I guess because "lie detection" no matter who or what "performs" it, is easier than finding real evidence of guilt or innocence. That's why there are so many innocent people in jail.
"There's nothing wrong with an interviewer watching you carefully to try and determine if you are telling the truth."
The polygraph is just like a magician's prop, it's really the interviewer who is guessing (or just making up) the results. Often times he also has an agenda which is why suspects are more likely to "fail" when the police perform the test than when it's paid for by the suspect.
The danger is that people can be fooled into thinking that the polygraph is actually determining the results. If some random guy just proclaimed that he determined that a suspect was lying, who would believe he had that ability? But when he claims that this "scientific" device determined the truth, people are more likely to believe it.
Well, at least the CIA is consitent. They use unscientific tools ("he mentioned that the polygraph was required") and draw unsupported conclusions from the evidence ("the assumption being that if they refused to take the test, then they CERTAINLY had something they wanted to hide from the CIA") .
Without a true scientific study the false postive rate and the false negative rate measured are meaningless anyway.
A valid study would require at a minimum that the examiner and the interpreter of the polygraphic measurement be seperate and blind to each other with neither knowing the truthfulness of each statement made by the subject. A third blind party would score the results by comparing the known truth to the interpreters determination.
That's probably not sufficient, but it would be a start.
I doubt that such a study would be conducted however, because scientists already know the polygraph is bunk and the polygraph industry has everything to lose and nothing to gain by conducting such a study.
I haven't been a big game player for years (and years and years), but if I can remember back that far, playing the newest games was a big part of the fun and excitement. Being a fan isn't about logic, it's about emotion. I could port my ancient Atari 2600 game to Linux and it would be NEW FOR LINUX, but nobody would care.
I was talking about the "type" not the actual percentage. Perhaps I missunderstood your point.
I have no idea what percentage of mac users use safari for browsing but given the stats on IE on the PC, it's reasonable to guess that the default is used more than alternatives. A guess, however, is not evidence.
It's exactly the same kind of monopoly-like share that MS had over the PC market. There were always non-MS choices of OS's for the PC. What the courts effectively said in finding against MS is that having other choices won't stop you from being found a monopoly.
Actually in practice, there's only the best paid programmers, not the best programmers. Even if there were some objective criteria for determining the best (which there is not), there's no published ranking of programmers to consult. BS ability probably correlates better with high salary than programming ability anyway.
But the issue isn't the validity of co-ops. Successful co-ops are still selling something. The farmers co-op doesn't give its food away. So if there's a good general business model for making profit from FOSS, it could be used in a co-op, but the co-op itself isn't the solution.
Actually, many people would not find any contradiction between "lazy communist hippy" and "overpriced consultant". What is more overpriced than paying big bucks for zero work?
This is true of all companies and has nothing specifically to do with CS or the computer industry for that matter. If you really want to fight this battle you should start a movement to change the law to outlaw corporations. On the other hand, when I was a young man I worked for people who weren't all that nice but hadn't incorporated their business.
It's really all about the golden rule: "Whoever has the gold, makes the rules". If you are rich or can start your own successful business you can be more independent. Otherwise you're going to do it your bosses way or hit the highway regardless of the licensing scheme your company uses.
It is good of you to do these other acts. I too don't know how representitive you are of the "typical" FOSS advocate.
"Practically, change should come slowly, so you SHOULD be wary of the FOS movement, but aren't there incremental steps you have thought of here and there, that might reduce your personal revenue slightly, but be more open?"
I don't see how. I don't develop my own software and sell it. I either work for a company as an employee or consult. In both cases the licensing issues aren't under my control.
Looks like the monopoly-conviction-avoiding-patent-hoarding beast that is the true soul of IBM managed to escape for a few moments. I'm sure he will be back in his cage before the new IBM true-believers notice him.
I think you missed the point of my question. If "free" software advocates are so devoted to helping mankind, what other charitable acts do they perform without a political agenda. Do they donate a significant portion of their income to the poor? Do they read for the blind? There's no "sticking it to the man" aspect of these good acts so they are a better indication of one's unselfish devotion to making a better world.
"Why are you such a zealous apologist for CS? I mean, does it have any basis other than your own personal financial gain, through your own coding or else through shared interests in CS developers, or through lobbyist-type compensation? What happened to you?"
That the fact that people like you think we need to apologize for making a living is part of the reason that many experienced software developers are wary of the "free" software movement.
I don't. I see people condemning anyone who writes "non-free" software as evil. I see very little "love" on the part of RMS or any hard-core "free" software advocate. It's all about hate IMHO. Hating MS, hating anyone who dares to disagree. I think it's more motivated by self-rightiouness than concern for your fellow man. What sort of charity work does the average "free" software advocate do that has no anti-something involved in it?
"First of all, anti-GPL people aren't people, they're corporations"
So there's not a single anti-GPL person in the whole World? Hey, leave some of that Koolaid for the others in line.
"One is based on pursuing self-interest by any means necessary, the other for cooperatively universal benefit at the expense of none."
