2. What restrictions do you think the Army has on apps they distribute?
Ok, I'll try to answer that one:
1. Full device encryption, which some of the Android ROMs provide, but which the iPhone Enterprise-level ROMs do not (as of yet!). Not to mention custom hardware that you just mentioned, which will probably never be doable with the iPhone.
2. A device that's second sourced. In other words, the Department of Defense doesn't want to be solely dependent on one company (one-point-failure) to supply its critical infrastructure. In the case of Intel for instance, Intel had to train to a certain level and license some of its core technology to its arch enemy AMD so that it could be able to win the very lucrative government contracts that the Department of Defense was doling out. This is one of the main reasons that the military is credited for having started the computer revolution. It was not just the funding that was important, it was ultimately the strings that were attached to those funds.
3. The idea that the phone shouldn't be manufactured in Mainland China (for fear of a Chinese back-door). Thus far, only a few of the Android phones meet that criterion. The iPhone doesn't.
4. Standard parts that can be found, swapped, hacked, replaced, and repaired locally (without going against the terms of the license if they were to buy non-approved OEM parts that were just as good as the original but way-way cheaper than non-Apple batteries). And by locally, I don't mean Paris or the UK. I know we can find iPhone headphones over there.
5. Easy to develop on. Again, another clear win for Android. It's not just easier to code on, cut and paste examples, and just make them work with some tweaking (unlike the iPhone), Google is also Beta testing 'App Inventor', a visual IDE which lets you build Android applications visually while the code gets generated in the background.
6. Not being tied to the various whims and moods of Steve Jobs such as: "You May NOT Use iTunes To Design, Manufacture or Produce Nuclear, Chemical or Biological Weapons". I doubt that such a clause would bother the Army, but at least with Android, Google didn't put their "Do no Evil" clause in their terms and conditions. In fact, it's a given that since Flash is allowed to run on Android, it means that "Doing Evil" is clearly allowed.
I never realized that one had to a member of fruity club to develop Android hardware. I thought that was the point, anyone could innovate without corporate approval. It is just a gimmick to sell phones with promise of multi vendor support 'open apps', like MS?
You can. Just take ArchOS for example. ArchOS makes a tablet that has no phone functionality, no camera, and not the usual buttons you'd find on Android. For those reasons, it's not allowed to use some of the Google applications and connect to the official Android Marketplace (it had to create its own special Tablet app store, which it is also licensing to other companies in the same position that they are). Not to mention, they do not even have capacitive touch. This is the route they chose to take. Developing an Android tablet that met the minimum system requirements listed by Google was just too cost-prohibitive for them.
And as an Android developer, you're free to take your existing app and distribute it (or sell it) on the ArchOS app store, assuming it works on the stripped-down physical hardware and buttons that ArchOS/Android is supporting.
Compare the ArchOS tablet to the Dell Streak for instance, and I think you'll notice what I'm talking about. Dell decided to meet all the minimum requirements of the Android platform. As a result, the Dell Streak is still more a phone than a tablet itself, and it's much-much pricier as a result.
And then once you've been fired, you must always be available to your company to provide that service?
Where did you see that the guy got fired???? or even resigned?? He was transferred to a new position, and formally replaced by another sysadmin, but he was still showing up for work and blocking/lying every step of the way. That's the part that got him initially placed under police surveillance, he even lied in front of the police. Everyone could see things would just be escalating from there, which actually they did.
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you
on
Child Porn As a Weapon
·
· Score: 1
Thankfully, Weiner didn't cover his tracks quite well enough to avoid being found out
Also that summary should really have read: "Thankfully, Weiner was a complete moron and just slightly more incompetent than the UK police who arrested and continuously harassed the wrong guy for seven months, since Weiner bragged about his devious plan to others before executing it, and thought that calling the police hotline from his own cell phone with the caller id blocked would really keep him anonymous."
Which begs the question, do only idiots and incompetents frame others? And what happens if the person doing the framing is smart enough, or semi-paranoid enough, not to use his own phone to call the cops? What will the UK police ever do should the super villains ever reach such a high level of sophistication and big picture cunningness?
Re:Don't f* with the IT guy like at restaurant you
on
Child Porn As a Weapon
·
· Score: 1
Nowadays, that kind of letter could land me in prison, given a hysterical enough judge.
You've waited this long, you can wait a little more. Even given a smart enough little genius, by most standards 14 is still way too young.
