It does not matter if what the FBI is doing is also literal fraud. It isn't, they're the ones paying the employee, not the other way around, and they clearly tell applicants about the policy.
Fraud "on the ____ people" is not legal "fraud," it is just literary hyperbole. But even if it was the same word as the legal jargon word "fraud," it simply would not help him at all.
Mostly true, if you're talking about modifying your own car, or a friends. Because, you're not distributing anything.
But if you're doing it as a business, the modified version is a derivative work, and it mostly belongs to them. Considering that it is proprietary, and complicated, and can ruin your engine, the mods tend to be very small, just the changing of stored tuning data. So while I don't like current copyright law, until that law changes then if you want to be able to make and share changes, you should be going with free/libre software.
Either way it would be acceptable right now, and probably popular. But also probably less popular than mainstream Trek memes.
Sci-Fi is hard to do well, there aren't many who try to do a serial space opera. If it was a more popular genre (among producers) then we'd be seeing male captains in skirts, for sure.
If it is productive is not in any way implicated in this case.
It is like the guy that got arrested for stealing rennet from a farmer. Once the cops told he stole something useless and without resale value, he thought it lessened his crime. But it didn't.
There is no moral argument where fraud becomes less bad if you were tricking somebody with a policy you dislike.
However stupid polygraphs are, fraud is still however bad fraud ever is.
If they want to deny a claim that is part of my comprehensive coverage, that is possible, except that those parts cover me even if it is my fault. Most of the coverage is injury liability, and there they have to cancel the policy before the injury, or they're still the liable party. That is the flip side of the State insurance requirement; once they've sold the policy, they have a hard time denying claims. The gimmicks are way more often in the area of getting you to sign paperwork agreeing to a settlement before you're even done with the doctors and don't know yet what the damages are.
Some States suck. If you're in one, my advice, have a good Voter Initiative process. In many States we're in full control of our own laws. In my State, they didn't ask about my ECU so it can't get them out of liability requirements.
Heck, people with totally custom engines and control units still can get the required liability insurance. It is not a real thing to be denied insurance for a street-legal car unless you have accidents, lots of claims, or a bad driving record.
If you offer a service to help people cheat at the marathon, and you admit that is what your service is for, then yes it makes you an accomplice to fraud.
If you agree not to do certain training, whether it is anti-polygraph training, or taking performance-enhancing-drugs, then violating that agreement in order to get or keep a job is fraud.
If you're lying in order to get/keep a job/money, that is fraud.
It is "epic" in the context of "epic selfie." If you're expecting a selfie to be life-changing, that is user error. If it is the nerdiest selfie ever, that is "epic" within the context.
And, go and try to copy her. You'll find out what a journey it would be.
NASA can have as much of my tax dollars as they want.
Better them than putting it towards the next military misadventure.
No, you'll have to succeed at a long of congressional campaigning before that world exists. The one we have, NASA will get way less of our tax dollars than they ask for.
At the time wearing short skirts was popular and allowing it a sign of being progressive and believing in "women's liberation." Making a woman wear pants offended a lot of feminists, it meant that to be equal they had to pretend to be men.
And others insisted on the right to wear pants, too.
The key thing was the choice, not some idea that skirts are sexist.
Beware of judging these things without social context. Attitudes may have changed. The 1960s were a long time ago. The gender issue then was more about women being expected to wear long skirts that covered their legs. Being able to show them off was new and exiting, a freedom. It was in the 70s when the "Sexploitation" films became popular that feminist attitudes towards short skirts in media became more hostile.
And as somebody who knows how to dance the Shepherd's Crook I will also say, keep your gender attitudes away from my kilt!;)
The hive mind always needs a leader. My space scifi reading history isn't up to snuff
You haven't even read The Green Brain by Frank Herbert. Maybe the modern cheese always cops out and avoids the "hive mind" concept even when pretending to use it, but there are lots of examples of real hive minds in scifi. And that doesn't mean they are without direction.
It is just the electronics, and you can own the computer and not have copyright to modify the software.
You can, however, replace it.
This may stop some user modification if they are successful, but the more interesting stuff I see all involves replacing their shitty electronics with real computers and open software. That has no chance of being prevented by this.
I'm sure his lawyer will want to argue all that now, but my advice to you is to read the transcript of the recording from the other story about it. He was bragging about his past success in bold, unambiguous terms, in the context of promising to help somebody pass.
