Greg H.

It's the strings. They just follow them from the puppet to the puppeteer.

I'm from the South. You hand them your handkerchief, say "Bless You", and go on about your day.

If they do it again, you politely ask them to stop.

If they do it a third time, you have a choice - move so they can't sneeze on you, or break their nose so they stop worrying about the sneezing.

Your wallpaper has been cryptolocked. Give bitcoin, pls?

Hackers gonna hack. The best thing you can do is:

A) Assume you will, at some point, be hacked.

B) Make sure that you have a good damage control strategy for when it happens.

As long as the program and the school are accredited, then what really matters is what he plans to do after school. Look at the classes that are part of the program and see if that meshes with what he wants to be doing later. The UP one sounds like it mostly focuses on game design/development, which is fine, but that market is flooded here in the States. Everybody wants to be a rock star has turned into everybody wants to be a game designer for the most part.

If he wants a broader, more marketable, base in terms of job placement, I would go with one of the more traditional two year programs that focuses more on computer science. Long term, I think it would serve him better.

Again, that's just my opinion.

I don't have the patience to fish. Fifteen minutes in, I'm trying to calculate a way to convince the fish to push themselves into my bucket so I can go home. LOL

While innocent will have no objections to being examined and instantly agree to do it to have peace.

That's a hell of an assumption you've made there.

Tin foil does block UV rays, assuming it's not unnaturally thin. I'd probably do a layer of foil, a piece of cardboard cut to fit for stiffness, and another layer of foil. That way you can pop it in and out of the window without worrying about tearing the foil.

From another thread on this very subject from SFN:

Cardboard (especially if it's black) would be a good way to block UV, but if you want to be really sure use aluminium foil.

Do you need a method that allows you to remove it and then use the windows normally? If not, just spray paint them with some opaque color.

If you do, might I suggest the humble conspiracy theorist method of tin (aluminum) foil on the window?

Also, don't forget your interior lights - fluorescent lights do emit low levels of UV.

*facepalm*

Way to miss the point there.

In the laboratory you use f.e. graduated cylinder 100 mL, that has +-1 mL (+-1%) tolerance.

And you don't complain that it has not perfect accuracy.

And yet you complain that lie detector has no absolute accuracy.

Everything has some tolerance for error in measurement. It should be calculated at the end of measurement.

A graduated cylinder doesn't change volume depending on the liquid being measured, the time of day, and whether or not it's having a bad day. Once I know the variation in any given cylinder, I can then account for it in future uses of that cylinder.

The problem with a lie detector is that it's a people reader, and people do not give consistent results - even the same person may give inconsistent results for any of a variety of reasons. If you asked the same person the same set of questions, in the same environment, and only changed the tone of your voice (from say passive and soothing to angry and aggressive) you'd likely get different results, because being angry automatically heightens other people's tensions.

We're not complaining that a lie detector is fallible. We're pointing out that the margin of error is far too high for something that requires a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Almost a century of research in scientific psychology and physiology provides little basis for the expectation that a polygraph test could have extremely high accuracy. The physiological responses measured by the polygraph are not uniquely related to deception. That is, the responses measured by the polygraph do not all reflect a single underlying process: a variety of psychological and physiological processes, including some that can be consciously controlled, can affect polygraph measures and test results. Moreover, most polygraph testing procedures allow for uncontrolled variation in test administration (e.g., creation of the emotional climate, selecting questions) that can be expected to result in variations in accuracy and that limit the level of accuracy that can be consistently achieved.¹

If you cannot get consistent results from a piece of equipment or testing procedure, then you are well within reason to be skeptical of using or trusting it - especially in a circumstance where one's liberty may be impacted.

1: "8 Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. The Polygraph and Lie Detection. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003. doi:10.17226/10420. http://www.nap.edu/read/10420/chapter/10

 

What evidence are you talking about, when in such cases there are always only word versus word?

She passed lie detector test, he refused.

What else evidence can be added or found.. ?

None.

 

There is word of politician/judge/celebrity/etc high society member versus somebody else much lower class, typically.

 

In her case, she was also from almost the same class, attorney, professor on University, and yet her word was ignored, and she discredited.

 

If professor in University testimony, supported with lie detector test, is not reliable, then whose testimony is reliable, especially "John Doe".. ?

 

It's not about molestation, but about lying in front of commission which is supposed to investigate whether nomination is good choice or not.

What is sense of existence of such nomination commission if they are biased, and ignore everybody testimonies.. ?

 

All of you are simply supporting view that people should not come up with true, just keep mouth shut and mind their own business.

Because if people will tell truth, against high society member, they will be discredited and their life devastated.

There's this thing in jurisprudence it's called "evidence". Despite what you may have heard, much like in science, it is not the plural of the word anecdote. The American legal system doesn't operate on the basis of "Oh well this random person who used to work for you says you're a terrible person so..it must obviously be true."