Motors and metals aren't getting much better but the processors and algorithms that run on them are.
Micro-controllers are great for prototyping, but couldn't this particular example be made purely out of something that resembles the mechanism inside a wooden grandfather's clock (without any sort of processor whatsoever). There would still be the question of making the claws of course, but I'm leaving this question for someone else who's smarter than me. From the video, I'm not even sure how the claws work currently. Does anyone else think that the wall they're using is probably gritty? and that the robot is barely hanging on by the very tip of its fingernails/little claws?
Of course, even if I'm right, which I'm not even sure I am, it wouldn't negate the rest of your thesis, especially with the many other types of robots that absolutely need processors to maintain their balance/movements.
I would suggest that you ask the Smithsonian. If you would like the recordings to go into the public domain, then I suggest that they might be the proper avenue.
Isn't the Smithsonian in the US? And wouldn't they just lock up the materials in their vault until there was no more legal ambiguity? I'd suggest he tries to find an interested institution abroad, in a saner jurisdiction hopefully, if he really wants it placed in the public domain.
The last thing you want is big companies afraid to use GPL'd code because it's a legal liability -- adoption and buy in from a huge company is one of the best things that could happen to a small GPL project because it means you'll always be around.
The last thing you want is big companies afraid to use proprietary tools from someone else because of the legal liability they'll be exposed to (should they decide to use those tools without paying a cent for them).
Speaking of Best Buy, was it Best Buy and/or CompUSA? which used the shareware tools provided by Sysinternals (now owned by Microsoft) in almost all the technical work they did without paying for any kind of business license (the Sysinternals tools were free for personal use and some of their tools were free for any use, but some of those tools they definitely wanted to be paid for, and they did go after those ungrateful companies eventually).
Did all States create those copyright laws? Or did just some of them do? And what about materials recorded abroad, or broadcast abroad? Enforcing copyright law on a State by State level would seem to me like a very difficult thing to do.
reputable ad networks? What are those? Is he speaking of google ad-sense? or Hulu ads? Personally, I don't consider ad networks that use banner ads as anything that are reputable (this includes any of the shady ad-networks that Google purchased as well). Non-obtrusive text ads, I can deal with. Even Hulu ads, I can deal with since it's film on film. It's just that I hate banner ads, or animated ads, when I'm in reading-mode.
It arrived in google apps premier, I'm not sure when it arrived, but I added it to my google apps domain yesterday. I can't say I have the best timing for these things.:(
I can't say they didn't warn me thought, it came with all kinds of ominous disclaimers about it not being included in my existing SLA and me not being able to contact them if they ever lose the content from my domain waves. Someone told me today that they were going to keep it turned on until at least the end of the year. I assume this should give enough time for people to archive their existing waves in a wiki, and experiment with alternatives for the real-time parts of it.
In any case, I find it curious that I can now get wave on my google apps domain, but I still can't get Buzz on it. Does this mean that as soon as I get access to Buzz on google apps premier that it's going to die shortly thereafter too?
You want to make the game fun, at least a little bit fun if nothing else. Allow the astronauts to die (at the very least). Allow the players to make simple mistakes, whether intentionally or accidentally, and kill off everyone -- including themselves. This is the real litmus test of a game/simulation. What happens when you give a kid the simulation of a nuclear power plant? What happens when you give a kid a car racing game? What happens when you give a kid an interactive flash animation of a hamster in a cage?
The kid tries to see if the nuclear station can blow up. He tries to see if the car can go off the road, or crash into another car. And you can bet that he'll try to find a way to kill off that virtual hamster. At least, that's what I would try to do myself, and I'm not even a kid. Then once I find out I can be killed in several different ways, or make mistakes that will have drastic consequences in the game, that's when the game possibly becomes challenging enough for me to stay *possibly* interested in it a bit longer.
Oh and by the way my car if a hybrid that gets 80 miles per gallon (160 if I carry a friend). The typical bus or train averages only 25mpg each passenger.
Ah! That bus is electric, so it gets an infinite number of miles per gallon.
They didn't succeed in killing the tax programs, but they did kill funding for domestic violence shelters, police and fire departments, and prevention of swine flu outbreaks.
That was my question too. They're Republicans. Isn't it a given that considering California's current budget crisis, they were already going to refuse additional funding for women's shelters, state-wide immunization programs, and possibly other core services? How has Intuit changed any of that? Is the author of this story really privy to the backroom dealings of politicians? And even if he was, why should we take his word for it?