And the technique isn't about filling out forms, you put a tack in your shoe and use it to throw off the baseline measurements. You also do certain core exercises during those baselines, when you're supposed to be sitting still and relaxing. When you get into the details, it is neither innocent nor passive.
It is also not a technique for avoiding false positives, because if it does do that it achieves it by creating false negatives; negatives that are false, even if the answer the person gave is true. (that's because polygraphs aren't "lie detectors," and a "false positive" isn't a falsely detected lie, but accurately detected discomfort that is for an innocent reason) Having manipulated the test is a real deception, there is no way to attempt to mask a presumed test error (that hasn't even happened yet) with a deception that better matches what a person expects the result to be, and then say that was innocent, it was somehow corrective or preventative.
To follow your metaphor, it is like offering to help people avoid audits by fraudulently altering all the paperwork to remove any obvious red flags. If you actually come right out and say that that is your service, then you are indeed an accomplice.
If a mobster comes into your laundry service with a dripping red bag of laundry, and you just want the cleaning fee, don't ask questions just clean the laundry. If you didn't know, you weren't an accomplice. You're just the dry cleaner in the same neighborhood as the killers. It was probably brake just fluid, you figured.
It isn't fraud as long as you just want it to read truthful when you are truthful.
If you agree to the test, and then intentionally cheat the test, in order to gain something you would not otherwise get, then that is fraud.
It does not matter if you don't respect the test. The fraud has nothing to do with the quality of the test.
It isn't hard to understand what it means to be truthful. The fraud isn't just happening during the test. The main part of the fraud is agreeing to take the test, and agreeing to the rules, and signing in to take the test, knowing that you're conspiring to secretly alter the result. You can't take the test without claiming you didn't cheat on the test. They make you say all that stuff. This is not a hypothetical, narrowly constructed test that just happens to have the loophole you imagine. There is no way to try to cheat the test without lying. That said, unless you're an idiot and admit to lying and cheating, it is easy to succeed at foiling the test. But you do have to remember to consistently lie about it, and not end up on tape talking about it.
The fraud is the person applying to be an FBI agent, who is telling them that they agree to the conditions and the polygraph testing, and then practice how to trick them in violation of their hiring conditions. It is true that the test doesn't detect lies, but unless you intentionally learn how to fool the test, you'll have to tell the truth anyways.
So what his customers are doing is plainly fraud. There is no way around it. If they were really against the test, they'd just refuse to take it, and not work at the FBI.
That is no problem for him, if he's careful. But he wasn't. He was on tape advertising his service as being for the purpose of tricking the FBI employment test for a specific person, and claimed his experience in this as having helped many others in it.
If he had instead carefully described his service as being for information or entertainment purpose only, then he would have stayed out of trouble. Obviously, he thought promising to be an accomplice in fraud was a better sales pitch. If he pretends hes doing something legal, then it actually is legal. But potential customers are already wondering, "does this really work?" So a soft sell is not going to resolve that. Leaving it unresolved is what keeps him far enough away from the crime. If he knows the service will be used for a crime before he even takes the money, well now he's just helping. He's not any sort of bystander.
It doesn't have to be "accurate" to "weed out" some percent of undesirable applicants.
Now, I agree it is an awful hiring practice, and probably not useful. But that doesn't mean any arrangement of words that are against it are automatically true.
It also doesn't make television a source of reliable information about the topic.
Nobody thinks it is "lie detector." They think it detects relative discomfort, and they have a gut feeling that that is somehow useful.
Just like, people don't think dogs are "criminal detectors," but if their dog barks more loudly at one person than another, they'll say, "he can sense something about him." Yeah, right. Or, doesn't like his shirt. Or he smells like a cat.
Slashdot Mirror
Adding wrongs together don't make rights.
It does not matter if what the FBI is doing is also literal fraud. It isn't, they're the ones paying the employee, not the other way around, and they clearly tell applicants about the policy.
Fraud "on the ____ people" is not legal "fraud," it is just literary hyperbole. But even if it was the same word as the legal jargon word "fraud," it simply would not help him at all.
Mostly true, if you're talking about modifying your own car, or a friends. Because, you're not distributing anything.
But if you're doing it as a business, the modified version is a derivative work, and it mostly belongs to them. Considering that it is proprietary, and complicated, and can ruin your engine, the mods tend to be very small, just the changing of stored tuning data. So while I don't like current copyright law, until that law changes then if you want to be able to make and share changes, you should be going with free/libre software.
