Wow, what a positively derpy observation. I don't have rights... because I can't sue the government as often as in the UK. Uhhhh. Yeah. You don't have Freedom of Speech, but at least they still let you say stupid shit.
I've seen people who are math challenged, but you looked at American civil rights and couldn't even count to 1. If it helps, I can probably walk down the street and find some crazy asshole to run around the street in front of his house carrying his rifle, as a demonstration of American rights. And I don't even like that right.
Heck, in the UK I don't even have the right to wear my own ancestral clan kilt pattern without permission from the government. At least have limited freedom of religion, though not to a level that would be called that in the US.
See the post you replied to.;) You can't sue the government for that. Also, you're trying too hard; even a private employer would have no exposure to a suit from that. Telling somebody inside the same company isn't a public claim, and can't defame you. They have a right to say things inside the company as part of your employment, even disparaging things. You don't have even a single element of a case. Your lawyer would get smacked with a Rule 11 hearing without even having made it to discovery. The only reason the case wouldn't get thrown out right away is that the opposing counsel would oppose early dismissal, in order to keep the case alive until the Rule 11 hearing and your lawyer getting heavy punitive damages assessed.
I know it's hard to understand for an American, but not every place extorts the citizen's time (which is money)
But Americans love to have their time extorted. That's why they'd rather have everything self-service instead of delegating to someone who does the job often enough to to it more professionally for the amount of time involved.
It is funny, in my state it is against the law to pump your own gas. We only let paid professionals, well, paid workers anyways, do that. Actually you might be shocked to find that we have a largely service-based economy, with paid delegation available for everything. You confused the existence of choices with people choosing a different thing.
No, there are not such places in the US. We have not yet achieved the level of surveillance to tax you for the $5 you received. Shouting "the hell you are" doesn't negate that you're supposed to claim all income not specifically excepted. Gifts are not taxable, but calling something a gift where it was given in return for some consideration is not a gift. They don't ask, "did you ever underpay your taxes in a provable way?" they just ask if you ever did it, at all, even a little bit. Not every $5 that trades hands is a gift to your daughter.
The funny part is that you confuse my ability to analyze their claims, with actually being a supporter of what they do. It is hilarious.
And then we have the gem where you claim that "double instance of personal favors" are not taxable income, even where one of the "favors" is an item of value. In your example scenario, the answer afterwards, "did you ever underpay your taxes?" "Yes."
Thinking is not an apology. Duh. And refusal to think does not stop or work against the things you refused to think about. And to take it a step further, them asking a super-generalized question doesn't require you to give the deceptive answer that you practiced giving so that you can check the right box on the form; they're asking you to lower your guard, and be over-honest; honest to the point of literal speaking. They can be evil, or good, and do that. Your opinion of them and what they do should have no bearing on your ability to answer the question "honestly," or to rephrase it, to answer it literally. The literal answer is the same regardless of your opinions on the subject of the question.
Even in an exceptionally litigious place like the UK there would be no libel case, it is a confidential test conducted by the government. If you don't like what it says about you, don't tell anybody. Easy as pie.
Here in the US, where things are much less litigious and we have Freedom of Speech to prevent most of the "libel case" horsecrap, you'd fail for numerous reasons. You can only sue the government where the law allows for the suit; generally, where the government is violating your civil rights. There is no civil right to work for the FBI, and "people who fail polygraph tests but insist they're great people" aren't a protected group. But lets not toss this out yet, just because you would have no standing in this situation. We don't have general libel nonsense here. They would not only have to publish the results before you get into that territory, they would also have to be factually wrong, and know it. They would need to telling a provable lie, and to not actually believe it. You just can't get there by saying that factually it is a lie. So what? Did they reasonably believe it? They would be able to show employment documents, employee handbooks and the like, that say use of the machine is an important part of their process. You would have to convince a jury that their private test somehow defamed you, and also that the negative part was a lie, and also that they probably knew it was a lie. There is no way to get to a libel suit in the US over contested facts. You need a clear statement of fact that against you, in public, that received attention, and where the person writing it knew that it was false, or at a minimum knew they didn't know if it was true.