As has already been pointed out, lie detectors are so laughably fallible, they aren't even admissible in court. unless both parties to the case (and the judge) agrees to admit the results. Why? Because they don't measure if you're lying - they measure if your physiological responses change when you're asked a certain question. Simple nervousness at being strapped to a machine and asked questions by a strange person with the power to imprison you would make roughly everyone nervous as hell. I would consider anyone who can pass a lie detector immediately a candidate for testing for sociopathic tendencies (not really, but you get the point)

If we used the same standard of evidence for science that the lie detector provides, the earth would still be flat, the sun would still revolve around the earth, and the earth would be roughly 6,000 years old. "Because someone said so, yo.".

My bullshitometer is registering high this morning. Interesting.

swansont, offtopic, but what is your avatar from?

 

Because now (16 April 2016) was released movie about this story.

And they did one back in 1999. There have been several books on the topic, and both Hill and Thomas addressed it in their memoirs/auto-biographies.

The fact is, this is very old news - there wasn't enough evidence to keep Thomas off the bench then, there hasn't been enough to have him impeached since his confirmation, and I sincerely doubt there will be any more truthiness to be found in a made for HBO movie about the subject.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination

That was in 1991. You fail to answer my question about why all of this is suddenly earth shattering news now, 25 years later.

I'm confused. Dude has been a sitting Supreme Court Justice for like...20 years? What's all the hubbub, bub?

In this day and age, computer and information security is in high demand. Learn how to develop properly secure applications, where the common security flaws are and how to close them.

So you are in the same situation as 3/4 or 4/5 of the entire population of the world.

And smarter than most of them because he's knows he's not ready for a kid.

We have no reason to suspect that the laws of physics or chemistry have changed since the days of the early earth. We also have no evidence that the moon is made of green cheese, that dogs play poker (that one painting not withstanding) or that rats escape from test labs and form secret underground societies.

In the absence of evidence, the proper position to take as a scientist is that of the skeptic. This is not a position based on faith, but rather a position based on a lack of evidence.

I was once asked by an employer (I'll decline to say which one), "Will you keep company information secret?" My response was a sincere "Yes. Unless you do something illegal." Fortunately, I have never had to make that decision, but the fact of the matter is, corporations are not in the business of doing what's right, or even doing what's legal. Most companies do the right thing - but some do not. And as far as I am concerned, once my employer knowingly breaks the law, all bets are off. I will throw them under the proverbial bus before I sacrifice my own principles.

I've never been a fan of rote memorization beyond a certain level. It's far better to teach people how to find information effectively than to try and make them remember it all.

 

As with much of science, you need to quantify things. A chest x-ray is not going to kill you. You have radioactive sources inside your own body (charged particles are worse than gammas of the same energy)

 

Also, radio waves are not slower than microwaves.

You're right of, course.

And slower here is used as a layman's term meaning "of lower frequency". Velocity wise, of course, they all travel at the same speed. I should have been more precise.

Microwaves can be harmful, which is why the doors have those little grilles in them. Not because of harmful nuclear radiation, but because they will cause burns from heating up the water and fat in your body (which is what it does to your food too). The little grilles have holes spaced closer together than the wavelength of the microwave, which lets you see in (because light has a shorter wavelength) but stops the microwaves from getting out by disrupting them at the grille. In general, the shorter the wavelength of an electromagnetic wave, the less dangerous it is, though all of them can be dangerous through prolonged exposure (how long depends on the frequency of the wave) and how it affects the body in the first place. Radio waves aren't that dangerous (unless the power level is really high, and you're really close). We're literally swimming through a sea of them just being alive. Gamma rays, on the other hand, will straight up kill you with very little exposure due to their much higher energy levels.

As far as Electromagnetic radiation goes, light is also electromagnetic radiation, and it can also be harmful if it's too bright and the exposure is too long (staring at the sun, snowblindness, etc). But in reality, people are bathed in microwaves (and their slower cousins, radio waves) all the time. Frankly, you're more likely to get hurt by eating food that's too hot

Though it seems insignificant and kinda slow, the earth's rotation speed is around 1000 mph. So as speeds go, that seems fairly ohenon

Not really. If you really want to see some impressive rotational speed take a look at Jupiter (28,000 miles an hour). But don't get too caught up in that big impressive number. What really matters is the RPM. A car tire (on average) rotates about 750 times a minute - this is why a weight imbalance causes such a drastic reaction The earth spins (as pointed out above) literally several orders of magnitude slower than a car tire, which means it is several orders of magnitude more tolerant to any weight imbalance.

Since we seem to have divulged into the "words have dictionary definitions" topic, I'd just like to point out that the word "run" has no less that 645 definitions in the English language¹. So saying that words have meanings, while technically true, does not get any closer to which of those meanings was actually meant at any given time. You need context for that. And even then, context may not be enough. If I say "I am running to the store." does that mean:
A) I am literally running (as in self motivating using my feet at a quick pace) or
B) I am going to the store, but I am probably driving.

Now normally, you mean B. But hey, maybe Jesse Owens literally did run to the the store. (That does seem to be his thing). Meaning comes from more than the simple dictionary definition. Words gain context, they have connotations, and even your audience may alter which words you choose to convey a specific meaning.

Any chance we could get back to the "all software has bugs" thing now? Or split this asinine discussion into another topic?.