Spare me. RMS is every bit as much looking out for number one as Bill Gates. Gates does it through MS profits. RMS gets to strut around as the "free" software Holy Man.
The relationship between an IQ test and the probability of something like "dying in a car accident" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the relationship between intelligence and an accident unless you assume a priori that there is a relationship between IQ and intelligence. It's really a circular argument.
"What kind of research would you recommend to find out its exact nature, if you're so displeased with the research that has been done so far? I'm honestly interested, if you actually have some idea and aren't just throwing out criticisms of a field you're not actually familiar with, because it's one thing I plan to conduct research in (once I finish this pesky PhD)."
I think your question illustrates a common problem in modern life. There is often a great desire to measure things because it gives an air of objectivity to your decisions. The problem is that that appearance of objectivity is just as powerful in many cases as real objectivity. So flawed measurements like IQ tests and polygraphs continue to be used.
Keep in mind that the desire to measure doesn't say anything about the ability to measure or the real usefulness of the measure. So my long-winded response to you is that I don't need to suggest alternative research to be useful. It may turn out that intelligence isn't measurable and there's nothing illogical or implausible about that possibility.
I'm not sure what you mean by "solid data". To prove a theory you have to be able to correlate the data with an objective independently measured result. Measuring intelligence using an IQ test is like trying to prove that heavier objects are hotter than lighter objects without having the technology for measuring temperature. There's a century of IQ data without any independent standard to test it's validity.
"Georg Greve, president of the Free Software Foundation Europe, said he had not seen the details of Microsoft's giveaway but cautioned against assuming it was motivated only by pragmatism or a new spirit of cooperation. 'If Microsoft were doing this for altruistic reasons, it would be a first"
Of course as president of the Free Software Foundation Europe since 2001, Mr. Greve has never received a penny of salary due to his well-known dedication to altruisism, so we can trust him.
Nobody said tech is for people who just want to make money. On the other hand, nobody goes to college and majors in Engineering or CS without an expectation of a decent salary. It's just too expensive, difficult, and time consuming an effort to do strictly for "love". Those student loans have to be paid off by somebody.
Each and every single possible bit is documented? I must have been wrong. Everybody knows that if the bits in a protocol are defined than no further documentation is required. It's not as if there's any non-static issues to consider.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess because "lie detection" no matter who or what "performs" it, is easier than finding real evidence of guilt or innocence. That's why there are so many innocent people in jail.
"There's nothing wrong with an interviewer watching you carefully to try and determine if you are telling the truth."
The polygraph is just like a magician's prop, it's really the interviewer who is guessing (or just making up) the results. Often times he also has an agenda which is why suspects are more likely to "fail" when the police perform the test than when it's paid for by the suspect.
The danger is that people can be fooled into thinking that the polygraph is actually determining the results. If some random guy just proclaimed that he determined that a suspect was lying, who would believe he had that ability? But when he claims that this "scientific" device determined the truth, people are more likely to believe it.
Well, at least the CIA is consitent. They use unscientific tools ("he mentioned that the polygraph was required") and draw unsupported conclusions from the evidence ("the assumption being that if they refused to take the test, then they CERTAINLY had something they wanted to hide from the CIA") .
Without a true scientific study the false postive rate and the false negative rate measured are meaningless anyway.
A valid study would require at a minimum that the examiner and the interpreter of the polygraphic measurement be seperate and blind to each other with neither knowing the truthfulness of each statement made by the subject. A third blind party would score the results by comparing the known truth to the interpreters determination.
That's probably not sufficient, but it would be a start.
I doubt that such a study would be conducted however, because scientists already know the polygraph is bunk and the polygraph industry has everything to lose and nothing to gain by conducting such a study.
I haven't been a big game player for years (and years and years), but if I can remember back that far, playing the newest games was a big part of the fun and excitement. Being a fan isn't about logic, it's about emotion. I could port my ancient Atari 2600 game to Linux and it would be NEW FOR LINUX, but nobody would care.
I was talking about the "type" not the actual percentage. Perhaps I missunderstood your point.
I have no idea what percentage of mac users use safari for browsing but given the stats on IE on the PC, it's reasonable to guess that the default is used more than alternatives. A guess, however, is not evidence.
It's exactly the same kind of monopoly-like share that MS had over the PC market. There were always non-MS choices of OS's for the PC. What the courts effectively said in finding against MS is that having other choices won't stop you from being found a monopoly.
Actually in practice, there's only the best paid programmers, not the best programmers. Even if there were some objective criteria for determining the best (which there is not), there's no published ranking of programmers to consult. BS ability probably correlates better with high salary than programming ability anyway.
But the issue isn't the validity of co-ops. Successful co-ops are still selling something. The farmers co-op doesn't give its food away. So if there's a good general business model for making profit from FOSS, it could be used in a co-op, but the co-op itself isn't the solution.
Actually, many people would not find any contradiction between "lazy communist hippy" and "overpriced consultant". What is more overpriced than paying big bucks for zero work?