False, false, and false, and worse, you didn't even read what I wrote. I'll give you a hint, I covered why it goes beyond employment records. By "here" you obviously mean, outside the USA; and so no, that doesn't count. Guess what, you just failed their test and getting investigated as to why you lied about your country of origin to get that far into the hiring process.
If you're not willing to talk about American taxes, don't talk about taxes in the restricted context of asking questions of American government employees in jobs that require classified security. It is just nonsense. In your country they would use different calibration questions. Duh.
As to tests, yeah, I already know you didn't open a dictionary and read about the word "test." Do it, find out if your claim holds up. Spoiler, nobody can meet that standard; the best you can do is to say, "gosh, I don't ever remember cheating, even as a child." Nobody gets through childhood smelling that pretty, sorry. Real dictionary, look up "test." Their definition isn't "irrelevant," it is English. And no, you weren't honest on every test, it is complete horseshit. You just don't remember, because you didn't seriously think about the question; you just recited the answer that matches your self-narrative. They would easily winnow you out. The test would successfully out your inability to answer honestly, without even looking at the machine. The machine wouldn't have to work at all, or even be plugged in, for them to call bullshit on your holier-than-thou claims. Simply believing in different meanings of English words than everybody else doesn't make you an honesty superman. For obvious reasons.;)
If you really don't understand, I'll add; they don't care about "according to your own view." That attitude actually shows pervasive willingness to lie by omission; to mislead.
Soylent News user 2621 here. They collected significant donations that would actually pay the hosting costs for a long time, if they had a sysadmin within the volunteer group. I sure as heck wouldn't do it; their editors aren't very high quality. Just grab a handful of the louder people here, with different and opposing views of what a replacement would be, and you have soylent. And they mostly repost the stuff here; users cross-submit, and they just run them, they don't even consider that to be non-useful. It isn't worth money, why would I cry if they're not dedicated enough to keep it up?
The reasons it costs "thousands of dollars" to pay for traffic is that they don't have sysadmins, and are paying retail commercial rates. In public interest groups have interest from the public, they can pay low normal rates. You don't have to pay "overflow" type rates just to get a site up, that is silly. If I added soylent to a server, would I even notice a blip on the log? Doubtful. The money they want is largely to pay themselves, so that they'll spend time working on it. Not useful. Compare to other sites that are successful at raising donations. Sites that have a purpose other than "copying something poorly, because it was shoddy."
If slashdot offers value is an open question. Would the conversation take place elsewhere? Would failure open up the opportunity for competition? The slashdot of the 90s doesn't exist anymore. It was not this place. A few of the users were the same, but overall the users were nerds. Things like "gamegate" would have been run out of town, because nerds hate bullies and always have. Our neckbeards were mild sorts, the worst misogyny was merely objectifying fantasies about sci-fi actresses. If taco was still broadcasting Slashdot Radio, he'd probably have no trouble at all crowdsourcing the funds. And they even knew how to configure their own webserver.;)
Who said that paywalls and (especially) donations were unacceptable? Nobody, that's who, which is why your argument is a strawman.
Aighearach replied to a comment that explicitly said "Then, try offering a paid subscription service" so it was implied that Aighearach had a problem with them.
For the record, my position has always been that paywalls are useful because they let me know a site sucks, or more diplomatically, "that its content and purpose do not match my needs."
Your problem was you didn't understand the ideas I expressed, you just responded to the nearest cliche bullshit to what I said, and pretended that is what I meant. It wasn't, and it never would be. You don't need to add in your own extra "implication" that contradicts what I was saying; the words themselves can be literally understood, in which case they will also match my intended meaning. And, I even went into detail. Try reading my comments before deciding what they say. 0% will be the lowest hanging cliche nearby.
Your comment isn't even clear, so there is utility in going into hand-waving. One what? I can think of lots of reasons that idiots would want to use it, not just one. So I can't even parse your comment down to some sort of meaning. There is no link at all between FBI employment practices and broader government. The FBI not hiring you does not cause dangerous cult activity in government; that either exists separately, or doesn't exist. Level of concern over unclear, unconnected things: very low. For example, I'm a lot more worried about local police being staffed by assholes. Or voters voting for assholes. Those are both much bigger concerns than dangerous cultists. In fact, if you look at the professed religious views of most politicians, treating machines as magic, or even some sort of branded thing spelled similarly, would be no less strange. But I don't judge people's religion. People's religions are supposed to be crazy, this is America; it proves they're making use of their rights. Good for them.