Computer being in a car changes nothing.
Tax brackets are something lower and middle classes deal with. The rich don't pay that. They already pay less than any of the brackets.
That isn't what I said, though. You're having some comprehension issues.
And it is not a reasoned metaphor for this situation.
With or without a Scottish accent?
Either way it would be acceptable right now, and probably popular. But also probably less popular than mainstream Trek memes.
Sci-Fi is hard to do well, there aren't many who try to do a serial space opera. If it was a more popular genre (among producers) then we'd be seeing male captains in skirts, for sure.
If it is productive is not in any way implicated in this case.
It is like the guy that got arrested for stealing rennet from a farmer. Once the cops told he stole something useless and without resale value, he thought it lessened his crime. But it didn't.
There is no moral argument where fraud becomes less bad if you were tricking somebody with a policy you dislike.
However stupid polygraphs are, fraud is still however bad fraud ever is.
If they want to deny a claim that is part of my comprehensive coverage, that is possible, except that those parts cover me even if it is my fault. Most of the coverage is injury liability, and there they have to cancel the policy before the injury, or they're still the liable party. That is the flip side of the State insurance requirement; once they've sold the policy, they have a hard time denying claims. The gimmicks are way more often in the area of getting you to sign paperwork agreeing to a settlement before you're even done with the doctors and don't know yet what the damages are.
Some States suck. If you're in one, my advice, have a good Voter Initiative process. In many States we're in full control of our own laws. In my State, they didn't ask about my ECU so it can't get them out of liability requirements.
Heck, people with totally custom engines and control units still can get the required liability insurance. It is not a real thing to be denied insurance for a street-legal car unless you have accidents, lots of claims, or a bad driving record.
You're just creating straw men. *yawn*
If you offer a service to help people cheat at the marathon, and you admit that is what your service is for, then yes it makes you an accomplice to fraud.
If you agree not to do certain training, whether it is anti-polygraph training, or taking performance-enhancing-drugs, then violating that agreement in order to get or keep a job is fraud.
If you're lying in order to get/keep a job/money, that is fraud.
ABS has its own computer(s). Always has.
It is "epic" in the context of "epic selfie." If you're expecting a selfie to be life-changing, that is user error. If it is the nerdiest selfie ever, that is "epic" within the context.
And, go and try to copy her. You'll find out what a journey it would be.
She's in micro-gravity. "Stand[ing]" might not have the meaning or affect you expect.
NASA can have as much of my tax dollars as they want.
Better them than putting it towards the next military misadventure.
No, you'll have to succeed at a long of congressional campaigning before that world exists. The one we have, NASA will get way less of our tax dollars than they ask for.
At the time wearing short skirts was popular and allowing it a sign of being progressive and believing in "women's liberation." Making a woman wear pants offended a lot of feminists, it meant that to be equal they had to pretend to be men.
And others insisted on the right to wear pants, too.
The key thing was the choice, not some idea that skirts are sexist.
Beware of judging these things without social context. Attitudes may have changed. The 1960s were a long time ago. The gender issue then was more about women being expected to wear long skirts that covered their legs. Being able to show them off was new and exiting, a freedom. It was in the 70s when the "Sexploitation" films became popular that feminist attitudes towards short skirts in media became more hostile.
And as somebody who knows how to dance the Shepherd's Crook I will also say, keep your gender attitudes away from my kilt! ;)
"Help, this bear is trying to eat me, help, help, help!"
"Calm down, he just wants your lunch. Take off your backpack and back away from it slowly."
"Awww, I can see his ribs, he must really be hungry."
It is an old story. Strangers are often really scary unless you get to know them.
The hive mind always needs a leader. My space scifi reading history isn't up to snuff
You haven't even read The Green Brain by Frank Herbert. Maybe the modern cheese always cops out and avoids the "hive mind" concept even when pretending to use it, but there are lots of examples of real hive minds in scifi. And that doesn't mean they are without direction.
It is just the electronics, and you can own the computer and not have copyright to modify the software.
You can, however, replace it.
This may stop some user modification if they are successful, but the more interesting stuff I see all involves replacing their shitty electronics with real computers and open software. That has no chance of being prevented by this.
As in this story, the law might already prohibit it, just nobody noticed yet and presented the claim.
I'm sure his lawyer will want to argue all that now, but my advice to you is to read the transcript of the recording from the other story about it. He was bragging about his past success in bold, unambiguous terms, in the context of promising to help somebody pass.