This is true of all companies and has nothing specifically to do with CS or the computer industry for that matter. If you really want to fight this battle you should start a movement to change the law to outlaw corporations. On the other hand, when I was a young man I worked for people who weren't all that nice but hadn't incorporated their business.
It's really all about the golden rule: "Whoever has the gold, makes the rules". If you are rich or can start your own successful business you can be more independent. Otherwise you're going to do it your bosses way or hit the highway regardless of the licensing scheme your company uses.
It is good of you to do these other acts. I too don't know how representitive you are of the "typical" FOSS advocate.
"Practically, change should come slowly, so you SHOULD be wary of the FOS movement, but aren't there incremental steps you have thought of here and there, that might reduce your personal revenue slightly, but be more open?"
I don't see how. I don't develop my own software and sell it. I either work for a company as an employee or consult. In both cases the licensing issues aren't under my control.
Looks like the monopoly-conviction-avoiding-patent-hoarding beast that is the true soul of IBM managed to escape for a few moments. I'm sure he will be back in his cage before the new IBM true-believers notice him.
"The most qualified candidates almost always carefully search through and apply for only job positions that interest them."
Really. How could you possibly know waht "most qualified candidates" do or not do?
I think you missed the point of my question. If "free" software advocates are so devoted to helping mankind, what other charitable acts do they perform without a political agenda. Do they donate a significant portion of their income to the poor? Do they read for the blind? There's no "sticking it to the man" aspect of these good acts so they are a better indication of one's unselfish devotion to making a better world.
"Why are you such a zealous apologist for CS? I mean, does it have any basis other than your own personal financial gain, through your own coding or else through shared interests in CS developers, or through lobbyist-type compensation? What happened to you?"
That the fact that people like you think we need to apologize for making a living is part of the reason that many experienced software developers are wary of the "free" software movement.
"Don't you see that?"
I don't. I see people condemning anyone who writes "non-free" software as evil. I see very little "love" on the part of RMS or any hard-core "free" software advocate. It's all about hate IMHO. Hating MS, hating anyone who dares to disagree. I think it's more motivated by self-rightiouness than concern for your fellow man. What sort of charity work does the average "free" software advocate do that has no anti-something involved in it?
"First of all, anti-GPL people aren't people, they're corporations"
So there's not a single anti-GPL person in the whole World? Hey, leave some of that Koolaid for the others in line.
"One is based on pursuing self-interest by any means necessary, the other for cooperatively universal benefit at the expense of none."
Spare me. RMS is every bit as much looking out for number one as Bill Gates. Gates does it through MS profits. RMS gets to strut around as the "free" software Holy Man.
The relationship between an IQ test and the probability of something like "dying in a car accident" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the relationship between intelligence and an accident unless you assume a priori that there is a relationship between IQ and intelligence. It's really a circular argument.
"What kind of research would you recommend to find out its exact nature, if you're so displeased with the research that has been done so far? I'm honestly interested, if you actually have some idea and aren't just throwing out criticisms of a field you're not actually familiar with, because it's one thing I plan to conduct research in (once I finish this pesky PhD)."
I think your question illustrates a common problem in modern life. There is often a great desire to measure things because it gives an air of objectivity to your decisions. The problem is that that appearance of objectivity is just as powerful in many cases as real objectivity. So flawed measurements like IQ tests and polygraphs continue to be used.
Keep in mind that the desire to measure doesn't say anything about the ability to measure or the real usefulness of the measure. So my long-winded response to you is that I don't need to suggest alternative research to be useful. It may turn out that intelligence isn't measurable and there's nothing illogical or implausible about that possibility.
I'm not sure what you mean by "solid data". To prove a theory you have to be able to correlate the data with an objective independently measured result. Measuring intelligence using an IQ test is like trying to prove that heavier objects are hotter than lighter objects without having the technology for measuring temperature. There's a century of IQ data without any independent standard to test it's validity.
I'm sure real scientists wish they could blame the failure of their theories on political correctness too.
Yes, but there are other products without the legal hurdles that IBM hasn't opened either.
"I wouldn't be surprised that IBM would release OS/2 to open source if it could."
I would be surprised because IBM has passed on the opportunity to open source other software that they discontinued.
"Georg Greve, president of the Free Software Foundation Europe, said he had not seen the details of Microsoft's giveaway but cautioned against assuming it was motivated only by pragmatism or a new spirit of cooperation. 'If Microsoft were doing this for altruistic reasons, it would be a first"
Of course as president of the Free Software Foundation Europe since 2001, Mr. Greve has never received a penny of salary due to his well-known dedication to altruisism, so we can trust him.
Nobody said tech is for people who just want to make money. On the other hand, nobody goes to college and majors in Engineering or CS without an expectation of a decent salary. It's just too expensive, difficult, and time consuming an effort to do strictly for "love". Those student loans have to be paid off by somebody.
Each and every single possible bit is documented? I must have been wrong. Everybody knows that if the bits in a protocol are defined than no further documentation is required. It's not as if there's any non-static issues to consider.