While you are correct that the person running the test may interpret the results based on their opinion of you, most of the time, the test is used to determine how nervous you are when answering a question. The assumption being that if you are lying you will be more nervous than if you are telling the truth. So that even if the person running the test is genuinely attempting to get an accurate reading, it does not actually mean anything. This means that anyone with sufficient self-discipline (and in the case of a polygraph test, "sufficient" is a fairly low bar) can pass an honestly administered lie detector test while lying through their teeth.

No, you misunderstand. The FBI is only hiring people who can lie on a polygraph test and not get caught...and those few who are not interested enough in music, games, or movies to bother to download them, legally or otherwise,

I did not say "it pre-dates fracking". I said that the article said that it pre-dates fracking....to be exact, the article quotes the researchers behind this discovery of saying that it pre-dates fracking. So perhaps you should accuse them of talking about things which they know nothing about rather than myself, who merely relayed (and made clear that I was doing so) what they said.

And the worst part about it is that Shell employees probably buy more Legos than everyone who even knew that Greenpeace was running a campaign against Lego over this.

Or to put it another way, "the size of Delaware" is about the size of Brunei or Kosovo (Brunei is somewhat smaller and Kosovo somewhat larger).

Of course, the "hot spot" mentioned in the article is NOT the result of fracking, since according to the article it pre-dates fracking. The article tells us that the methane in this "hot spot" is the result of old, leaky fossil fuel infrastructure (I am going to guess that this is primarily old pipelines and storage tanks, that have developed leaks over time, or were not particularly well-sealed when first built at a time when it was not worth the extra effort and cost to prevent such leakage).

Actually, we do know where he lives. He lives in Florida.

I assume you are referring to the U.S. response to the creation of the International Criminal Court. If so, then the fact is that the "laws" the ICC is set up to enforce include laws which the U.S. has NOT recognized, not just the ones which the U.S. has recognized.

If the man name dropped his employer, it is perfectly acceptable that his employer fired him. Of course, it is important that they did not just take Comcast's word for it, but actually heard a recording of where he did so. However, that does not mean that you are wrong. Comcast deserves the bad press for contacting the employer (unless part of that name dropping was to threaten action by his employer against Comcast, in which case not only was his firing acceptable, it is good business).

As has repeatedly been stated, "right to work" and "at will employment" are two separate and unrelated concepts. "Right to work" means that you cannot be required to, among other things, join a union as a condition of employment. "At will employment" means that you may quit your job for any reason you choose and that your employer may fire you for any reason they choose (except for some exceptions written into the law in one place or another). While most states which have right to work laws also have laws stating the employment is at will, this is not 100 percent true.

You can't...and you never could. The difference is that once upon a time, you only had one choice of flavoring in your news, so everyone thought that was just what news tasted like.

First, as a descendant of Victoria, he would be a member of the House of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, since that is the House of all of Victoria's descendants because that was the House of her husband. Second, he would only be a member of that House if he was so descended on the male side. Finally, it is well established that in situations where royals need a surname, the answer I gave would be his surname. So, while as King, he does not have a surname, Glucksburg would be the surname of all of his children who do not have royal titles.
As a result any database in which he was entered that required a surname would list his surname as Glucksburg. However, as king there are few such databases in which he would be entered.

Well, a quick Google search for "current royalty of Europe" results in a link to this Wikipedia page, which tells us that Harald the Fifth of Norway is from the House of Glucksburg, which means that his last name is Glucksberg. So, as I said, just because you do not know it, does not mean that he doesn't have one.

The real reason that teachers do not make "project" work a larger part of the grade is either because that is a lot more work for the teacher, or the subject is one which is really about acquiring a set of knowledge, not about acquiring a set of skills. I am sure there are schools which require that testing be a major component of the grade, but in every class I ever took, the teacher determined themselves how the grade was determined.

That can be fixed by the testing agency having its own rules as a condition of taking the test and as a condition of administering the test. They can even set those conditions in a rather draconian manner. If an organization which is administering a test is caught cheating on the test, all scores ever taken through that organization are thrown out and the organization can no longer administer the test. This rule would need to only apply to tests taken after it was implemented.Obviously any one who took the test who was caught cheating would have their score thrown out. If they were the one enabling others to improve their scores, they would never be allowed to take the test again.