Don't get me wrong, I do agree that any small-time politician, who accepts Intuit's vast amounts of money and toes the official Intuit line, needs to be replaced. I just don't like discussions degenerating in the "It's us versus them" mentality (even if I do succumb myself to this kind of distorted thinking occasionally).
You must mean this Deceiver (1997). Thanks for the recommendation. May be it was good at the time, but Netflix doesn't think this is a movie I would enjoy (it's only giving it 2.7 stars out of 5). Plus, it's not on Netflix streaming, nor is it on Hulu, so I think I'll pass.
For those of you living in the United States who have access to Hulu, and who've never watched 'Lie to Me'. You can watch it here for free -- with just a few ads (much less ads than one would normally see on network TV).
There is the case of that one Intel employee who collected and stole millions of dollars worth of gold from their fab plant, he was stealing only the remnants of gold by-products from the manufacturing process apparently, that guy was placed under investigation for no other reason than driving too nice a car, but he wasn't fired. The guy resigned. The former spooks at Intel gave him stellar recommendations and helped him get the same job at AMD.
That employee was the exception rather than the rule. Intel doesn't usually fire bad employees. It makes them disappear.
And so most European governments except the UK I take it. All European governments (except for the UK) have warned their own government officials and company executives NOT to use BlackBerry/RIM.
The main problem is that if you send a text, an IM, an email, or anything to the person sitting next to you in any European country you might be located in, it's encrypted all-right, but your blackberry will always route that message to the UK first (and the Canadian company Research In Motion is able to decrypt that message of course). And with the Anglo/Canadian/US/Australian intelligence-sharing pact and the presence of Echelon in the UK, that might as well mean you're letting the NSA and its friends index all your BlackBerry communications for US consumption.
India is not stupid. It would have to have known about this. Probably someone from the US/UK is still pressuring them to keep this trojan horse around their neck, as they're trying to get rid of it -- not wanting to make the US lose face -- still toeing the US anti-terrorist official line (hoping that they don't get sanctioned for this small act of insolence toward their masters).
The excellent photo-journal of this girl who rides her motorcycle within the dead zone will answer all your questions, and then some.
Basically, the official dead zone is a much larger area than you think, and even within the dead zone there are various degrees of risk/safety to consider. The old people that have come back are basically farmers, from the various pictures she took. And even then, if someone were to bring them food, the risk wouldn't be the same for someone who's only driving by and someone who's actually living there.
The human being administering the lie detector test is a major variable. The system sets up a parent-child relationship between the person administering the test and the person being tested, whether the person administering the test is any good or not. And like I've said before, the profession (like most professions) is very self-serving and self-perpetuating, only here unlike most other professions, it's actually been given the complete power to perpetuate itself.
Sadly, even one of my favorite Hollywood show 'Lie to Me' is a total work of wishful fantasy. The hero, Dr. Liteman, is an awesome character, but imagine for every Dr. Liteman and each of his smart staff, how many total idiots are being given the similar power to administer lie detector tests?
Part of the problem is that getting certified as a lie detector test expert requires no screening of the students, no existing psychology degree, no review of the process, just cash, and for the one school that has supposedly the longest training program for creating those experts -- that program is only 14 weeks long. Can you really teach someone to be a "shrewd psychologist" in just 14 weeks?
The second problem is also that many people actually believe that they're actually shrewd psychologists themselves, or want to become a "shrewd psychologist" (just like on TV), so these schools are flooded with these kinds of guys, guys that think that they're super smart, or guys that get an erection every time they're given the chance to interrogate someone and have complete power over that person.
It's simple. In a jury trial, the jurors would have to pass that test themselves before they get selected as jurors.
It's just like they use the polygraph test in the CIA and in the FBI. The employees that say the test is idiotic publicly end up automatically failing the next polygraph test they take, and lose their security clearance and all credibility. The process is very circular and self-selective that way. It ensures that only the people that believe in the lie detector, or the people that claim to believe in the lie detector throughout their career, end up accepted and re-accepted within the inner sanctum. Such a device is used to create unquestioning yes-men in those agencies.
It's a lot like the Church of Scientology, in fact the Church of Scientology has been using devices that work very similarly to lie detector tests. Their device is also used for both intimidation and punishment for not toeing the official line.
