The camelback is 0.8L itself but as I pointed out it can carry everything, snacks, tools, spares, rain jacket, etc. The model I'm referring to is a 24L backpack with a 3L bladder. No need for any other bag or attachment devices on the bike.
If in an undeveloped area the coastline may have anything from small streams to rivers emptying into the ocean (well small steams generally disappear at the sand, or a little earlier, and go subterranean but are often visible from the coastal trail/road). Backpacking water filters (mine is roughly 1 pound / 0.5 kilo) work quite well under these circumstances to make the water potable.
I guess if 1 liter is all you'll ever need.
There are people who do distance biking and 1 liter is a joke.
I used 1L in the example since the device was claiming 0.5L an hour under ideal conditions. The weights I used for the camelback itself were actually for a 3L model. Personally I always fill it to 3L despite normally consuming 1.5L on rides and hikes. I'd rather have extra than go without, plus its a safety margin. If I think I'll need all 3L to get from one fill to another I'll bring a second 3L bladder.
How do you refute a polygraph result? Some guy doesn't like you and just says that this set of wiggly lines means your lying. While what it really means is the guy interpreting wiggly lines for a job is just an asshole.
Re-read my post. Its making no claim about polygraphs spotting a troublesome candidate. Its pointing out that the government could see value by troublesome candidates self-selecting to avoid jobs that involve a polygraph, or a candidate cracking under pressure and making an admission. Refuting is a 3rd case, it provides no value, but it does not change the fact that the other 2 cases may provide value from a government perspective.
I did not reply to your first comment but to another one of your countless comments...
A demonstrably false statement on your part. You in fact started this subthread in response to my post where I began "He entered into a conspiracy..." http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
He's charged with conspiracy, he knew the intent of the training was to conceal criminal activity by a law enforcement officer from an agency investigation. Whether the training was effective or necessary is not relevant. All that matters is that he was willing to assist in such concealment in any manner.
Prop in a mind game? That's just finding an excuse after the fact for an expensive long running scam.
Placebos are not a scam when they produce a desirable effect. To the government, tricking a person with a questionable background into avoiding jobs where a security clearance would be necessary is beneficial. As is tricking a person into not attempting deception during an investigation. The government believes they experience a benefit by such trickery.
The quack science argument kicks right back in the moment someone is accused of lying "because the polygraph says so". Guarantee to me that's never happened. Go on. Dare you.
No problem. It never happens in the venue where the former police officer in question is headed, in court.
Please. Your dodge is going beyond ridiculous. *You* wrote "If there's no damage to society, there's no crime". *You* implied there was no damage to society. Now faced with the actual charge, "training a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity" all of a sudden damage to society is a moot issue?
Your repeated dodging constitutes a quite clear answer, you have essentially admitted that you were wrong to imply there was no potential damage to society in this case.
If court, judge and jury can be made to believe in polygraph...
Doubling down on the absurd I see. Polygraphs are not allowed as evidence. The charges must be proven using other methods.
Stand on the corner with a sign that says "You can buy potent illegal drugs in this alley for cheap" and you will be arrested. Stand on that same corner with a sign that says "Bad people are selling cheap illegal drugs in this alley, stay away" and you will be fine. Seems strange, in both situations you are giving people the same factual information, that drugs are beign sold in the alley but in one you are adding some opinion to that fact. Your opinion in addition to facts should not be the difference between illegal and legal.
I do not believe it is as simple as you suggest. First of all this case involves indictment (prosecution) not arrest. Arrest only requires that a reasonable belief exists that a crime has been committed. Indictment comes after investigation of the required elements of a crime, one of which is intent. With respect to your hypothetical first sign it would have to be established as to whether the intent of the statement was a warning or a solicitation for purchase, only in the solicitation case would there be an element of a crime.
IMHO the much large "conspiracy to lie" is those who pretend polygraphs work and fleece a lot of taxpayers money by selling the props and the "services".
