Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Type the third word in this sentence: 'The quick brown fox jumps.' (answer in lowercase):
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by George W. Maschke
 - Apr 18, 2007, 12:18 PM
Quote from: emp on Apr 18, 2007, 12:03 PMI've already declared myself as a marxist and LOL an ethical vegan. I've already been escorted out of the building and right out of my career as a government scientist.

Anyway they have infiltrators who's job is to just make lists of "threats" to US "security". They have all kinds of front companies and it would hardly be surprising if this little site was yet another of them.
What evidence would satisfy you that it's not?

QuoteWith that said I took a polygraph for my top secret security clearance 15+ years ago. It was extremely clear that the test was useless and only worked to the extent that it got people to just confess to whatever. Twas very depressing that all of my colleagues were dumb enough to believe in it.
AntiPolygraph.org is working to make what you understood 15+ years ago clear to all who are subject to polygraph screening.

QuoteBut I've always kept my mouth shut about it as i figured it was useful in catching some real criminals. Now though the level of our government corruption has really gotten egregarious. And anyway functional MRI is close to making real lie detectors.
The polygraph has indeed proven useful in catching some real criminals. But any cost/benefit analysis must also include a consideration of the disutility of relying on an unreliable procedure such as polygraphy. For examples of the needless harm caused by misplaced official reliance on lie detectors, see Chapter 2 of The Lie Behind the Lie Detector and our Personal Statements page. (The 3rd statement is my own.)
Posted by emp
 - Apr 18, 2007, 12:03 PM
I've already declared myself as a marxist and LOL an ethical vegan. I've already been escorted out of the building and right out of my career as a government scientist.

Anyway they have infiltrators who's job is to just make lists of "threats" to US "security". They have all kinds of front companies and it would hardly be surprising if this little site was yet another of them.

With that said I took a polygraph for my top secret security clearance 15+ years ago. It was extremely clear that the test was useless and only worked to the extent that it got people to just confess to whatever. Twas very depressing that all of my colleagues were dumb enough to believe in it.

But I've always kept my mouth shut about it as i figured it was useful in catching some real criminals. Now though the level of our government corruption has really gotten egregarious. And anyway functional MRI is close to making real lie detectors.