Slashdot Mirror
2. What restrictions do you think the Army has on apps they distribute?
Ok, I'll try to answer that one:
1. Full device encryption, which some of the Android ROMs provide, but which the iPhone Enterprise-level ROMs do not (as of yet!). Not to mention custom hardware that you just mentioned, which will probably never be doable with the iPhone.
2. A device that's second sourced. In other words, the Department of Defense doesn't want to be solely dependent on one company (one-point-failure) to supply its critical infrastructure. In the case of Intel for instance, Intel had to train to a certain level and license some of its core technology to its arch enemy AMD so that it could be able to win the very lucrative government contracts that the Department of Defense was doling out. This is one of the main reasons that the military is credited for having started the computer revolution. It was not just the funding that was important, it was ultimately the strings that were attached to those funds.
3. The idea that the phone shouldn't be manufactured in Mainland China (for fear of a Chinese back-door). Thus far, only a few of the Android phones meet that criterion. The iPhone doesn't.
4. Standard parts that can be found, swapped, hacked, replaced, and repaired locally (without going against the terms of the license if they were to buy non-approved OEM parts that were just as good as the original but way-way cheaper than non-Apple batteries). And by locally, I don't mean Paris or the UK. I know we can find iPhone headphones over there.
5. Easy to develop on. Again, another clear win for Android. It's not just easier to code on, cut and paste examples, and just make them work with some tweaking (unlike the iPhone), Google is also Beta testing 'App Inventor', a visual IDE which lets you build Android applications visually while the code gets generated in the background.
6. Not being tied to the various whims and moods of Steve Jobs such as: "You May NOT Use iTunes To Design, Manufacture or Produce Nuclear, Chemical or Biological Weapons". I doubt that such a clause would bother the Army, but at least with Android, Google didn't put their "Do no Evil" clause in their terms and conditions. In fact, it's a given that since Flash is allowed to run on Android, it means that "Doing Evil" is clearly allowed.
I never realized that one had to a member of fruity club to develop Android hardware. I thought that was the point, anyone could innovate without corporate approval. It is just a gimmick to sell phones with promise of multi vendor support 'open apps', like MS?
You can. Just take ArchOS for example. ArchOS makes a tablet that has no phone functionality, no camera, and not the usual buttons you'd find on Android. For those reasons, it's not allowed to use some of the Google applications and connect to the official Android Marketplace (it had to create its own special Tablet app store, which it is also licensing to other companies in the same position that they are). Not to mention, they do not even have capacitive touch. This is the route they chose to take. Developing an Android tablet that met the minimum system requirements listed by Google was just too cost-prohibitive for them.
And as an Android developer, you're free to take your existing app and distribute it (or sell it) on the ArchOS app store, assuming it works on the stripped-down physical hardware and buttons that ArchOS/Android is supporting.
Compare the ArchOS tablet to the Dell Streak for instance, and I think you'll notice what I'm talking about. Dell decided to meet all the minimum requirements of the Android platform. As a result, the Dell Streak is still more a phone than a tablet itself, and it's much-much pricier as a result.
And then once you've been fired, you must always be available to your company to provide that service?
Where did you see that the guy got fired???? or even resigned?? He was transferred to a new position, and formally replaced by another sysadmin, but he was still showing up for work and blocking/lying every step of the way. That's the part that got him initially placed under police surveillance, he even lied in front of the police. Everyone could see things would just be escalating from there, which actually they did.
Thankfully, Weiner didn't cover his tracks quite well enough to avoid being found out
Also that summary should really have read: "Thankfully, Weiner was a complete moron and just slightly more incompetent than the UK police who arrested and continuously harassed the wrong guy for seven months, since Weiner bragged about his devious plan to others before executing it, and thought that calling the police hotline from his own cell phone with the caller id blocked would really keep him anonymous."
Which begs the question, do only idiots and incompetents frame others? And what happens if the person doing the framing is smart enough, or semi-paranoid enough, not to use his own phone to call the cops? What will the UK police ever do should the super villains ever reach such a high level of sophistication and big picture cunningness?
Nowadays, that kind of letter could land me in prison, given a hysterical enough judge.
You've waited this long, you can wait a little more. Even given a smart enough little genius, by most standards 14 is still way too young.
Motors and metals aren't getting much better but the processors and algorithms that run on them are.
Micro-controllers are great for prototyping, but couldn't this particular example be made purely out of something that resembles the mechanism inside a wooden grandfather's clock (without any sort of processor whatsoever). There would still be the question of making the claws of course, but I'm leaving this question for someone else who's smarter than me. From the video, I'm not even sure how the claws work currently. Does anyone else think that the wall they're using is probably gritty? and that the robot is barely hanging on by the very tip of its fingernails/little claws?
