Okay, that does clear things up a bit. However, I think that you should have disclosed this sooner, maybe in the beginning of the series, and added some additional information to further clarify it. From what you've said AirTreks makes motorcycles, to ITA's Mac Trucks. Very closely related, and potential competitors, but not currently in exactly the same market.
BTW, I enjoyed the whole series, it was well written and very easy to understand for somebody who's not involved in what appears to be a very byzantine business.
In the second part of his series he reveals that he has worked in the past for AirTreks, and continues to be involved with them. AirTreks appears to be a competitor to ITA, so while these articles are interesting, I think you need to take his conclusions with a large grain of kosher salt.
Yeah, there's nothing more efficient than a house built with no insulation,
Insulation is VERY easy to install, far easier than building a new home. Plus new homes do NOT have signficant thermal mass. Oh, and in the mean time you don't have to deal with all the out-gassing from the insulation.
single-pane windows,
Properly installed storm windows are MORE efficient that modern windows, due to the larger air gap.
and ancient appliances!
Haven't seen an old house with old appliances, they wear out long before you get to them, and if they don't they're worth some serious money.
And don't forget, those large shade trees eventually die and/or come down in storms.
dom
Doh! Got me there, after a hundred or two hundred years the trees do come down....
If you're really and truly sincere about reducing your footprint, and want to buy a "green" house, buy a pre-existing structure. ALL of the costs and impact has ALREADY occurred, while ANYTHING that you build new is going to generate trash. If you want to get something that's really going to reduce your impact buy a much older home (pre- 1950s), since they usually have a ton of passive heating/cooling techniques built into them. (Porches, large shade trees, thermalmass)
OTOH, if you're just interested in the smug factor, there's nothing like building a house that's Green, and attracts a lot of attention, before being abandoned a few months/years later when the obvious problems become overwhelmingly painful.
Netflix and $15 per month will get you MORE than enough movies. And a lot of them you can stream rather than watch on DVD. If you don't have 15 bucks but do have a TV I'm not sure what to tell you.
If you told them about the anti-convulsive given as an example, they would know its effects on your physiology?
Possibly, if not them then the people reviewing the tests. Also if you're not reacting to the test that tells them something else, and they can easily look up the particular drug you're on to determine it's effects.
Lie detector training includes a pharmacology degree?
Obviously not, nor is it necessary.
There are already VERY big questions as to the effectiveness of the whole enterprise, with essentially no rigorous studies as to effectiveness, best practices, etc. and that is without the effects of various legal prescription drugs. Does anyone think that even the all-knowing NSA has anything but the vaguest understanding how even the most well understood drug would influence the results?
I can tell you from personal experience that they ask for each series of questions about things like sleep, drugs, and other things that can potentially bias a test.
And if you lied about it they would know how?
Not getting a reaction is just as telling as getting a reaction. There are parts of the test that are designed to get a reaction. If you knew anything about the testing proceedures you'd know that.
Seems like you're pretty ignorant about polygraph, while I work with it everyday.
It's not perfect, nothing ever is, but it's still very useful, or they wouldn't do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, that does clear things up a bit. However, I think that you should have disclosed this sooner, maybe in the beginning of the series, and added some additional information to further clarify it. From what you've said AirTreks makes motorcycles, to ITA's Mac Trucks. Very closely related, and potential competitors, but not currently in exactly the same market. BTW, I enjoyed the whole series, it was well written and very easy to understand for somebody who's not involved in what appears to be a very byzantine business.
In the second part of his series he reveals that he has worked in the past for AirTreks, and continues to be involved with them. AirTreks appears to be a competitor to ITA, so while these articles are interesting, I think you need to take his conclusions with a large grain of kosher salt.
Yeah, there's nothing more efficient than a house built with no insulation,
Insulation is VERY easy to install, far easier than building a new home. Plus new homes do NOT have signficant thermal mass. Oh, and in the mean time you don't have to deal with all the out-gassing from the insulation.
single-pane windows,
Properly installed storm windows are MORE efficient that modern windows, due to the larger air gap.
and ancient appliances!
Haven't seen an old house with old appliances, they wear out long before you get to them, and if they don't they're worth some serious money.
And don't forget, those large shade trees eventually die and/or come down in storms.
dom
Doh! Got me there, after a hundred or two hundred years the trees do come down....
If you're really and truly sincere about reducing your footprint, and want to buy a "green" house, buy a pre-existing structure. ALL of the costs and impact has ALREADY occurred, while ANYTHING that you build new is going to generate trash. If you want to get something that's really going to reduce your impact buy a much older home (pre- 1950s), since they usually have a ton of passive heating/cooling techniques built into them. (Porches, large shade trees, thermalmass) OTOH, if you're just interested in the smug factor, there's nothing like building a house that's Green, and attracts a lot of attention, before being abandoned a few months/years later when the obvious problems become overwhelmingly painful.
Netflix and $15 per month will get you MORE than enough movies. And a lot of them you can stream rather than watch on DVD. If you don't have 15 bucks but do have a TV I'm not sure what to tell you.
There just is not a lot of evidence to support that position, and a reasonable amount of evidence that goes counter to that position.
Really, where? I can tell you from personal experience that it works, having been on both sides of the examine.
If you told them about the anti-convulsive given as an example, they would know its effects on your physiology?
Possibly, if not them then the people reviewing the tests. Also if you're not reacting to the test that tells them something else, and they can easily look up the particular drug you're on to determine it's effects.
Lie detector training includes a pharmacology degree?
Obviously not, nor is it necessary.
There are already VERY big questions as to the effectiveness of the whole enterprise, with essentially no rigorous studies as to effectiveness, best practices, etc. and that is without the effects of various legal prescription drugs. Does anyone think that even the all-knowing NSA has anything but the vaguest understanding how even the most well understood drug would influence the results?
I can tell you from personal experience that they ask for each series of questions about things like sleep, drugs, and other things that can potentially bias a test.
And if you lied about it they would know how?
Not getting a reaction is just as telling as getting a reaction. There are parts of the test that are designed to get a reaction. If you knew anything about the testing proceedures you'd know that. Seems like you're pretty ignorant about polygraph, while I work with it everyday. It's not perfect, nothing ever is, but it's still very useful, or they wouldn't do it.
Just like any other tool there are problems with it. Nor is it the only thing that used to detect people undermining national security.
Nonsense, it's a bit more than a prop, even if it is an inaccurate tool.
Most interviewers will ask what drugs you are currently taking BEFORE administering the test. So mood stabilizing drugs will not help you.
This article is useless without a recipe!
Maybe he was smarter than you thought, realized that "crunch time" was really "get more for less from the employees" time, and left.....
Exactly! Please mod parent up, I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!
Should be $10.
Pretty soon they'll be using the garbage to fuel the planes, making this a one to one conversion, cutting out the middle man!