And instead of Directory Assistance, you could go the Public Library and look up phone numbers based on address for free. Low budget telemarketers would just make copies.
Unlisted numbers became popular because some people didn't like getting phone calls from people they hadn't seen since the 60s. Facebook teaches that most people actually welcome those calls.
Yes, there are arbitrary clearances that are required for whole categories of work. They do that because they have an excess of applicants, and it is a lot smoother to over-qualify than to wait and go through a lengthy process to get clearances when you realize the work will touch some thing. Clearances are generally not gotten "when you need one," but as a prerequisite to a job that might require that level of access. In other words, yes, there are standard clearances that are required for any agent.
Guess again next time, cowherd.
These aren't for people being processed for new clearances, either. These are standard things these guys have to go through over and over and over, on a continuous basis. It isn't that you don't get the clearance and then don't get the promotion, it is that the required clearance to even do the basic part of the job is removed because you failed a test that wasn't connected to the screening at all.
No, they only have to believe it has some benefit; there is no need for us to believe that they believe that it is some sort of "lie detector," an assertion they would laugh at.
And rather than believing that a cheater creates an existential threat to the test, detecting cheaters might be the real primary purpose of the test, in which case there is no threat represented at all, because that is when it is actually doing something real.
There are so many people with such strong opinions, and sloppy-ass analysis on this one. How can you understand motivations if you see people as cartoon idiots? Assume they have a reason that would sound good to them, and that they're educated. It isn't easy to get into the FBI. They're not complete idiots, even if many of them are assholes, or they have extensive institutional shortcomings.
One can plainly tell a witch by throwing them in water. Everyone knows witches float and swim, the innocent drown.
You would figure the FBI would know better?
Wow, what a maroon! You make it sound simple and obvious, but you got it totally wrong.
The innocent float and swim just fine. You wouldn't be able to tell a witch from the falsely accused just by throwing them in the water. You have to tie a rock to their ankles to make sure they sink; a witch will use magic to rise back to the surface and live. An innocent will drown, and die. And you can't just wait to see if they sink and cut them free; you think witches are stupid idiots?! They're cunning and deceptive. If you have a history of freeing whoever sinks before they die, they'll just not bother with the magic, and let you free them. You have to let the falsely accused die, or you take away the reason for the witch to need to use her magic and expose herself in a desperate attempt to protect her life.
This isn't for guilt or burning, just a type of performance evaluation for employees, by an employer with a huge backlog of applicants to fill limited positions.
There is no such thing as Birthright FBI Employment, so there is no need to phrase it as a "guilt" or "burn[ing]" situation. No rights are being violated, it is just a shitty employer with a shitty evaluation process that fails to inspire confidence.
You imply you're damned if you do, or damned if you don't, but it isn't so; you can also just not even apply to be an FBI agent! There are lots of other industries if "Federal Law Enforcement" has too much horseshit for your tastes.
The fact of the matter is false positives and false negatives happen for no good reason so there is no reason to trust this machine.
Right, the only known accurate results are when they catch people trying to cheat the test.;) Don't trust the machine, trust whatever evidence of cheating you have.
telling the truth can be misread as a lie when the subject is nervous and reacting as such.
Lets remember to consider that this might be a desired result; maybe they don't want that employee who tells the truth and is worried people think they're lying?
what is more concerning though is that they may rely to much on them and hence the educated person can get past them.
I thought that the "more concerning" part is that the more educated people don't "get past them," but actually have a higher false-positive rate. If they worked on a few idiots and just didn't work on everybody else, I don't think that most people on slashdot would even care. That isn't the point of concern.
You don't know what you don't know. I don't know if there is video of his arrest, and neither do you. It is only knowable if it exists and information about it is released. We have no information about who, other than the parties, might already have conclusive evidence about contested details of events.
If nobody other than the parties knows what happened... we'll never know. So the claim is always false. You'd have to know the entire Universe and everything in it to know that nobody else knows what happened. You just can't get there, from here or from anywhere.