The subtlety of the government's actions are that it works in a way you are not contemplating. Consider the placebo effect. An item does not actually have to deliver on its stated promise in order to yield a desirable effect. The desirable effect from the government's perspective in this case being a person avoiding circumstances where one may be polygraphed (ex security clearance) or a lack of deception when questioned (which would include silence if honesty is not an option).
Another prop could be police brutalitu, are you pro that too, or are your fascist tendencies limited to quack science?
Your ill-informed childish attack isn't helping your argument. May I suggest attempting logic rather than emotion.
Speaking of logic, here is where the "quack science" argument fails. Its called the placebo effect. An item does not actually have to deliver on its stated promise in order to yield the desired effect. The desired effect in this case being avoiding circumstances where one may be polygraphed (ex security clearance) or a lack of deception when questioned (which would include silence if honesty is not an option).
I said no such thing. I'm explaining to those who are confused why the government would employ such an unscientific tool. In short, its because perception trumps reality. The government has the right to trick us into admissions, we have the right to remain silent.
Perhaps if you re-read this thread and noticed that I said it was "conspiracy" not "speech" that got the guy into trouble it might be helpful. My quoting of the indictment was an attempt to help you with that.
Your country is the one that pretends to have absolute free speech due to your constitution banning laws such as this. Free speech includes the freedom to lie to government investigators and yet your congress seems to have passed (many) laws restricting speech.
Someone misinformed you. We have the right to not self incriminate, the right to remain silent. We have the right to voice our disagreements with the government and demand change. We have the right to voice our opinions and theories and other beliefs; even crazy or heinous things as long as we don't try to turn those words into actions. We do not have the right to perjury, libel, etc.
"illegal to lie to government official" - you generalize much. Lying itself isn't outlawed, only deception with the effect of damage to society. If there's no damage to society, there's no crime. It may be argued that fake tests like polygraphs don't serve the good of society and bypassing them doesn't harm it, thus it's not a crime.
From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"
Would you consider that harmful to society?
That entire indictment could be a fabrication, they could easily do that given that they tolerate the polygraph sham(it's just a ploy to elicit an admission, and often results in false positives). Fabricating a case is nothing compared to that. Any government agency that condones frauds like that doesn't deserve any sort of trust whatsoever.
That is a quite desperate and ridiculous dodge of the question. Tricking someone into admissions (with or without a polygraph) is trivial compared fabricating a case that has to appear in federal court, get past the judge, get past the defense, get past the jury, etc.
Again, is training a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity harmful to society or not, is it something that would warrant criminal charges?
Its legal to lie to government investigators in your jurisdiction?
That's not what the guy was arrested for, dumbass.
Here is a new word for your vocabulary list for the week:
"conspiracy"
conspiracy, in law, agreement of two or more persons to commit a criminal or otherwise unlawful act. http://www.reference.com/brows...
Here is an example of its usage, from the first line of my original response to you:
"He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators."
"illegal to lie to government official" - you generalize much. Lying itself isn't outlawed, only deception with the effect of damage to society. If there's no damage to society, there's no crime. It may be argued that fake tests like polygraphs don't serve the good of society and bypassing them doesn't harm it, thus it's not a crime.
From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"
I'm astonished at the number of people who don't get this. It isn't the first thing he asks casually, it's the first thing he asks once they're hooked to the polygraph. Not exactly brilliant humor, but it was worth a chuckle and certainly beats "First Post!"
Perhaps the fact that his client base knowingly includes many cops undermines the joke.
From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"
Slashdot Mirror
I'm good with coders in congress; as long as they have debugging experience, and most of the bugs were in code written by their peers.
The problem is these coders will never see the 1.0 release before they are asked to vote on it. There are no opportunities to debug the first draft.
The camelback is 0.8L itself but as I pointed out it can carry everything, snacks, tools, spares, rain jacket, etc. The model I'm referring to is a 24L backpack with a 3L bladder. No need for any other bag or attachment devices on the bike.
It really is not a real problem that needs a solution.
