Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Last Chance - Get 15% off sitewide on Slashdot Deals with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Re:Old news (Score 1) 125

Except I'm pretty sure you've got 'casual relationship' wrong.

Let's take the example of burns. There is a casual relationship with 'having been on fire' and 'having burns.' However, there is not relationship being 'having burns' and 'having been on fire.' The fact you have burns doesn't mean you were on fire: they might have been caused by something else, such as hot liquids, hot metal, or corrosive chemicals. However, if you have been on fire, you probably will have burns.

This is what's going on with polygraphs: There's a (not entirely reliable) causal relationship between 'lying' and 'certain physiological responses.' As you noted, these physiological responses are not caused by lying. For example, a relatively recent study with subjects who consented to having their PTSD intentionally triggered to cause flashbacks found that the effects registered as lies--which actually is one of the reasons many areas don't even bother trying if somebody is known to already have a heart condition.

If you want people to cite peer-reviewed papers on this subject for you, then know your terminology. It's not like this is something that can be found easily via PubMed; you're asking for stuff that'll be best looked for using PsycINFO which requires a paid membership to access. It doesn't help at all that a lot of the papers are behind paywalls themselves. However, there is [Risk assessment by means of polygraphy.] so the question is, how good is your Dutch? (There's a few others that would fit, but many are indexed without abstracts and require a journal subscription, such as the review Physiological measures and the detection of deception. . Let me know if you can get at it, I want a copy. Or at least the abstract...)

Comment Re:Speechless (Score 1) 291

Aside from suggesting that you perhaps ought to make an effort to demonstrate your goal yourself, it's also worth pointing out that people who hold that particular view have an interesting tendency to confuse 'a decision I do not like' with 'a decision fueled by emotions instead of intellect.' The bottom line is that the original person is very right: Humans are irrational and emotional beings.

Accepting this is, in fact, key to not letting that prevent yourself from letting your emotions rule you, because that enables you to compensate and ask yourself if you're just trying to rationalize a decision you made emotionally, and accept those moments when the only way to decide fast enough is to go with your emotions. So, too, is the idea that others may be making what are perfectly reasonable decisions that merely appear to you to be entirely emotional--they might have decided that y'know what, they're happier staying home with the trio of literal screaming infants because while their job does pay well it doesn't pay enough to make it worth dealing with the greater number of non-literal screaming infants there instead. While I would say this is an emotional decision, I'd also not consider it an irrational one: the only thing that's irrational is involving gender roles in this.

But if we're going to talk about gender roles, let's get back on-topic: Modern Western culture rewards and encourages women to behave in an emotional manner. It's not even a universal--in some cultures women are expected to be the tough, rational voice and the men emotional. The suggestion of using more emotional wording to try to increase the number of women in the field is very definitely reinforcing gender roles. This is particularly bad since there's actually good reasons to bring up the emotional aspects--this seems like the kind of job where you want somebody who is emotionally invested in doing the best job possible, and you're more likely to find people with that if you call on 'empathy for potential victims' than 'pride in work' because the latter's rare.

Comment Re:Speechless (Score 1) 291

All humans, not just women, are irrational and emotional.

The complacency implied in that statement is part of the problem, and that complacency may be holding back the human race from evolving towards our intellect having more control over our actions than our emotions.

They've actually had a few case studies on just what happens if somebody's emotions for some reason or other (read: various flavors of brain damage) cease to be involved in their decision-making processes. This included one woman whose rich husband bribed his way into getting her a lobotomy, because he thought her 'too talkative.' The only time she actually felt anything after the surgery was joy at his death.

She lost pretty much every single cent of the considerable fortune he left behind.

Emotions, it turns out, are actually pretty important to making good decisions--they remind you of the risks and encourage caution. It's like having a friend who is insightful but impulsive: letting them be in charge is probably bad, but so is ignoring them.

Comment Re:Old news (Score 1) 125

, but the measurements of the physiological involuntary responses to their questions IS quite real

So you can cite some peer-reviewed research that shows this can you? Thought not.

I don't have the resources on hand to get it, but the problem is that the same physiological involuntary responses can be connected to so many different things it's not funny--the results can be thrown off by all sorts of things, like a calm person who feels no nervousness at all or the polygraph examiner weirding you out by staring at you creepily.