Your argument seems to be that "cops lie, therefore nobody knows anything," and that is rather sloppy. Cops lie, so don't believe them, but that doesn't mean nobody ever knows what happened. As a general rule, "it is possible for evidence to exist."
I doubt they believe he "had a reason," other than in the general sense that everything has some sort of reason. These are professional investigators; they know they don't have that. What they have is evidence that he's willing to evade the test, which is all they care about. They're not trying to distinguish between "hiding something" and "willing to cheat to foil a test they believe is bullshit" or "willing to cheat when their circumstances alter their level of fear about the test." That willingness to cheat is all they need to worry about, and then they know they don't want the employee.
They also don't want employees who "think too much" about the test, or worry about false positives because it is a bullshit test. They probably have all sorts of worse bullshit that they expect employees to ignore.
And where I live, you cannot underpay your taxes. Sounds like they would have some trouble "calibrating" on me.
As soon as they found out you're a foreign national and lied on your application, you'd be calibrated all right!
Is there really a place with no taxes? For you to understand the point of that calibration question, you're supposed to report all income in the US. So if you do somebody a small favor and they give you $5, you're supposed to report that. Nobody does, because it would be a total pain; for the taxpayer but also for the government. They want the rule to be that you have to report everything, but they don't actually want you to report small transactions that are not a significant source of income.
If you're from a place without income tax, you probably have sales or value tax of some sort. Did you ever have a friend perform a service that was technically taxable, but you didn't pay the tax because your friend isn't an official [person who does whatever thing] and you just paid cash or trade? That is the type of situation that the question gets at. They don't ask, "did you ever underpay your taxes in a scandalous way that might anger a tax collector," they just ask if you ever underpaid, in general.
It is the same with tests. Not all tests are important, academic, or memorable. They're not really asking about tests that are things you would prepare for; those types of tests many people don't cheat on. But why don't they cheat on those tests? Did they ever cheat as a child, feel regret, and develop a personality opposed to cheating? It is not very believable that a person is honest, always, and also remembers everything in their life that could be considered a "test," even the silly or inconsequential things. Did somebody ever try to quiz you, and you lied and said you didn't know the answer, because you didn't want to answer it, or say why? If you look up the word "test" in a dictionary, you'll find that I'm only grabbing the obvious ones; there are many types of "test."
What if practicing the visualization accidentally trains you not to be afraid of it, to be ready for it?
It is like they say; the more you know about the test, the more likely you are to get a false-positive. Thinking about this type of crap would increase your chance of failure even if the technique wasn't self-defeating over time, as yours is.
You probably haven't thought it through well enough. Are those the only types of tests? What about more playful tests? The question isn't constrained to "important or academic tests."
The taxes one is more obvious. Everybody has underpaid their taxes, because everybody has received small amounts of money for casual things, and then not reported the income. If you helped somebody jump start their car, and they handed you $10 afterwards, are you really going to write that down on your taxes? No, instead what "honest" people do is they claim everything that has paperwork attached to it, along with anything large that for some reason didn't have paperwork. If you're such an incredible work-class pedant that you file your taxes with pages and pages of small transaction reports covering every time anybody handed you money, or you found a $20 on the sidewalk, they're probably going to happy to not hire you because you "failed" the test. And you can go home believing you're just too honest for their test.
The polygraph can't detect lies, but it can detect certain types of behavior patterns, like believing you're totally innocent, even though you're not and didn't really think about the boundaries of the question.
Tarot works very well in the hands of a skilled operator.
The technique is a type of counseling, where each card can have a wide variety of "meanings" (almost anything) but are constrained by subject. The operator observes which subjects the patient shows interest in and concern about, and says general things about that subject. Ideally, they say things that sound specific, but are actually very general and can mean anything. Then the patient will explain how that is very interesting, because it relates to their life and their problem/concern x/y/z. If they're really good, they can say whatever the patient needs to hear, couched in the comforting jargon of whatever new-age or traditional system the operator is advertising.
It reminds me of a saying... sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.;) This is true even when it is an ancient counseling technology involving placebos and listening skills.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, what a positively derpy observation. I don't have rights... because I can't sue the government as often as in the UK. Uhhhh. Yeah. You don't have Freedom of Speech, but at least they still let you say stupid shit.