Its a technology that needs a demonstration platform. I wouldn't read too much into cycling being used for these demonstrations.
If in an undeveloped area the coastline may have anything from small streams to rivers emptying into the ocean (well small steams generally disappear at the sand, or a little earlier, and go subterranean but are often visible from the coastal trail/road). Backpacking water filters (mine is roughly 1 pound / 0.5 kilo) work quite well under these circumstances to make the water potable.
I guess if 1 liter is all you'll ever need. There are people who do distance biking and 1 liter is a joke.
I used 1L in the example since the device was claiming 0.5L an hour under ideal conditions. The weights I used for the camelback itself were actually for a 3L model. Personally I always fill it to 3L despite normally consuming 1.5L on rides and hikes. I'd rather have extra than go without, plus its a safety margin. If I think I'll need all 3L to get from one fill to another I'll bring a second 3L bladder.
How do you refute a polygraph result? Some guy doesn't like you and just says that this set of wiggly lines means your lying. While what it really means is the guy interpreting wiggly lines for a job is just an asshole.
Re-read my post. Its making no claim about polygraphs spotting a troublesome candidate. Its pointing out that the government could see value by troublesome candidates self-selecting to avoid jobs that involve a polygraph, or a candidate cracking under pressure and making an admission. Refuting is a 3rd case, it provides no value, but it does not change the fact that the other 2 cases may provide value from a government perspective.
How much does the device weigh? A camelback with 1 liter is about 4 pounds / 1.8 kilos?
Plus the camelback is multipurpose and can carry snacks, tools, etc.
I did not reply to your first comment but to another one of your countless comments ...
A demonstrably false statement on your part. You in fact started this subthread in response to my post where I began "He entered into a conspiracy ..."
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
He's charged with conspiracy, he knew the intent of the training was to conceal criminal activity by a law enforcement officer from an agency investigation. Whether the training was effective or necessary is not relevant. All that matters is that he was willing to assist in such concealment in any manner.
Prop in a mind game? That's just finding an excuse after the fact for an expensive long running scam.
Placebos are not a scam when they produce a desirable effect. To the government, tricking a person with a questionable background into avoiding jobs where a security clearance would be necessary is beneficial. As is tricking a person into not attempting deception during an investigation. The government believes they experience a benefit by such trickery.
The quack science argument kicks right back in the moment someone is accused of lying "because the polygraph says so". Guarantee to me that's never happened. Go on. Dare you.
No problem. It never happens in the venue where the former police officer in question is headed, in court.
This question is a moot one.
Please. Your dodge is going beyond ridiculous. *You* wrote "If there's no damage to society, there's no crime". *You* implied there was no damage to society. Now faced with the actual charge, "training a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity" all of a sudden damage to society is a moot issue?
Your repeated dodging constitutes a quite clear answer, you have essentially admitted that you were wrong to imply there was no potential damage to society in this case.
If court, judge and jury can be made to believe in polygraph ...
Doubling down on the absurd I see. Polygraphs are not allowed as evidence. The charges must be proven using other methods.
Stand on the corner with a sign that says "You can buy potent illegal drugs in this alley for cheap" and you will be arrested. Stand on that same corner with a sign that says "Bad people are selling cheap illegal drugs in this alley, stay away" and you will be fine. Seems strange, in both situations you are giving people the same factual information, that drugs are beign sold in the alley but in one you are adding some opinion to that fact. Your opinion in addition to facts should not be the difference between illegal and legal.
I do not believe it is as simple as you suggest. First of all this case involves indictment (prosecution) not arrest. Arrest only requires that a reasonable belief exists that a crime has been committed. Indictment comes after investigation of the required elements of a crime, one of which is intent. With respect to your hypothetical first sign it would have to be established as to whether the intent of the statement was a warning or a solicitation for purchase, only in the solicitation case would there be an element of a crime.
IMHO the much large "conspiracy to lie" is those who pretend polygraphs work and fleece a lot of taxpayers money by selling the props and the "services".