Of course, even if I'm right, which I'm not even sure I am, it wouldn't negate the rest of your thesis, especially with the many other types of robots that absolutely need processors to maintain their balance/movements.
A Firefox extension is not the same thing as a plugin.
Firefox plugins ***used*** to be called Firefox extensions. You must just be too young to know this.
With all that blind licking and slow collègues, the poster may just be French (if not blind).
You mean something like the kevinalle or the linkTeX LaTeX robots within google wave?
I would suggest that you ask the Smithsonian. If you would like the recordings to go into the public domain, then I suggest that they might be the proper avenue.
Isn't the Smithsonian in the US? And wouldn't they just lock up the materials in their vault until there was no more legal ambiguity? I'd suggest he tries to find an interested institution abroad, in a saner jurisdiction hopefully, if he really wants it placed in the public domain.
The last thing you want is big companies afraid to use GPL'd code because it's a legal liability -- adoption and buy in from a huge company is one of the best things that could happen to a small GPL project because it means you'll always be around.
The last thing you want is big companies afraid to use proprietary tools from someone else because of the legal liability they'll be exposed to (should they decide to use those tools without paying a cent for them).
Speaking of Best Buy, was it Best Buy and/or CompUSA? which used the shareware tools provided by Sysinternals (now owned by Microsoft) in almost all the technical work they did without paying for any kind of business license (the Sysinternals tools were free for personal use and some of their tools were free for any use, but some of those tools they definitely wanted to be paid for, and they did go after those ungrateful companies eventually).
Did all States create those copyright laws? Or did just some of them do? And what about materials recorded abroad, or broadcast abroad? Enforcing copyright law on a State by State level would seem to me like a very difficult thing to do.
reputable ad networks? What are those? Is he speaking of google ad-sense? or Hulu ads? Personally, I don't consider ad networks that use banner ads as anything that are reputable (this includes any of the shady ad-networks that Google purchased as well). Non-obtrusive text ads, I can deal with. Even Hulu ads, I can deal with since it's film on film. It's just that I hate banner ads, or animated ads, when I'm in reading-mode.
It arrived in google apps premier, I'm not sure when it arrived, but I added it to my google apps domain yesterday. I can't say I have the best timing for these things. :(
I can't say they didn't warn me thought, it came with all kinds of ominous disclaimers about it not being included in my existing SLA and me not being able to contact them if they ever lose the content from my domain waves. Someone told me today that they were going to keep it turned on until at least the end of the year. I assume this should give enough time for people to archive their existing waves in a wiki, and experiment with alternatives for the real-time parts of it.
In any case, I find it curious that I can now get wave on my google apps domain, but I still can't get Buzz on it. Does this mean that as soon as I get access to Buzz on google apps premier that it's going to die shortly thereafter too?
You want to make the game fun, at least a little bit fun if nothing else. Allow the astronauts to die (at the very least). Allow the players to make simple mistakes, whether intentionally or accidentally, and kill off everyone -- including themselves. This is the real litmus test of a game/simulation. What happens when you give a kid the simulation of a nuclear power plant? What happens when you give a kid a car racing game? What happens when you give a kid an interactive flash animation of a hamster in a cage?
The kid tries to see if the nuclear station can blow up. He tries to see if the car can go off the road, or crash into another car. And you can bet that he'll try to find a way to kill off that virtual hamster. At least, that's what I would try to do myself, and I'm not even a kid. Then once I find out I can be killed in several different ways, or make mistakes that will have drastic consequences in the game, that's when the game possibly becomes challenging enough for me to stay *possibly* interested in it a bit longer.
I thought that the claim that slaves built the pyramids was placed in serious doubt recently.
Oh and by the way my car if a hybrid that gets 80 miles per gallon (160 if I carry a friend). The typical bus or train averages only 25mpg each passenger.
Ah! That bus is electric, so it gets an infinite number of miles per gallon.
They didn't succeed in killing the tax programs, but they did kill funding for domestic violence shelters, police and fire departments, and prevention of swine flu outbreaks.
That was my question too. They're Republicans. Isn't it a given that considering California's current budget crisis, they were already going to refuse additional funding for women's shelters, state-wide immunization programs, and possibly other core services? How has Intuit changed any of that? Is the author of this story really privy to the backroom dealings of politicians? And even if he was, why should we take his word for it?