I've seen people who are math challenged, but you looked at American civil rights and couldn't even count to 1. If it helps, I can probably walk down the street and find some crazy asshole to run around the street in front of his house carrying his rifle, as a demonstration of American rights. And I don't even like that right.
Heck, in the UK I don't even have the right to wear my own ancestral clan kilt pattern without permission from the government. At least have limited freedom of religion, though not to a level that would be called that in the US.
See the post you replied to. ;) You can't sue the government for that. Also, you're trying too hard; even a private employer would have no exposure to a suit from that. Telling somebody inside the same company isn't a public claim, and can't defame you. They have a right to say things inside the company as part of your employment, even disparaging things. You don't have even a single element of a case. Your lawyer would get smacked with a Rule 11 hearing without even having made it to discovery. The only reason the case wouldn't get thrown out right away is that the opposing counsel would oppose early dismissal, in order to keep the case alive until the Rule 11 hearing and your lawyer getting heavy punitive damages assessed.
I know it's hard to understand for an American, but not every place extorts the citizen's time (which is money)
But Americans love to have their time extorted. That's why they'd rather have everything self-service instead of delegating to someone who does the job often enough to to it more professionally for the amount of time involved.
It is funny, in my state it is against the law to pump your own gas. We only let paid professionals, well, paid workers anyways, do that. Actually you might be shocked to find that we have a largely service-based economy, with paid delegation available for everything. You confused the existence of choices with people choosing a different thing.
No, there are not such places in the US. We have not yet achieved the level of surveillance to tax you for the $5 you received. Shouting "the hell you are" doesn't negate that you're supposed to claim all income not specifically excepted. Gifts are not taxable, but calling something a gift where it was given in return for some consideration is not a gift. They don't ask, "did you ever underpay your taxes in a provable way?" they just ask if you ever did it, at all, even a little bit. Not every $5 that trades hands is a gift to your daughter.
The funny part is that you confuse my ability to analyze their claims, with actually being a supporter of what they do. It is hilarious.
And then we have the gem where you claim that "double instance of personal favors" are not taxable income, even where one of the "favors" is an item of value. In your example scenario, the answer afterwards, "did you ever underpay your taxes?" "Yes."
Thinking is not an apology. Duh. And refusal to think does not stop or work against the things you refused to think about. And to take it a step further, them asking a super-generalized question doesn't require you to give the deceptive answer that you practiced giving so that you can check the right box on the form; they're asking you to lower your guard, and be over-honest; honest to the point of literal speaking. They can be evil, or good, and do that. Your opinion of them and what they do should have no bearing on your ability to answer the question "honestly," or to rephrase it, to answer it literally. The literal answer is the same regardless of your opinions on the subject of the question.
Even in an exceptionally litigious place like the UK there would be no libel case, it is a confidential test conducted by the government. If you don't like what it says about you, don't tell anybody. Easy as pie.
Here in the US, where things are much less litigious and we have Freedom of Speech to prevent most of the "libel case" horsecrap, you'd fail for numerous reasons. You can only sue the government where the law allows for the suit; generally, where the government is violating your civil rights. There is no civil right to work for the FBI, and "people who fail polygraph tests but insist they're great people" aren't a protected group. But lets not toss this out yet, just because you would have no standing in this situation. We don't have general libel nonsense here. They would not only have to publish the results before you get into that territory, they would also have to be factually wrong, and know it. They would need to telling a provable lie, and to not actually believe it. You just can't get there by saying that factually it is a lie. So what? Did they reasonably believe it? They would be able to show employment documents, employee handbooks and the like, that say use of the machine is an important part of their process. You would have to convince a jury that their private test somehow defamed you, and also that the negative part was a lie, and also that they probably knew it was a lie. There is no way to get to a libel suit in the US over contested facts. You need a clear statement of fact that against you, in public, that received attention, and where the person writing it knew that it was false, or at a minimum knew they didn't know if it was true.
False, false, and false, and worse, you didn't even read what I wrote. I'll give you a hint, I covered why it goes beyond employment records. By "here" you obviously mean, outside the USA; and so no, that doesn't count. Guess what, you just failed their test and getting investigated as to why you lied about your country of origin to get that far into the hiring process.
