Indeed. Although I don't know why this got modded funny. I'd say insightful. The 1st and the 2nd prop up the people and ensure that we can not only freely speak, but that we can protect ourselves against those who would abuse our rights in the first place.
The 2nd amendment does nothing to effectively defend our rights. It is worthless as a legal means of defense of rights, as the use of force against the government is illegal. And it is worthless as a guarantee of our natural right to rebellion, as that right is already forfeit. The defense of our rights is guaranteed instead by the 1st amendment right to a redress of our grievances.
I don't think I need to be more clear that use of force against the government is illegal, as the government is the only valid source of lethal force; unless you are repelling someone in defense, who are themselves using lethal force already.
If a police officer barges into your property without a search warrant, and plants drugs on you, you are not legally permitted to shoot him. If the government condemns your church and forbids practice of your religion, you are not allowed to go shoot them. If the government imprisons you without any trial, based solely on a tortured confession, you are not legally allowed to shoot your way out of prison.
So, the idea that the 2nd amendment allows for a legal method of defending our rights must fail.
As well, the idea that the 2nd amendment is somehow a guarantee of our natural right to revolution/rebellion is equally unpersuasive. The courts have already held extensively that treason, sedition, and succession are all illegal acts. As well, "natural rights" actually cannot ever be taken away, they can only be relinquished by the individual, and may be retrieved at any time. However, the primary natural right being the right of action by force, the government will seek to enact its own natural rights to quell your actions, and if successful, will again subject you to its jurisdiction. If you are in fact successful, then the rights guaranteed by the repelled jurisdiction were null and void already.
To point this out clearly, there was no 2nd amendment right to bear arms during the American Revolution, and the British readily destroyed our weapons when found. That did not stop the success of the revolution. And the 2nd amendment rights guaranteed by the US Constitution did not guarantee the success of the Confederate States of America in their rebellion.
My personal opinion is that a petition should be independently verifiable as to its validity (to make sure there is no petition stuffing going on), and the only way to do that is to make signatory information available to those independent verifiers - and anyone should be able to be an independent verifier.
Otherwise the petition isn't worth anything.
One could actually quote this as a summary of the SCOTUS decision.
Maybe you could slightly de-focus the face like cameramen did for women in 1930s/1940s movies, to make them look better.
Ah... soft focus. That odd effect on the screen between Barbra Walters and the person she's interviewing. Every time she came on the screen, it's like "shit, I need to clean my TV... oh wait, it's fine.... oh, it's back... wtf?"
people are glomming onto and straws they can grasp to justify waiting hour to buy a product that they could walk in and buy in 2 weeks.
Yeah... there's a crazy mentality about being "the first" sometimes. Waiting for a movie, waiting for a product, etc. People just have this "first post" mentality in just about everything. (I am particularly not immune, myself.)
I have however gotten through a lot of the hype around Apple stuff. I still really like their products, but as with most people who have been with Apple for over 5 years, I'm always holding out for at least the second generation. I want an iPad, but I know the second generation will be better than this one, so I wait.
Last "first edition", I got was the iPod Touch. The thing was great, and I really enjoyed it, however being the first generation, it had no external speaker... "awesome"... if I wanted to play any of my games, I had to carry head phones around with me... not cool.
The thing is: how many developers are working on this? On the Cxbx site, for instance, only 2 people are listed in the "Contact" section. For any serious work to be done, they need more developers.
Right, no one would ever get a PowerPC emulator to boot Mac OSX without more than two authors, right?
I've worked with emulators, and I've reverse engineered drivers.
How do you think they knew that the Z80-like cpu in the GameBoy stores the 5th and 3rd bit of of the result in the flag register in the 5th and 3rd bit?
Was there some magical spec that told people about that? No. Someone jiggering around with it found it out. None of the (non-emulation) tech docs talk about it, because it's an undocumented feature of the processor.
Emulation includes all the same shit that he's complaining about. That's why I'm unimpressed with this article.
Note, bread needs yeast to work... but I didn't include that in my recipe.
The whole article is totally retarded... He's talking about, "hey, if only there was something that we could use to play these games so they can last." Even without source code, It's called FUCKING EMULATION...
This whole article is like "if only there were some way to put flour and water together to turn it into something edible".
IT'S FUCKING BREAD! IT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A REALLY LONG TIME ALREADY, STOP BEING RETARDED!
Though fully compiled later, the entire new testament was almost certainly written before 100AD, before the Catholics. Maybe you don't know this, but Peter didn't know he was a pope. (Hint: He wasn't).
And what of all the scripture that is just as old, that was not canonized?
