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:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by joseph7
 - Dec 24, 2010, 01:53 PM
Is anyone following this research funded by Homeland Security?
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1891
Basically, they are using the same old polygraphic measures (the fact they are trying to use non-contact equivalents does not change the logic at all; it just makes the signals noisier) to screen for "malintent". When you try to find out what it is meant by "malintent" and details about the underlying theory, you realize pretty fast that it is the same flawed polygraph logic: if you plan to do something bad you act strange. Huge amounts of money are being spent on this ridiculous project.

Joseph