And the technique isn't about filling out forms, you put a tack in your shoe and use it to throw off the baseline measurements. You also do certain core exercises during those baselines, when you're supposed to be sitting still and relaxing. When you get into the details, it is neither innocent nor passive.
It is also not a technique for avoiding false positives, because if it does do that it achieves it by creating false negatives; negatives that are false, even if the answer the person gave is true. (that's because polygraphs aren't "lie detectors," and a "false positive" isn't a falsely detected lie, but accurately detected discomfort that is for an innocent reason) Having manipulated the test is a real deception, there is no way to attempt to mask a presumed test error (that hasn't even happened yet) with a deception that better matches what a person expects the result to be, and then say that was innocent, it was somehow corrective or preventative.
To follow your metaphor, it is like offering to help people avoid audits by fraudulently altering all the paperwork to remove any obvious red flags. If you actually come right out and say that that is your service, then you are indeed an accomplice.
If a mobster comes into your laundry service with a dripping red bag of laundry, and you just want the cleaning fee, don't ask questions just clean the laundry. If you didn't know, you weren't an accomplice. You're just the dry cleaner in the same neighborhood as the killers. It was probably brake just fluid, you figured.
It isn't fraud as long as you just want it to read truthful when you are truthful.
If you agree to the test, and then intentionally cheat the test, in order to gain something you would not otherwise get, then that is fraud.
It does not matter if you don't respect the test. The fraud has nothing to do with the quality of the test.
It isn't hard to understand what it means to be truthful. The fraud isn't just happening during the test. The main part of the fraud is agreeing to take the test, and agreeing to the rules, and signing in to take the test, knowing that you're conspiring to secretly alter the result. You can't take the test without claiming you didn't cheat on the test. They make you say all that stuff. This is not a hypothetical, narrowly constructed test that just happens to have the loophole you imagine. There is no way to try to cheat the test without lying. That said, unless you're an idiot and admit to lying and cheating, it is easy to succeed at foiling the test. But you do have to remember to consistently lie about it, and not end up on tape talking about it.
That's absurd. That is like saying it isn't stealing if it turns out you didn't need it.
The fraud is the person applying to be an FBI agent, who is telling them that they agree to the conditions and the polygraph testing, and then practice how to trick them in violation of their hiring conditions. It is true that the test doesn't detect lies, but unless you intentionally learn how to fool the test, you'll have to tell the truth anyways.
So what his customers are doing is plainly fraud. There is no way around it. If they were really against the test, they'd just refuse to take it, and not work at the FBI.
That is no problem for him, if he's careful. But he wasn't. He was on tape advertising his service as being for the purpose of tricking the FBI employment test for a specific person, and claimed his experience in this as having helped many others in it.
If he had instead carefully described his service as being for information or entertainment purpose only, then he would have stayed out of trouble. Obviously, he thought promising to be an accomplice in fraud was a better sales pitch. If he pretends hes doing something legal, then it actually is legal. But potential customers are already wondering, "does this really work?" So a soft sell is not going to resolve that. Leaving it unresolved is what keeps him far enough away from the crime. If he knows the service will be used for a crime before he even takes the money, well now he's just helping. He's not any sort of bystander.
I'm not offering to assist anyone in a plot. I'm just providing general information about the subject, for informational purposes.
If the "real" effect of the polygraph is a 5% reduction in security, but the placebo effect from using it is 32%, then it would be a big winner.
Just making up numbers as a hypothetical. But it is easy for it to be bullshit and still have a rational reason that some jerk believes in.
It doesn't have to be "accurate" to "weed out" some percent of undesirable applicants.
Now, I agree it is an awful hiring practice, and probably not useful. But that doesn't mean any arrangement of words that are against it are automatically true.
It also doesn't make television a source of reliable information about the topic.
Nobody thinks it is "lie detector." They think it detects relative discomfort, and they have a gut feeling that that is somehow useful.
Just like, people don't think dogs are "criminal detectors," but if their dog barks more loudly at one person than another, they'll say, "he can sense something about him." Yeah, right. Or, doesn't like his shirt. Or he smells like a cat.
Right, that is why you're golden and the other guy is going away for a long time.
You pay attention to the language you use, and he honestly told people he was going to help them defraud the FBI.
Nobody thinks it is actually a "lie detector." It is more of a measurement tool for relative discomfort.