He didn't, therefore it isn't an interesting question. I believe that everything you need to know about Christ is in the bible.
You don't know this though. You're making a presumption that only the important stuff was put into the Bible.
Jesus without doubt gave sermons, dialogs, and teachings that were not included in the Bible. WITHOUT DOUBT. There is no way that everything important was put in the Bible, it is far too thin on details.
You may believe that "everything you need to know about Christ is in the bible", but there must be stuff that Jesus taught that didn't make it into the bible... now, important? That's a question.
But those details of Jesus's life, if they were knowable, would be just as valid as anything in the bible. Particularly, Jesus is more accurately the source of divine knowledge, and not the bible... although the bible is the best source for this.
What I find even more odd, is that this Private is supposed to have spilled his guts to Lamo over unencrypted AIM... AFTER contacting Lamo via PGP-encrypted e-mails?!
You have made a fallacious assumption that your interpretation is the only valid one.
Catholicism was around a lot longer than Protestantism and for that reason has a number of traditions and non-biblical authorities built up along side the "letter of the word".
The US legal distinction between theft and embezzlement is not written from legislation, but rather from tradition.
While you can point all you want to them having beliefs in addition to the bible, their traditions are just as old, if not older than the bible itself. So, where is your justification to dismiss it?
An interesting question, if Jesus had passed through oral history a matter of significant religious significance that affected your salvation, but since this oral history was never codified into the bible... would this make it wrong?
Funny, I actually use the Chinese IME on Windows... it is called "Chinese (simplified) - Microsoft Pinyin - New Input Style"
And I do actually type in characters using Pinyin, because they have adaptive algorithms that guess at what the most likely character to follow is. They guess well, but it also displays 9 choices at a time, that you select with number keys.
I'm going to throw in my agreement here. Yes, there are people who put numerals in their names, or non-unicode point characters, or various other things, but there just isn't a reason to foist that on other people.
There is frustration about things like, "people have N number of names", and "names don't change" which are good and valid points... but some of the things are just like "dude... seriously..."
First, you are not justified in getting it writing. You are perfectly within your rights to pursue the matter, however lacking any evidence of illegal discrimination, your claims likely will not get far.
I will agree with almost all of your opinions about businesses. I am most definitely a strong socialist democrat.
However, there most certainly are people who grift businesses.
You are right as to what it indicates. And parent poster was right as to the implications of that indication. If you cannot control your physiological reactions to different stress inputs, you're probably not the type they are looking for. Source of the stress is irrelevant.
I disagree that this "ability to control your physiological reactions" is relevant.
This is done as a screening process for national security secrets.
I am not mistaking terms. The tool is ineffective due to far too high rate of a false positive and false negative.
The polygraph is not given to gauge one's ability to control physiological responses in response to emotion, it is given to gauge a person's honesty while answering questions.
If a polygraph were used under different circumstances where its results were meaningful, then the tool would be effective, however:
The Polygraph is absolutely and unequivocally INEFFECTIVE at determining honesty.
The store where I used to work was fined for advertising a price, and then not offering the item at the price. It wasn't just the one store either... the government fined the whole nationwide corporation.
You make it sound like stores advertisements are just "optional voluntary arrangements" but the government does not view it that way.
You're mistaking my statements, and I was likely unclear.
The offer to retreat is not a binding offer. The offering party can still decline the offer entirely, and reject the sale.
Thus, by placing money on the counter and saying "I've paid" does not establish a proper sale (which is a contract) any more than any other unilateral action by one party can force a contract on another.
So, while a seller is obligated to keep a bona fide advertised price* as the maximum price, they are not required or bound to actually make the sale, simply because you offer the money.
*: there are exceptions where an error in advertising a price does not violate consumer protections. N.B. An "intentional error" is not an error.
Refuse ALL polygraph tests, there is no empirical evidence to support them
Actually, there is - when done properly, they're about 60% accurate. Not really reliable, but somewhat better than a coin toss.
I said "to support them". You yourself have put the most effective rating at 60%. That means that 4 out of 10 times it will either reject a valid candidate, or accept an invalid candidate.
This is why there have been so many spies that have passed the polygraphs. It's not "zomg, they're spies!" It's the enormous error rate of the damned process in the first place.
If you can't pass a poly, regardless of how innocent you are, that's a personality indicator that puts you at risk for not being able to safeguard critical information.
No. It does not. It simply shows a biological response of any significant emotion at the time.
If a polygraph were actually effective, why would you ever need to give someone more than one?
Why is it that the only result the NSA will "accept" is that of a pass?