Basically, it's measuring things that many people feel when they lie, but is not unique to lying nor consistently present.

Comment Re:I thought we all knew those things where BS... (Score 1) 125

The difference there is the right to silence. If you wish to enter the UK and the Border Agency officer pulls you out the line then you have to answer the questions put to you. If you don't you will be put on a plane/boat back to whence you came from, or simply won't be allowed on the train (for those coming through the chunnel).

If you are being "questioned" by the police you can just sit there and remain silent.

Standard advice I've gotten from lawyers of all types right up to and including prosecutors: Get yourself a lawyer. Even if you're innocent, a lawyer will be able to best advise you of your rights, and you have a right to have one before you answer any questions--and it may be in your benefit to answer questions, since the cops may be out to rule you out--they don't want their actual suspect's lawyer using you as an alternate suspect, they want to be able to show that you were elsewhere.

If they try to refuse you a lawyer, then stay silent until you can get out. Look up a lawyer who specializes in civil rights cases--if all else fails, ACLU or one of its relatives, because you need one.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not intended as professional legal advice, I just talk to lawyers.

Comment Re:Enjoying anger (Score 1) 119

"Previously, people had just not watched shows they didn't like beyond the first episode or two."

Previously, there were only 3 things to watch at a time so you watched what was on whether you liked it or not..

Or turned it off, which helped encourage those three things to make an effort to have as broad appeal as possible since they had to compete with each other and the off switch.

Comment Re:Goes both ways (Score 1) 119

Walmart Corporate got a hold of me after I posted several microcomplaints online and satisfied my situation much in my benefit within a few hours. Instead of losing my business forever (especially since a Costco just recently opened, they earned it back).

Those were not microcomplaints on your part. That was a legit response to bad service.

A microcomplaint is something like getting all pissed off about the font on the mattress not being bold instead of regular. Or taking a snowflake off of a coffee cup and igniting a shitstorm.

Or me complaining that microcomplaint annoys my spell checker.

It's also something like complaining about your coffee being called black, or language that is not about race being suddenly about it--and, arguably, are more reflective of the person making the complaint than anything else. It suggests that they are viewing the world through a filter of race, religion, or the like.

Though, I do agree the plain red cups were a mistake--they look more like somebody effed up the cup order. If what we were being promised is, say, a gradual appearance of seasonal symbols, I'd understand and think it actually pretty cool, but instead I feel I've got a small child who is trying very hard to pretend that nothing wrong happened honest they're normally covered in flour/mud/blood. (And the sweater is probably going to end up an object lesson on why you make sure you don't cut corners in product testing--even when it's a sweater design, show it to people who don't know what it's supposed to be. If nothing else, you'll be certain that your 'cute polar bear' isn't 'dog(?)' to everybody else...)

Comment Re:So you are accusing Jesus now? (Score 1) 965

So, to not believe in your fairy tale I have to join the douchebag crowd? I can't simply not be part of either group of loonies?

Yes, you can be in your own offensive loony douchebag camp all of your own!

The Old Testament's laws are explicitly invalidated, though I can't find the citation right now for the most direct time. While Jesus himself did not say as much, it was a very early and major debate which is documented through its (original) end in the New Testament, with what could be interpreted as God going "Sorry I thought you guys didn't need to be told the old covenant was complete." In fact, one view is that the entire point of the OT laws was to prove that it was impossible to be a perfect person--you couldn't be good enough to get away without asking and receiving forgiveness--while the NT God basically offers up an alternate option of "Automatic forgiveness on request, please try to keep the list down."

I should note, it doesn't even take being Christian to know this, as my raised-Pagan SO confirms; it's pretty basic, and something you have to know about in detail if you're studying the religion's history because parts of that theological debate are still important today.

Comment Re:15M jobs is 50% (Score 1) 291

You're trying to tell us that half of all jobs in the UK can be replaced by "smart machines"?

Just think about how many jobs you could automate away with a very simple shell script. Now think about how many jobs could be automated away with a very simple shell script and some basic robotics. The mind boggles. Also, a lot of jobs are just lost because the need for them goes away. For example, if we shift from internal combustion to electric motors, it's a fact that you won't need as many people to work on them because they are so much simpler to produce and so many of the steps can be completely automated, like motor winding — and they don't break down as much to begin with. It's simply a fact that you need less people to produce and maintain them. That's progress eliminating jobs, and not replacing them with anything.