If you're not willing to talk about American taxes, don't talk about taxes in the restricted context of asking questions of American government employees in jobs that require classified security. It is just nonsense. In your country they would use different calibration questions. Duh.
As to tests, yeah, I already know you didn't open a dictionary and read about the word "test." Do it, find out if your claim holds up. Spoiler, nobody can meet that standard; the best you can do is to say, "gosh, I don't ever remember cheating, even as a child." Nobody gets through childhood smelling that pretty, sorry. Real dictionary, look up "test." Their definition isn't "irrelevant," it is English. And no, you weren't honest on every test, it is complete horseshit. You just don't remember, because you didn't seriously think about the question; you just recited the answer that matches your self-narrative. They would easily winnow you out. The test would successfully out your inability to answer honestly, without even looking at the machine. The machine wouldn't have to work at all, or even be plugged in, for them to call bullshit on your holier-than-thou claims. Simply believing in different meanings of English words than everybody else doesn't make you an honesty superman. For obvious reasons. ;)
If you really don't understand, I'll add; they don't care about "according to your own view." That attitude actually shows pervasive willingness to lie by omission; to mislead.
Soylent News user 2621 here. They collected significant donations that would actually pay the hosting costs for a long time, if they had a sysadmin within the volunteer group. I sure as heck wouldn't do it; their editors aren't very high quality. Just grab a handful of the louder people here, with different and opposing views of what a replacement would be, and you have soylent. And they mostly repost the stuff here; users cross-submit, and they just run them, they don't even consider that to be non-useful. It isn't worth money, why would I cry if they're not dedicated enough to keep it up?
The reasons it costs "thousands of dollars" to pay for traffic is that they don't have sysadmins, and are paying retail commercial rates. In public interest groups have interest from the public, they can pay low normal rates. You don't have to pay "overflow" type rates just to get a site up, that is silly. If I added soylent to a server, would I even notice a blip on the log? Doubtful. The money they want is largely to pay themselves, so that they'll spend time working on it. Not useful. Compare to other sites that are successful at raising donations. Sites that have a purpose other than "copying something poorly, because it was shoddy."
If slashdot offers value is an open question. Would the conversation take place elsewhere? Would failure open up the opportunity for competition? The slashdot of the 90s doesn't exist anymore. It was not this place. A few of the users were the same, but overall the users were nerds. Things like "gamegate" would have been run out of town, because nerds hate bullies and always have. Our neckbeards were mild sorts, the worst misogyny was merely objectifying fantasies about sci-fi actresses. If taco was still broadcasting Slashdot Radio, he'd probably have no trouble at all crowdsourcing the funds. And they even knew how to configure their own webserver. ;)
Who said that paywalls and (especially) donations were unacceptable? Nobody, that's who, which is why your argument is a strawman.
Aighearach replied to a comment that explicitly said "Then, try offering a paid subscription service" so it was implied that Aighearach had a problem with them.
For the record, my position has always been that paywalls are useful because they let me know a site sucks, or more diplomatically, "that its content and purpose do not match my needs."
Your problem was you didn't understand the ideas I expressed, you just responded to the nearest cliche bullshit to what I said, and pretended that is what I meant. It wasn't, and it never would be. You don't need to add in your own extra "implication" that contradicts what I was saying; the words themselves can be literally understood, in which case they will also match my intended meaning. And, I even went into detail. Try reading my comments before deciding what they say. 0% will be the lowest hanging cliche nearby.
Your comment isn't even clear, so there is utility in going into hand-waving. One what? I can think of lots of reasons that idiots would want to use it, not just one. So I can't even parse your comment down to some sort of meaning. There is no link at all between FBI employment practices and broader government. The FBI not hiring you does not cause dangerous cult activity in government; that either exists separately, or doesn't exist. Level of concern over unclear, unconnected things: very low. For example, I'm a lot more worried about local police being staffed by assholes. Or voters voting for assholes. Those are both much bigger concerns than dangerous cultists. In fact, if you look at the professed religious views of most politicians, treating machines as magic, or even some sort of branded thing spelled similarly, would be no less strange. But I don't judge people's religion. People's religions are supposed to be crazy, this is America; it proves they're making use of their rights. Good for them.