No. Placing yourself at risk of a false positive of a lie detector is not worth offsetting being flagged as uncooperative.
If you're worried about this, then point directly to the Green River Killer and point out that he passed a polygraph as well as numerous spies in the USA.
Then ask them why anyone being dishonest would want to point out that passing a lie detector test could still be lying.
State unconditionally your willingness to engage in prescreening interviews that do not violate your rights.
If they are a private organization, then state emphatically that they need to reconsider their position on polygraphs, because they have likely already rejected the best employee they ever could have had... no, not you... the hypothetical guy whom they rejected because he happened to have a false positive.
I've reviewed your evidence... while the likeness is actually quite convincing (accounting for hair color), the evidence is only superficial.
It's all too easy to interpret the evidence in the way one sees best. Either that they're hiring an ex-porn actress and portraying her as an examiner, or that they simply are similar.
It's a hard call, but I find it difficult to believe that they used a raw employee for the purpose... I saw a hospital shooting something, and they brought their own actress in to act as a desk attendant (I spoke with the attendant, it was a volunteer position typically manned by a well-aged woman... not a 20-something attractive woman.)
It would be interesting to file a FOIA request on this? The identities of the individuals of a "public" film are likely easy to obtain...
It's easy to fake a polygraph test when the stakes are low. Its much more difficult when your job or freedom are on the line. Not impossible, but certainly much more difficult than what Penn and Teller did.
I take an anticonvulsant drug which is also prescribed as a mood stabiliser. Because I don't actually need mood stabilisation I get a double dose, so to speak. So I think there are a few normal drugs which when used in the right way would make it easier to stay cool, calm and collected in the situation you describe.
I saw Scream 3 drunk off my ass. I was sitting in the theater, and watching it. When someone would burst out and BOOM! SCARY! I was all "............... oh, hey, that would have been scary."
There are a hojillion reasons why polygraphs are worthless... depending upon "nominal human response" is one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Although I don't know why this got modded funny. I'd say insightful. The 1st and the 2nd prop up the people and ensure that we can not only freely speak, but that we can protect ourselves against those who would abuse our rights in the first place.
The 2nd amendment does nothing to effectively defend our rights. It is worthless as a legal means of defense of rights, as the use of force against the government is illegal. And it is worthless as a guarantee of our natural right to rebellion, as that right is already forfeit. The defense of our rights is guaranteed instead by the 1st amendment right to a redress of our grievances.
I don't think I need to be more clear that use of force against the government is illegal, as the government is the only valid source of lethal force; unless you are repelling someone in defense, who are themselves using lethal force already.
If a police officer barges into your property without a search warrant, and plants drugs on you, you are not legally permitted to shoot him. If the government condemns your church and forbids practice of your religion, you are not allowed to go shoot them. If the government imprisons you without any trial, based solely on a tortured confession, you are not legally allowed to shoot your way out of prison.
So, the idea that the 2nd amendment allows for a legal method of defending our rights must fail.
As well, the idea that the 2nd amendment is somehow a guarantee of our natural right to revolution/rebellion is equally unpersuasive. The courts have already held extensively that treason, sedition, and succession are all illegal acts. As well, "natural rights" actually cannot ever be taken away, they can only be relinquished by the individual, and may be retrieved at any time. However, the primary natural right being the right of action by force, the government will seek to enact its own natural rights to quell your actions, and if successful, will again subject you to its jurisdiction. If you are in fact successful, then the rights guaranteed by the repelled jurisdiction were null and void already.
To point this out clearly, there was no 2nd amendment right to bear arms during the American Revolution, and the British readily destroyed our weapons when found. That did not stop the success of the revolution. And the 2nd amendment rights guaranteed by the US Constitution did not guarantee the success of the Confederate States of America in their rebellion.
My personal opinion is that a petition should be independently verifiable as to its validity (to make sure there is no petition stuffing going on), and the only way to do that is to make signatory information available to those independent verifiers - and anyone should be able to be an independent verifier.
Otherwise the petition isn't worth anything.
One could actually quote this as a summary of the SCOTUS decision.
I recall hearing that some research found that we can notice a single pixel change in an image at 6 feet, even with a ridiculously high resolution.
Maybe you could slightly de-focus the face like cameramen did for women in 1930s/1940s movies, to make them look better.
Ah... soft focus. That odd effect on the screen between Barbra Walters and the person she's interviewing. Every time she came on the screen, it's like "shit, I need to clean my TV... oh wait, it's fine.... oh, it's back... wtf?"
people are glomming onto and straws they can grasp to justify waiting hour to buy a product that they could walk in and buy in 2 weeks.