The jobs that really could be gotten rid of with a very simple shell script and simple robotics are either already gone or still more efficiently and cheaply done by a human being. Those are the precarious ones--drive up labor costs, and suddenly it's no longer cheaper to have a person do it instead. Drive up the labor costs sufficiently, and you'll even see automation taking over jobs that automation really isn't up to replacing humans at yet, such as answering phones. (Needless to say, exactly at what point automating becomes cheaper than having humans do it varies by task and geography.)

Comment Re:This is a good thing. (Score 1) 291

It isn't always necessarily tedious and mind-numbing work that can be easily automated.

I can think of two obvious examples of high-skill jobs that are being automated as we speak. One is document discovery in the law profession, formerly done by lawyers and paralegals and now much more often done by software. Another is interpretation of X-rays and other medical images done by doctors.

Everything I've heard from lawyers and paralegals about document discovery is that it is tedious and mind-numbing: the mistake you are making here is thinking that 'tedious and mind-numbing' and 'high-skill jobs' are somehow mutually exclusive. It also doesn't necessarily mean that those who are having parts of their tasks taken over by machines will not welcome it as it provides more complete results than a human is capable of doing on their own and frees up time for other activities even if it does cut into total billable hours.

Comment Re:Maybe Johnny just doesn't give a fuck (Score 1) 270

I knew this would be among the first posts, and it is of course complete rubbish.

Have you ever looking at how babies and young children play? They are easily led by what toys are available and what adults lead them to. That's why they tell parents to read to their children - not to torture kids by forcing them to endure things they hate, but because educators understand that leading children to learn through play is better than leaving them to their own devices.

I'd believe that a lot more if I hadn't ended up reading a lot of stuff in the family of "Unexpurgated Grimms" as a very small child simply by virtue that it was on a tall shelf which suggested it was excitingly forbidden...and I was more capable of scaling shelves than the adults around me ever suspected. (And by 'ever expected' I mean they only know because I admitted it...once I was tall enough to reach it without climbing and they'd hand me it if I asked.)

It was overall fortunate that Burton's translation of the Arabian Nights was on the bottom shelf and thus written off as probably kiddy-safe and therefore boring. (Those familiar even with their reputation should know exactly how accurate this is.)

A kid who is sufficiently interested in getting at a given toy will--regardless of parental encouragement or discouragement--make great efforts to find a way. What you're doing by reading to your child is helping associate it with 'family activity,' demonstrates that you value the skill, and also helps the child start associating the spoken word to its written counterpart.

Some of this I learned simply by studying dev psych, some of this I know because it's not fun being a gender-nonconforming kid with relatives who will refuse you things they deem gender inappropriate. I still managed to get them, and it was not always because I asked relatives who were more tolerant; I have one book I refuse to part with simply because I wanted it badly enough to spend years tracking down a copy I could afford. (I had already started following specific artists before I hit my teens, and wanted a specific artist's version of a particular children's book. Usually, copies in so-so condition sell for $50+ on Amazon.)

Comment Re: Censoring speech... (Score 1) 585

If you want to get all pedantic, "our Native Americans" doesn't even include the Azteks. That was someone else's Native Americans. They pretty much went extinct because they used up their resources. We still have some Maya, though. They're still around, they just don't have their massive culture any more.

In the area we now consider to be the continental US, the tribes' behavior pretty much matched the landscape. The desert tribes would as soon kill you as give you water. The tribes who lived where there was plenty were considerably more generous... much to their detriment.

That depends on how much you bother poking into the history. I live in one of those areas where there's plenty--and the archaeological record shows that there was at least one tribe that just poof'd mostly before Columbus showed up...

Of course, each region had its own peculiarities. A few preferred cultural genocides, for example, because while they're bothered by the other tribe's existence they see no reason to waste otherwise perfectly good human resources. (The Indian Schools, in some ways, were merely innovations of scale.)

It's an interesting question to what extent most tribes' tendency to not be thrilled about archaeology is due to the fact it'd find these sorts of things out--the only reason there was much enthusiasm for investigating the sites of the tribe I mention above? There's actually survivors of it to this day, and they wanted the digs done because this was the only physical evidence that had survived their neighbors' precolumbian efforts. (The general feeling among Europeans historically about their existence seems to have been a resounding "You guys exist?" Given that they were our region's moundbuilders, and the mounds are how we find their sites, I suspect their reactions to that were pretty priceless. "White man thinks mounds just build themselves.")

