No we haven't 'eliminated' anyone - there is still a 17.5% chance that the guilty is not in the 35 'liars'.

Look, it isn't unreasonable for the police to search a home of someone they found trespassing. If they bring charges on anything beyond trespassing, that would be unreasonable and very wrong.

But, who wants to bet that the kid was white keep in mind they did not pressed charges. If the kid had been black....

Chances are pretty good you won't have to pay them $100. Hell, I know a lawyer that would write a letter for free - on the contingency that should they ignore the letter, then I would hire him to go further.

What makes you think aliens aren't doing it already? If they are doing it, we wouldn't care. Because we couldn't notice - anymore than the rats do. Those rats will definitely do a lot better than the rats that I called the exterminator on last week.

The main problem with your argument is that you are granting greater capabilities to the rats than they have. I'm not talking about hypothetical souls, I'm talking about comprehensive power. The rats are not smart enough to understand any of what we are proposing doing to them.

Secondly, as below, as above fails many ways. It is not transitive. Just as humans ascribe greater rights to a intellectually challenged human than we do to mammals and greater rights to mammals than we do to bacteria (you don't hear about bacteria abuse cases), intelligent aliens should grant greater rights a talking, tool using humans than they do to non-talking, non-tool using mammals. If they don't, then they are no better than criminals that abuse animals.

Rights are not an all or nothing affair - they are granted based on various factors, including intelligence.

Then they begin to care. For a prime example, look at the case of Time Warner and the 'wrong' phone number:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/time-warner-cable-placed-163-robocalls-about-unpaid-bill-to-wrong-person/

Here time Warner ignored a woman's repeated attempts to get them to stop robo-calling her.

So she hired a lawyer and sued. They continued to call her even after she began her law suit. They lost the lawsuit, paying more than $200,000.

Most likely it won't go to court. Your goal is simply to scare them into doing their job correctly.

Throw in some control traits that are weird, but not "advantageous" per se. For example, I am a supertaster. Sure, technical it makes it much harder to poison me. But it also means I am surrounded by food that has been over-seasoned for my taste and I have to keep telling people "NO SAUCE", and I can't enjoy a 'good' beer, wine, coffee, etc.

No. I am not mad at women for identifying themselves as women on the internet. That is fine. Do it all you want in your posts, tweets, etc. etc.

But there is NO reason to check a box that specifically tells the various advertising leaches that kind of personal information.

There is a difference between telling the 'internet' and telling advertisers.

82.5%, 92.5%, or even 95% is WORTHLESS when it comes to lies. We need something along the lines of 99.99% to even begin to consider it helpful.

Let's say we have a school of 200 students, one of whom pulls a prank. Teachers apply the test to all 200 students and they get 35 people that failed the lie detector - but only of them did it. Worthless information.

You correctly identified the point of the article but failed to recognize the point of my post.

Go back and read it, paying particular attention to the stuff I bolded.

People bold things because they are the most important part. If you re-read my post, you can see that the most important part was yelling at idiots for telling Google their gender, then complaining about what Google did with that information. The article, unlike my post, failed to point out how stupid it is to tell Google your gender.

The article said browsing behavior was identical, but I doubt google was magically detecting women.

At some point the women told Google their gender. Why? What moron thinks Google needs to know their gender?

But once you give Google (or Facebook, or Yahoo, or basically anyone...) information like gender, then I guarantee you they will correlate it with other people.

What this means is that somewhere in Google's algorithm they have found that people that claim to be women (this is the internet after all), are less likely to click on ads for high paying jobs.

So Google wisely decides to show them less such ads.

Do not blame Google for basing their ads on what they know about you and ALSO what they know about people like you.

Do blame yourself for telling Google that much about you.

Your basic logic is almost correct. But you missed a few important details:

They will lose a few customers who quit when their bill goes up/see a cheaper plan advertised and lose a lot more customers who never switch to them because they are now more expensive than the competition.

This WILL affect their bottom line. That is how capitalism works and in their industry their is a lot of competition.

In reality this fine is not large enough to matter to the company, but the blow to their reputation is worse. It makes them look stupid and their competition can take advantage of that.

I can tell you that as just an office worker, I get PISSED when my co-worker comes in with a cough, I know I will end up getting it.

I would rather work harder and longer hours today than have to take off a day myself (and possibly come in a day or two when I am recovering myself).

I know of NO ONE in my office that doesn't think people should stay home when we are sick.

Of course, it helps that I work for a law firm that is more concerned with obeying the law than most work places.

I think this is one aspect of poor management., Management sets the tone - do they complain etc. when you call in sick? If they don't, then people take off when they are sick.

It is truly a shame that hospital management is so penny-wise/pound foolish as not to insist on generous sick time.

There was a maximum of 1 year term even for the worst possible exploit.

First, the reason the standing desk works is that it forces you to use your muscles.

This is called "PHYSICAL LABOR".

It may be a foreign concept to you. If so, keep in mind that some symptoms of physical labor are muscle fatigue and pain after extended time.

Most people use the standing desk on/off. Some of them mostly use it off.

Also note that given that you are on slashdot during business hours. You might not feel comfortable using a standing desk - and the extra attention it brings - while looking at slashdot or other non-work related web sites.

A standing desk, if you use it consistently, will work in that it will keep you in better physical condition. But only if you are the kind of guy that will put up with PHYSICAL LABOR.

Most people that suddenly decide to try physical labor hate it and quickly quit. It's similar to a gym membership.

Create a government funded council of exploits. Appoint the first 5 members, 1 government employee, 2 academics, and 2 from business.

It now becomes 100% legal to report any exploit to them an any time. Once an exploit has been submitted, they independently confirm it works and report the exploit to the appropriate author. They also give the author a deadline to fix, based on severity of the exploit - somewhere between one week and one year.

After that one deadline is up the Council itself will publish the exploit giving the original submitter full credit.

Anyone that has successfully submits an exploit gets official 'submitter' rights, granting them the right to vote on who replacements for the Academics. Anyone that has an exploit on their code submitted becomes an official 'victim' rights, granting them the right to vote on replacements for the Business council members. President continues to appoint the government chair.