You would think having to control the speed when a car it is self parking kind of defeats the purpose, a lot of parking is stopping at the right time.

The question is, are sales significantly up? Assuming that pirates are not just hiding better, then if sales aren't up then clearly piracy doesn't actually significantly effect the companies bottom line.

First how exactly do you test a lie detector? If and you don't actually feel guilty, since the crime is fake, or if you are accused of a crime which you know is fake, you are not going to feel anxious. If a normal person is accused of murder they may feel anxious even if they didn't do it.

They also probably did the standard myth busters test, we tried and can't do it so nobody can.

As for betting speed cameras, I have an idea beating at least the new infra red cameras, put lots of really bright infra red LEDs around your license plate to "blind" the camera.

He probably couldn't have passed the test, since the test is so subjective, the examiner knows he can cheat the test, they would just say that the detected him cheating, therefore he has something to hide, therefore he must be lying.

Part of his technique (if you are going to lie) is to not tell the examiner that you know how to bet the test

according to this: http://www.differencebetween.n... it is far more likely that they are psychopaths.

however the differences it does list basically say, a psychopath is an organized, successful sociopath.

I think being a psychopath (or having some of those traits) makes you more likely to be a leader because more likely to manipulate your way to the top. Whether you are better leader is questionable.

Captain Kirk was a bad leader, he would risk the entire ship, go down on way missions, but this was not because he was a not a psychopath, it was because it made a more interesting show. A psychopath will do what is in their best interest, not the crews, maybe go on way missions so you can get the hot alien chick, not thinking that you may leave your entire crew captain less. If you care about others, you will also care about the other members of your crew as well, and not put there lives in jeopardy just to save a mate.

TV shows and movies tend place very little value on lives extras, you may have a show where hundreds of people die, nobody cares but if part of the main cast dies, everything is so sad. Everyone's life is valuable. Yes I don't morn every death in the world, but if am responsible for their lives, I would take into consideration their lives as well my mates.

That's not really how you cheat a lie detector you do math in your head (or other technique) on the calibration lie questions, e.g. did you ever cheat in school? The questions you are really trying to hide do nothing. So your physiological response is higher on them so they don't think you are lying on the actual questions.

Maybe what I just said, is illegal then again I am not in the US.

Also his book is/was available for free, I assume he charged for actual lessons with actual polygraphs, which actually used his time. So probably not mail order fraud, but probably still illegal.

My commitment issue is giving out credit card info, I don't by free stuff of sites want my credit card information, to make the purchase either.

Of course it will stop companies making more money that is why they do it. And they are much more likely to sell the content closer to the lower price because each copy costs 0 to produce.

The question is, is it far to charge a higher price to someone just because they can afford it? How would you like it if you went into mcdonalds, and they said nice rollex, and charged you $100 per burger. Or maybe because you are white, they charged you more. What is the difference?

No one has a right to profit and practices should be fair, if you can't succeed with fair rules, well perhaps you should fail.

people will still use the same password even with this tool, because they are lazy.

instead of "password" for all sites they will use password.google or something similar to bypass this and the passwords will still be fished

Of course you can take resources from the poor. Take water from a lake? or pollute the air, oil from there ground, why does this resource belong to anyone in particular. In this case an innovation developed by the government, paid by tax dollars, so it should be communal property.

You are also naive to believe the main reason people get underpaid is because they are stupid, it is because they have little choice, either through force, or they have so little, that they need to take an offer or die, lack of food, ...

I agree, why should they have a desire, to spreed or take over the world at all, it is a survival instinct, which they need not have.

The problem is that once a AI becomes self aware, what ever that means, it will be able to, evolve beyond what we have programmed.

In all these scenarios we credit them with super intelligence the ability to break into any system, out think us, but do not credit them with the ability to show compassion, or accept the need to diversity. I believe compassion is necessary trait in order to work well in a community. Even humans in our greed still realize that destroying other life is not beneficial, we try to protect sharks, tigers, ... even though they pose a small threat. If machines truly become that intelligent we will only pose a small threat as well.

In the end the universe is an incredibly large place, and if we develop true, self replicating/ repairing AI, we will greatly expand our ability for space travel. Surely the universe is a big enough place for all of us. Possibly a highly intelligent life form will be able to recognize this.

Car keys are another example. It costs $400 a key on my $20,000 car, it came with 2 so 4% of the value of the car was in the keys. It is cheaper to buy and install an alarm system, with 2 keys than to get a new key.

I love the free market it is great, but it only works if it has competition, which forces producers to reduce there price, and become more efficient. Copyright removes competition. As a result you get crazy prices like this.

So what you are saying you should hire the man right, because in my country New Zealand, it is illegal to grant a scholarship to a male based on gender but perfectly legal to do so for a woman, right?

A is worse, especially when it comes to sex. why?
1. You are not hiring the best qualified people, therefor making your company inefficient.
2. It is unfair, why should the current generation be punished, for the views of there ancestors.
3. It breeds animosity, and removes respect for preferred people hired under the scheme. E.g. even if a women is hired, because they where the most capable, there will be a level of doubt about it.

Why is A worse for sexual discrimination?
When it comes to sex there is no generational injustice here you don't need to compensate a woman for x hundred years of inequality. Or adjust for the fact that the family is poorer than they would have been if there parents where not discriminated against.

The only reason you would choose B, is if you are too focused on statistics. We need 50/50 distribution of men and women to be fair. The question is why? There are a lot of trained people in the industry from many years ago that are men, it is not efficient or even plausible, to loose the skills and train women to take their place. So the solution is to hire more women who are less qualified for new entries. Well once the old men leave the workplace you will have a glut of women. Then you will be subject the males in the future of the at best unintentional gender biases of the predominantly female faculty.

Statistics like any metric, are useful but should be taken with a grain of salt. You need to understand their limitations.

I don't quite understand the whole drive to have equal numbers men an women working in IT anyway, perhaps women just do not like that type of job, is it really in societies interest to force people into career paths that they don't enjoy, just for the sake of a statistic.