Comment Re:Below minimum wage? (Score 1) 602

Likely the two-year period was picked also because that's how long they feel it will need to be since you were employed by them for them to be able to just cheerfully inform any court attempting to get their aid in subpoenaing you that it is now entirely the court's problem and not theirs.

Comment Re:alternately: (Score 1) 492

I was talking about the total cost, included ground. Usually I don't need to be so explicit to be understood.

If you are, we're probably talking about house built by the lot's owner working alone using mostly scavenged materials--which means it was built illegally, is in violation of so many building and housing codes that it might be easier to work out which ones it managed somehow to miss, and...well, probably the land has something direly wrong with it because the land sold for only ~$100,000. Odds are it's something like they're hoping you'll miss that they're selling you a toxic waste dump and the legal obligation to clean it.

Comment Re:So what? (Score 1) 246

Why not set it up a la carte? See what public services people feel are worth paying their money for? It might actually get more rational public spending by pushing people to think about just where whatever public service they think would be cool and nifty to have will come from, especially since for things like 'community pool' you could have the trigger not be 'majority' but 'sufficient funding.'

Because people are idiots.


Likewise, if I don't pay for social security, and I don't have savings, that means I'm poor in old age. Which makes it more likely I'll go robbing stores for food or begging on the street. Is that a better outcome for society - to have homeless or higher petty crime just for people who fail to plan?

You do realize that I'm figuring that the odds of social security surviving long enough to pay me and most others of Gen Y & above a single penny is so low as to qualify as a sadistic joke, right? If a non-government organization tried running social security it'd be shut down because it's a Ponzi scheme--the original assumption was that the population would keep climbing and life expectancy would be stable, given that the odds of you living long enough to see your first social security check when it was set up started pretty bad and dropped towards laughable for the poor.

We're in full agreement that people are idiots, but I'd like to point out that not all cultures even organize emergency services and care of the elderly/disabled the same way--and some of them really are rather healthier in many ways because of the issues involved in making things Somebody Else's Problem.

And that's the real problem - that's why we collectively pay into emergency services - sure it'll be very unlikely to happen to *me*, but you know, I'd rather spend my days and later years in life not worrying about all the old seniors who decided to live it big when they made money and not save up who might come and rob me, or to just be able to go out and enjoy parks without tent cities of same.

Congrats, you just covered why emergency services definitely need paying for--though you still have the question of why exactly I should trust Social Security to stick around, since whatever I pay into it now is going right out the door now. It's not an investment scheme, it's not a lockbox, and if anybody but the government tried running it then it'd be very, very illegal.

Even today, a significant chunk of the population lives paycheck to paycheck - miss one and there's a good chance they'll be out on the street, likely raising the local crime rate all so they could feed their kid (and we all pay for it - increased prices, increased policing/jail/courts/etc). There's a good chunk of people not living

And yes, there's a good chunk of people not paying income taxes - but they're both rich AND poor. But they're paying taxes in other ways - state taxes, sales taxes, etc. They're not getting a free ride.

Which also suggests a way to cover the emergency services, because part of the entire issue here is that if you're living from paycheck to paycheck, then the more of that very same paycheck you can take home the better. You could probably get fewer people living from paycheck to paycheck that way, if nothing else.

As you said, people are idiots; why give them a blank check? Even threatening them with an a la carte system and making them argue for why any given part needs to be in place would help. (Especially since some of the differences between cultures which consider, say, care of the elderly the problem of their kin vs the problem of the government are interesting--particularly in the differences in what the outcomes tend to be when it is viewed as your problem to deal with as opposed to a nebulous governmental one.)

Really, I figure that people are such idiots that giving anybody the ability to forcibly collect funds to provide what they have decided with minimal consideration to be social goods is something to be very careful in doing--if they're not going to think ahead about themselves, which they've got good selfish motivations to do, why should I expect them to somehow become smarter when it's for a common good? (Hell, we're not even sure altruism exists for a reason: there's an ongoing argument that nope, it's basically just ego-wanking.)

Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.