Yeah... there's a crazy mentality about being "the first" sometimes. Waiting for a movie, waiting for a product, etc. People just have this "first post" mentality in just about everything. (I am particularly not immune, myself.)
I have however gotten through a lot of the hype around Apple stuff. I still really like their products, but as with most people who have been with Apple for over 5 years, I'm always holding out for at least the second generation. I want an iPad, but I know the second generation will be better than this one, so I wait.
Last "first edition", I got was the iPod Touch. The thing was great, and I really enjoyed it, however being the first generation, it had no external speaker... "awesome"... if I wanted to play any of my games, I had to carry head phones around with me... not cool.
More developers help.
Right... did you read the Mythic Man Month? I haven't, yet I still managed to learn that "more developers help" is not generally true.
The thing is: how many developers are working on this? On the Cxbx site, for instance, only 2 people are listed in the "Contact" section. For any serious work to be done, they need more developers.
Right, no one would ever get a PowerPC emulator to boot Mac OSX without more than two authors, right?
Oh wait...
I've worked with emulators, and I've reverse engineered drivers.
How do you think they knew that the Z80-like cpu in the GameBoy stores the 5th and 3rd bit of of the result in the flag register in the 5th and 3rd bit?
Was there some magical spec that told people about that? No. Someone jiggering around with it found it out. None of the (non-emulation) tech docs talk about it, because it's an undocumented feature of the processor.
Emulation includes all the same shit that he's complaining about. That's why I'm unimpressed with this article.
Note, bread needs yeast to work... but I didn't include that in my recipe.
The whole article is totally retarded... He's talking about, "hey, if only there was something that we could use to play these games so they can last." Even without source code, It's called FUCKING EMULATION...
This whole article is like "if only there were some way to put flour and water together to turn it into something edible".
IT'S FUCKING BREAD! IT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A REALLY LONG TIME ALREADY, STOP BEING RETARDED!
Though fully compiled later, the entire new testament was almost certainly written before 100AD, before the Catholics. Maybe you don't know this, but Peter didn't know he was a pope. (Hint: He wasn't).
And what of all the scripture that is just as old, that was not canonized?
He didn't, therefore it isn't an interesting question. I believe that everything you need to know about Christ is in the bible.
You don't know this though. You're making a presumption that only the important stuff was put into the Bible.
Jesus without doubt gave sermons, dialogs, and teachings that were not included in the Bible. WITHOUT DOUBT. There is no way that everything important was put in the Bible, it is far too thin on details.
You may believe that "everything you need to know about Christ is in the bible", but there must be stuff that Jesus taught that didn't make it into the bible... now, important? That's a question.
But those details of Jesus's life, if they were knowable, would be just as valid as anything in the bible. Particularly, Jesus is more accurately the source of divine knowledge, and not the bible... although the bible is the best source for this.
So, witnesses don't count?
Witnesses to what? I already said, if you have evidence/witnesses of illegal discrimination, then that would get some traction.
But if you're just complaining then you're not likely to get any traction...
I see this comment and other versions of it posted around here and other forums by guys with a pretty recent UID.
Your UID isn't that new either... so should I dismiss your point as well?
What I find even more odd, is that this Private is supposed to have spilled his guts to Lamo over unencrypted AIM... AFTER contacting Lamo via PGP-encrypted e-mails?!
You have made a fallacious assumption that your interpretation is the only valid one.
Catholicism was around a lot longer than Protestantism and for that reason has a number of traditions and non-biblical authorities built up along side the "letter of the word".
The US legal distinction between theft and embezzlement is not written from legislation, but rather from tradition.
While you can point all you want to them having beliefs in addition to the bible, their traditions are just as old, if not older than the bible itself. So, where is your justification to dismiss it?
An interesting question, if Jesus had passed through oral history a matter of significant religious significance that affected your salvation, but since this oral history was never codified into the bible... would this make it wrong?
The Catholic church makes me so angry because it gives true Christianity such a bad name.
Ah... the no true scotsman fallacy... always my favorite.
Funny, I actually use the Chinese IME on Windows... it is called "Chinese (simplified) - Microsoft Pinyin - New Input Style"
And I do actually type in characters using Pinyin, because they have adaptive algorithms that guess at what the most likely character to follow is. They guess well, but it also displays 9 choices at a time, that you select with number keys.
I'm going to throw in my agreement here. Yes, there are people who put numerals in their names, or non-unicode point characters, or various other things, but there just isn't a reason to foist that on other people.