State != Federal
And instead of Directory Assistance, you could go the Public Library and look up phone numbers based on address for free. Low budget telemarketers would just make copies.
Unlisted numbers became popular because some people didn't like getting phone calls from people they hadn't seen since the 60s. Facebook teaches that most people actually welcome those calls.
Yes, there are arbitrary clearances that are required for whole categories of work. They do that because they have an excess of applicants, and it is a lot smoother to over-qualify than to wait and go through a lengthy process to get clearances when you realize the work will touch some thing. Clearances are generally not gotten "when you need one," but as a prerequisite to a job that might require that level of access. In other words, yes, there are standard clearances that are required for any agent.
Guess again next time, cowherd.
These aren't for people being processed for new clearances, either. These are standard things these guys have to go through over and over and over, on a continuous basis. It isn't that you don't get the clearance and then don't get the promotion, it is that the required clearance to even do the basic part of the job is removed because you failed a test that wasn't connected to the screening at all.
No, they only have to believe it has some benefit; there is no need for us to believe that they believe that it is some sort of "lie detector," an assertion they would laugh at.
And rather than believing that a cheater creates an existential threat to the test, detecting cheaters might be the real primary purpose of the test, in which case there is no threat represented at all, because that is when it is actually doing something real.
There are so many people with such strong opinions, and sloppy-ass analysis on this one. How can you understand motivations if you see people as cartoon idiots? Assume they have a reason that would sound good to them, and that they're educated. It isn't easy to get into the FBI. They're not complete idiots, even if many of them are assholes, or they have extensive institutional shortcomings.
And thereby this piece of junk-science decreases the quality of the people working for them. Fits. May actually be beneficial in the long run.
They are obviously using different values of "quality" than you are, but I find it amusing that you agree there are benefits.
One can plainly tell a witch by throwing them in water. Everyone knows witches float and swim, the innocent drown.
You would figure the FBI would know better?
Wow, what a maroon! You make it sound simple and obvious, but you got it totally wrong.
The innocent float and swim just fine. You wouldn't be able to tell a witch from the falsely accused just by throwing them in the water. You have to tie a rock to their ankles to make sure they sink; a witch will use magic to rise back to the surface and live. An innocent will drown, and die. And you can't just wait to see if they sink and cut them free; you think witches are stupid idiots?! They're cunning and deceptive. If you have a history of freeing whoever sinks before they die, they'll just not bother with the magic, and let you free them. You have to let the falsely accused die, or you take away the reason for the witch to need to use her magic and expose herself in a desperate attempt to protect her life.
I would figure the FBI knows all this.
This isn't for guilt or burning, just a type of performance evaluation for employees, by an employer with a huge backlog of applicants to fill limited positions.
There is no such thing as Birthright FBI Employment, so there is no need to phrase it as a "guilt" or "burn[ing]" situation. No rights are being violated, it is just a shitty employer with a shitty evaluation process that fails to inspire confidence.
You imply you're damned if you do, or damned if you don't, but it isn't so; you can also just not even apply to be an FBI agent! There are lots of other industries if "Federal Law Enforcement" has too much horseshit for your tastes.
The fact of the matter is false positives and false negatives happen for no good reason so there is no reason to trust this machine.
Right, the only known accurate results are when they catch people trying to cheat the test. ;) Don't trust the machine, trust whatever evidence of cheating you have.
telling the truth can be misread as a lie when the subject is nervous and reacting as such.
Lets remember to consider that this might be a desired result; maybe they don't want that employee who tells the truth and is worried people think they're lying?
what is more concerning though is that they may rely to much on them and hence the educated person can get past them.
I thought that the "more concerning" part is that the more educated people don't "get past them," but actually have a higher false-positive rate. If they worked on a few idiots and just didn't work on everybody else, I don't think that most people on slashdot would even care. That isn't the point of concern.
You don't know what you don't know. I don't know if there is video of his arrest, and neither do you. It is only knowable if it exists and information about it is released. We have no information about who, other than the parties, might already have conclusive evidence about contested details of events.
