual orientation. So, even though intelligence is almost certainly an immutable characteristic (barring intentional brain damage), the question is.....is intelligence a suspect classification for the government to use to discriminate?