There is frustration about things like, "people have N number of names", and "names don't change" which are good and valid points... but some of the things are just like "dude... seriously..."
First, you are not justified in getting it writing. You are perfectly within your rights to pursue the matter, however lacking any evidence of illegal discrimination, your claims likely will not get far.
I will agree with almost all of your opinions about businesses. I am most definitely a strong socialist democrat.
However, there most certainly are people who grift businesses.
You are right as to what it indicates. And parent poster was right as to the implications of that indication. If you cannot control your physiological reactions to different stress inputs, you're probably not the type they are looking for. Source of the stress is irrelevant.
I disagree that this "ability to control your physiological reactions" is relevant.
This is done as a screening process for national security secrets.
I am not mistaking terms. The tool is ineffective due to far too high rate of a false positive and false negative.
The polygraph is not given to gauge one's ability to control physiological responses in response to emotion, it is given to gauge a person's honesty while answering questions.
If a polygraph were used under different circumstances where its results were meaningful, then the tool would be effective, however:
The Polygraph is absolutely and unequivocally INEFFECTIVE at determining honesty.
The store where I used to work was fined for advertising a price, and then not offering the item at the price. It wasn't just the one store either... the government fined the whole nationwide corporation.
You make it sound like stores advertisements are just "optional voluntary arrangements" but the government does not view it that way .
You're mistaking my statements, and I was likely unclear.
The offer to retreat is not a binding offer. The offering party can still decline the offer entirely, and reject the sale.
Thus, by placing money on the counter and saying "I've paid" does not establish a proper sale (which is a contract) any more than any other unilateral action by one party can force a contract on another.
So, while a seller is obligated to keep a bona fide advertised price* as the maximum price, they are not required or bound to actually make the sale, simply because you offer the money.
*: there are exceptions where an error in advertising a price does not violate consumer protections. N.B. An "intentional error" is not an error.
Refuse ALL polygraph tests, there is no empirical evidence to support them
Actually, there is - when done properly, they're about 60% accurate. Not really reliable, but somewhat better than a coin toss.
I said "to support them". You yourself have put the most effective rating at 60%. That means that 4 out of 10 times it will either reject a valid candidate, or accept an invalid candidate.
This is why there have been so many spies that have passed the polygraphs. It's not "zomg, they're spies!" It's the enormous error rate of the damned process in the first place.
If you can't pass a poly, regardless of how innocent you are, that's a personality indicator that puts you at risk for not being able to safeguard critical information.
No. It does not. It simply shows a biological response of any significant emotion at the time.
If a polygraph were actually effective, why would you ever need to give someone more than one?
Why is it that the only result the NSA will "accept" is that of a pass?
No. Placing yourself at risk of a false positive of a lie detector is not worth offsetting being flagged as uncooperative.
If you're worried about this, then point directly to the Green River Killer and point out that he passed a polygraph as well as numerous spies in the USA.
Then ask them why anyone being dishonest would want to point out that passing a lie detector test could still be lying.
State unconditionally your willingness to engage in prescreening interviews that do not violate your rights.
If they are a private organization, then state emphatically that they need to reconsider their position on polygraphs, because they have likely already rejected the best employee they ever could have had... no, not you... the hypothetical guy whom they rejected because he happened to have a false positive.
I've reviewed your evidence... while the likeness is actually quite convincing (accounting for hair color), the evidence is only superficial.
It's all too easy to interpret the evidence in the way one sees best. Either that they're hiring an ex-porn actress and portraying her as an examiner, or that they simply are similar.
It's a hard call, but I find it difficult to believe that they used a raw employee for the purpose... I saw a hospital shooting something, and they brought their own actress in to act as a desk attendant (I spoke with the attendant, it was a volunteer position typically manned by a well-aged woman... not a 20-something attractive woman.)
It would be interesting to file a FOIA request on this? The identities of the individuals of a "public" film are likely easy to obtain...
It's easy to fake a polygraph test when the stakes are low. Its much more difficult when your job or freedom are on the line. Not impossible, but certainly much more difficult than what Penn and Teller did.
I take an anticonvulsant drug which is also prescribed as a mood stabiliser. Because I don't actually need mood stabilisation I get a double dose, so to speak. So I think there are a few normal drugs which when used in the right way would make it easier to stay cool, calm and collected in the situation you describe.
I saw Scream 3 drunk off my ass. I was sitting in the theater, and watching it. When someone would burst out and BOOM! SCARY! I was all "............... oh, hey, that would have been scary."
There are a hojillion reasons why polygraphs are worthless... depending upon "nominal human response" is one of them.