If nobody other than the parties knows what happened... we'll never know. So the claim is always false. You'd have to know the entire Universe and everything in it to know that nobody else knows what happened. You just can't get there, from here or from anywhere.
Your argument seems to be that "cops lie, therefore nobody knows anything," and that is rather sloppy. Cops lie, so don't believe them, but that doesn't mean nobody ever knows what happened. As a general rule, "it is possible for evidence to exist."
I doubt they believe he "had a reason," other than in the general sense that everything has some sort of reason. These are professional investigators; they know they don't have that. What they have is evidence that he's willing to evade the test, which is all they care about. They're not trying to distinguish between "hiding something" and "willing to cheat to foil a test they believe is bullshit" or "willing to cheat when their circumstances alter their level of fear about the test." That willingness to cheat is all they need to worry about, and then they know they don't want the employee.
They also don't want employees who "think too much" about the test, or worry about false positives because it is a bullshit test. They probably have all sorts of worse bullshit that they expect employees to ignore.
And where I live, you cannot underpay your taxes. Sounds like they would have some trouble "calibrating" on me.
As soon as they found out you're a foreign national and lied on your application, you'd be calibrated all right!
Is there really a place with no taxes? For you to understand the point of that calibration question, you're supposed to report all income in the US. So if you do somebody a small favor and they give you $5, you're supposed to report that. Nobody does, because it would be a total pain; for the taxpayer but also for the government. They want the rule to be that you have to report everything, but they don't actually want you to report small transactions that are not a significant source of income.
If you're from a place without income tax, you probably have sales or value tax of some sort. Did you ever have a friend perform a service that was technically taxable, but you didn't pay the tax because your friend isn't an official [person who does whatever thing] and you just paid cash or trade? That is the type of situation that the question gets at. They don't ask, "did you ever underpay your taxes in a scandalous way that might anger a tax collector," they just ask if you ever underpaid, in general.
It is the same with tests. Not all tests are important, academic, or memorable. They're not really asking about tests that are things you would prepare for; those types of tests many people don't cheat on. But why don't they cheat on those tests? Did they ever cheat as a child, feel regret, and develop a personality opposed to cheating? It is not very believable that a person is honest, always, and also remembers everything in their life that could be considered a "test," even the silly or inconsequential things. Did somebody ever try to quiz you, and you lied and said you didn't know the answer, because you didn't want to answer it, or say why? If you look up the word "test" in a dictionary, you'll find that I'm only grabbing the obvious ones; there are many types of "test."
What if practicing the visualization accidentally trains you not to be afraid of it, to be ready for it?
It is like they say; the more you know about the test, the more likely you are to get a false-positive. Thinking about this type of crap would increase your chance of failure even if the technique wasn't self-defeating over time, as yours is.
You probably haven't thought it through well enough. Are those the only types of tests? What about more playful tests? The question isn't constrained to "important or academic tests."
The taxes one is more obvious. Everybody has underpaid their taxes, because everybody has received small amounts of money for casual things, and then not reported the income. If you helped somebody jump start their car, and they handed you $10 afterwards, are you really going to write that down on your taxes? No, instead what "honest" people do is they claim everything that has paperwork attached to it, along with anything large that for some reason didn't have paperwork. If you're such an incredible work-class pedant that you file your taxes with pages and pages of small transaction reports covering every time anybody handed you money, or you found a $20 on the sidewalk, they're probably going to happy to not hire you because you "failed" the test. And you can go home believing you're just too honest for their test.
The polygraph can't detect lies, but it can detect certain types of behavior patterns, like believing you're totally innocent, even though you're not and didn't really think about the boundaries of the question.
Tarot works very well in the hands of a skilled operator.
The technique is a type of counseling, where each card can have a wide variety of "meanings" (almost anything) but are constrained by subject. The operator observes which subjects the patient shows interest in and concern about, and says general things about that subject. Ideally, they say things that sound specific, but are actually very general and can mean anything. Then the patient will explain how that is very interesting, because it relates to their life and their problem/concern x/y/z. If they're really good, they can say whatever the patient needs to hear, couched in the comforting jargon of whatever new-age or traditional system the operator is advertising.
It reminds me of a saying... sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ;) This is true even when it is an ancient counseling technology involving placebos and listening skills.