Don't get me wrong, I do agree that any small-time politician, who accepts Intuit's vast amounts of money and toes the official Intuit line, needs to be replaced. I just don't like discussions degenerating in the "It's us versus them" mentality (even if I do succumb myself to this kind of distorted thinking occasionally).
You must mean this Deceiver (1997). Thanks for the recommendation. May be it was good at the time, but Netflix doesn't think this is a movie I would enjoy (it's only giving it 2.7 stars out of 5). Plus, it's not on Netflix streaming, nor is it on Hulu, so I think I'll pass.
For those of you living in the United States who have access to Hulu, and who've never watched 'Lie to Me'. You can watch it here for free -- with just a few ads (much less ads than one would normally see on network TV).
There is the case of that one Intel employee who collected and stole millions of dollars worth of gold from their fab plant, he was stealing only the remnants of gold by-products from the manufacturing process apparently, that guy was placed under investigation for no other reason than driving too nice a car, but he wasn't fired. The guy resigned. The former spooks at Intel gave him stellar recommendations and helped him get the same job at AMD. That employee was the exception rather than the rule. Intel doesn't usually fire bad employees. It makes them disappear.
And so most European governments except the UK I take it. All European governments (except for the UK) have warned their own government officials and company executives NOT to use BlackBerry/RIM.
The main problem is that if you send a text, an IM, an email, or anything to the person sitting next to you in any European country you might be located in, it's encrypted all-right, but your blackberry will always route that message to the UK first (and the Canadian company Research In Motion is able to decrypt that message of course). And with the Anglo/Canadian/US/Australian intelligence-sharing pact and the presence of Echelon in the UK, that might as well mean you're letting the NSA and its friends index all your BlackBerry communications for US consumption.
India is not stupid. It would have to have known about this. Probably someone from the US/UK is still pressuring them to keep this trojan horse around their neck, as they're trying to get rid of it -- not wanting to make the US lose face -- still toeing the US anti-terrorist official line (hoping that they don't get sanctioned for this small act of insolence toward their masters).
The excellent photo-journal of this girl who rides her motorcycle within the dead zone will answer all your questions, and then some.
Basically, the official dead zone is a much larger area than you think, and even within the dead zone there are various degrees of risk/safety to consider. The old people that have come back are basically farmers, from the various pictures she took. And even then, if someone were to bring them food, the risk wouldn't be the same for someone who's only driving by and someone who's actually living there.
The human being administering the lie detector test is a major variable. The system sets up a parent-child relationship between the person administering the test and the person being tested, whether the person administering the test is any good or not. And like I've said before, the profession (like most professions) is very self-serving and self-perpetuating, only here unlike most other professions, it's actually been given the complete power to perpetuate itself.
Sadly, even one of my favorite Hollywood show 'Lie to Me' is a total work of wishful fantasy. The hero, Dr. Liteman, is an awesome character, but imagine for every Dr. Liteman and each of his smart staff, how many total idiots are being given the similar power to administer lie detector tests?
Part of the problem is that getting certified as a lie detector test expert requires no screening of the students, no existing psychology degree, no review of the process, just cash, and for the one school that has supposedly the longest training program for creating those experts -- that program is only 14 weeks long. Can you really teach someone to be a "shrewd psychologist" in just 14 weeks?
The second problem is also that many people actually believe that they're actually shrewd psychologists themselves, or want to become a "shrewd psychologist" (just like on TV), so these schools are flooded with these kinds of guys, guys that think that they're super smart, or guys that get an erection every time they're given the chance to interrogate someone and have complete power over that person.
Oooops. I'm an idiot. The date was April 11th, 2002 (not 2001).
It's simple. In a jury trial, the jurors would have to pass that test themselves before they get selected as jurors.
It's just like they use the polygraph test in the CIA and in the FBI. The employees that say the test is idiotic publicly end up automatically failing the next polygraph test they take, and lose their security clearance and all credibility. The process is very circular and self-selective that way. It ensures that only the people that believe in the lie detector, or the people that claim to believe in the lie detector throughout their career, end up accepted and re-accepted within the inner sanctum. Such a device is used to create unquestioning yes-men in those agencies.
It's a lot like the Church of Scientology, in fact the Church of Scientology has been using devices that work very similarly to lie detector tests. Their device is also used for both intimidation and punishment for not toeing the official line.