He was personally freed from all consequences once re-elected. As he told the Russian President he would never have to face another election so he would be more flexible once re-elected.

As for consequences to the democratic party he is no more free before the recent midterm election than after. What he did and what he will do will effect the party, be it helpful or hurtful.

Shipping without any testing and bug fixes at all are not.

Did you ever watch CSPAN when Obamacare was being drafted? I watched one night. Something drafted in the backrooms by who knows who was brought out. Democrats offered zero amendments. Some republicans offered BS amendments and were rightfully voted down. Other republicans offered constructive well thought out amendments with explanations for the problem / unintended consequence they were addressing. Every single one of these amendments were voted down **without** discussion. No questions. No debate. No discussion. Nothing. It was as if the current text of the bill was negotiated somewhere else behind closed doors and **zero** changes could be made.

Textbooks, and Electric Company videos, about bills ... meet the real world.

The problem is these coders will never see the 1.0 release before they are asked to vote on it. There are no opportunities to debug the first draft.

The camelback is 0.8L itself but as I pointed out it can carry everything, snacks, tools, spares, rain jacket, etc. The model I'm referring to is a 24L backpack with a 3L bladder. No need for any other bag or attachment devices on the bike.

Its a technology that needs a demonstration platform. I wouldn't read too much into cycling being used for these demonstrations.

If in an undeveloped area the coastline may have anything from small streams to rivers emptying into the ocean (well small steams generally disappear at the sand, or a little earlier, and go subterranean but are often visible from the coastal trail/road). Backpacking water filters (mine is roughly 1 pound / 0.5 kilo) work quite well under these circumstances to make the water potable.

I used 1L in the example since the device was claiming 0.5L an hour under ideal conditions. The weights I used for the camelback itself were actually for a 3L model. Personally I always fill it to 3L despite normally consuming 1.5L on rides and hikes. I'd rather have extra than go without, plus its a safety margin. If I think I'll need all 3L to get from one fill to another I'll bring a second 3L bladder.

Re-read my post. Its making no claim about polygraphs spotting a troublesome candidate. Its pointing out that the government could see value by troublesome candidates self-selecting to avoid jobs that involve a polygraph, or a candidate cracking under pressure and making an admission. Refuting is a 3rd case, it provides no value, but it does not change the fact that the other 2 cases may provide value from a government perspective.

How much does the device weigh? A camelback with 1 liter is about 4 pounds / 1.8 kilos?

Plus the camelback is multipurpose and can carry snacks, tools, etc.

A demonstrably false statement on your part. You in fact started this subthread in response to my post where I began "He entered into a conspiracy ..."
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

He's charged with conspiracy, he knew the intent of the training was to conceal criminal activity by a law enforcement officer from an agency investigation. Whether the training was effective or necessary is not relevant. All that matters is that he was willing to assist in such concealment in any manner.

Placebos are not a scam when they produce a desirable effect. To the government, tricking a person with a questionable background into avoiding jobs where a security clearance would be necessary is beneficial. As is tricking a person into not attempting deception during an investigation. The government believes they experience a benefit by such trickery.

No problem. It never happens in the venue where the former police officer in question is headed, in court.

Please. Your dodge is going beyond ridiculous. *You* wrote "If there's no damage to society, there's no crime". *You* implied there was no damage to society. Now faced with the actual charge, "training a federal law enforcement officer to lie and conceal involvement in criminal activity" all of a sudden damage to society is a moot issue?

Your repeated dodging constitutes a quite clear answer, you have essentially admitted that you were wrong to imply there was no potential damage to society in this case.

Doubling down on the absurd I see. Polygraphs are not allowed as evidence. The charges must be proven using other methods.