The subtlety of the government's actions are that it works in a way you are not contemplating. Consider the placebo effect. An item does not actually have to deliver on its stated promise in order to yield a desirable effect. The desirable effect from the government's perspective in this case being a person avoiding circumstances where one may be polygraphed (ex security clearance) or a lack of deception when questioned (which would include silence if honesty is not an option).
In short, its a prop in a mind game.
Another prop could be police brutalitu, are you pro that too, or are your fascist tendencies limited to quack science?
Your ill-informed childish attack isn't helping your argument. May I suggest attempting logic rather than emotion.
Speaking of logic, here is where the "quack science" argument fails. Its called the placebo effect. An item does not actually have to deliver on its stated promise in order to yield the desired effect. The desired effect in this case being avoiding circumstances where one may be polygraphed (ex security clearance) or a lack of deception when questioned (which would include silence if honesty is not an option).
By the way, the ends don't justify the means.
I said no such thing. I'm explaining to those who are confused why the government would employ such an unscientific tool. In short, its because perception trumps reality. The government has the right to trick us into admissions, we have the right to remain silent.
Perhaps if you re-read this thread and noticed that I said it was "conspiracy" not "speech" that got the guy into trouble it might be helpful. My quoting of the indictment was an attempt to help you with that.
Your country is the one that pretends to have absolute free speech due to your constitution banning laws such as this. Free speech includes the freedom to lie to government investigators and yet your congress seems to have passed (many) laws restricting speech.
Someone misinformed you. We have the right to not self incriminate, the right to remain silent. We have the right to voice our disagreements with the government and demand change. We have the right to voice our opinions and theories and other beliefs; even crazy or heinous things as long as we don't try to turn those words into actions. We do not have the right to perjury, libel, etc.
"illegal to lie to government official" - you generalize much. Lying itself isn't outlawed, only deception with the effect of damage to society. If there's no damage to society, there's no crime. It may be argued that fake tests like polygraphs don't serve the good of society and bypassing them doesn't harm it, thus it's not a crime.
From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation" Would you consider that harmful to society?
That entire indictment could be a fabrication, they could easily do that given that they tolerate the polygraph sham(it's just a ploy to elicit an admission, and often results in false positives). Fabricating a case is nothing compared to that. Any government agency that condones frauds like that doesn't deserve any sort of trust whatsoever.
That is a quite desperate and ridiculous dodge of the question. Tricking someone into admissions (with or without a polygraph) is trivial compared fabricating a case that has to appear in federal court, get past the judge, get past the defense, get past the jury, etc.
Again, is training a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity harmful to society or not, is it something that would warrant criminal charges?
Bad analogy. The use of deadly force in self defense is perfectly legal.
Its legal to lie to government investigators in your jurisdiction?
That's not what the guy was arrested for, dumbass.
Here is a new word for your vocabulary list for the week:
"conspiracy"
conspiracy, in law, agreement of two or more persons to commit a criminal or otherwise unlawful act.
http://www.reference.com/brows...
Here is an example of its usage, from the first line of my original response to you:
"He entered into a conspiracy to lie to government investigators."
"illegal to lie to government official" - you generalize much. Lying itself isn't outlawed, only deception with the effect of damage to society. If there's no damage to society, there's no crime. It may be argued that fake tests like polygraphs don't serve the good of society and bypassing them doesn't harm it, thus it's not a crime.
From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"
Would you consider that harmful to society?
I'm astonished at the number of people who don't get this. It isn't the first thing he asks casually, it's the first thing he asks once they're hooked to the polygraph. Not exactly brilliant humor, but it was worth a chuckle and certainly beats "First Post!"
Perhaps the fact that his client base knowingly includes many cops undermines the joke.
He screwed up.
Lesson #1, Question #1: "Are you guys cops?"
Cops are his customer. Why would he ask that? To see if they are eligible for a Fraternal Order of Police union discount?
From the indictment: "trained an individual posing as a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity from an internal agency investigation"