Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Polygraph (Score 1) 452

by JacksBrokenCode (#32570030) Attached to: The Truth About the Polygraph, According To the NSA

If you can't pass a poly, regardless of how innocent you are, that's a personality indicator that puts you at risk for not being able to safeguard critical information.

No. It does not. It simply shows a biological response of any significant emotion at the time.

You are right as to what it indicates. And parent poster was right as to the implications of that indication. If you cannot control your physiological reactions to different stress inputs, you're probably not the type they are looking for. Source of the stress is irrelevant.

If a polygraph were actually effective, why would you ever need to give someone more than one?

You mistake "effective" with "perfected". If polygraph were perfected, there would be no need to repeat. They aren't perfected.

Why is it that the only result the NSA will "accept" is that of a pass?

What is the purpose of having a test if not to check whether applicants can "pass"?

Out in the real world, sometimes you have to sacrifice "ideal" and "perfect" and settle for "this works better than whatever else we have". You put a bunch of "this works" tools together, and hopefully you can draw an image of a candidate that is comprehensive enough to make an informed decision about their suitability for the job. Is a polygraph perfect? No. Does it operate in a vacuum? No.

Comment: What am I missing here? (Score 1) 325

by JacksBrokenCode (#32489286) Attached to: HP Gives Printers Email Addresses

Would SPAM be a problem if the machine requires that the sender's email address be on the whitelist and a passcode must be in the subject line?

Have 2 different passcodes - printer code for printing, admin code to remotely execute certain commands (like adding/removing other email addresses from the whitelist). Throw in a little logic to take itself offline temporarily (or some other response) if it's getting DOS'd. Should be fairly ok, no?

Comment: Re:Pretty naive (Score 1) 317

by JacksBrokenCode (#31752438) Attached to: Facebook Crawler Speaks Back

I'd also add that you should not be able to "contribute" to more than one candidate in any given race, on the grounds that that's briberey plain and simple.

Where did the idea that money equals speech come from, anyway? Money is NOT speech. But like you say, good luck ever getting that implimented in our plutocratic pseudo-republic.

What do you consider acceptable political speech and what don't you? How do you make the distinction? If I have a means to promote a candidate (time, money, whatever), wouldn't restricting my means (in this context) constitute restricting my political speech?

Something else you seem to miss out on is that voting is bribery. You give something (a vote) in exchange for something (the candidate of your choice has a better chance of getting elected). Whether with short term or long term goals in mind, people do not naturally vote against their own perceived-best interest. Politicians know this and pander to their constituents, "bribing" citizens for their votes. Like it or hate it, it's how it the system is designed.

To quote George Will, "Politics in a democracy is transactional: Politicians seek votes by promising to do things for voters, who seek promises in exchange for their votes."

Comment: Re:Are nerds not aware (Score 1) 844

by JacksBrokenCode (#30908700) Attached to: Is Programming a Lucrative Profession?

If we're nothing more than mechanics, there should still be NO reason to pay Chevy wages to fix or maintain a Ferrari.

And nobody does. If you're working on a true Ferrari, and you're a truly qualified Ferrari mechanic... you get paid Ferrari-level wages. Duh.

The problem here is all the people who think their Yugo is actually a Veyron, and should be paid like a NASCAR pit chief because they can plug a tire and change oil.

Comment: ...ahhhhhhh, yes. (Score 1) 290

by JacksBrokenCode (#30847334) Attached to: Sherlock Holmes and the Copyright Tangle

Perhaps without that free cash, they may have been impelled to go out and produce new creative works of their own.

Or perhaps they would have been impelled to pump gas or flip burgers. Who knows?

Using your logic, an author with rights to Conan-Doyle's work has no incentive to create new unique works. Therefore, we don't want Conan-Doyle's work to become public domain because then the masses have access to his work and nobody has incentive to be creative.

The point is... nobody is being prevented from creating, and the only people with any ability to rest on their laurels are people with rights to the work. Wouldn't it then make sense to limit those rights to as few people as possible to encourage the masses to do more creative work of their own?

Comment: Re:The copyright cash cow (Score 1) 290

by JacksBrokenCode (#30833092) Attached to: Sherlock Holmes and the Copyright Tangle

if you can milk something infinately, it removes all incentive to create new creative works

I see this argument a lot on Slashdot and it's absurd on its face. For as long as the copyright is in effect, there may be less incentive for the owner to create other works, however, there is more incentive for other creators to produce creative works. Since others cannot personally benefit from a previously created work (unless they own it), they are encouraged to create new works of their own. Your argument seems to assume that there is only one creator out there and this individual stops making new creations then there will be no new works.

If copyright was short term or nonexistent and Tex Avery chose to copy Mickey Mouse instead of creating Bugs Bunny, would that have contributed to art or culture? Walt Disney owned Mickey Mouse, but he didn't sit around "milking" that property infinitely - he created a whole cast of additional characters. He was then able to use his ownership of those creative works to build up a company that provided jobs for thousands of animators, construction workers, designers, unskilled workers, etc.

Allowing people to control their creative works fosters creativity, it doesn't stifle it. Even if a creator chooses to stop creating and live off his/her existing properties, that doesn't prevent the rest of the world from producing new and unique works.

Comment: Re:as they would say on FARK.. (Score 1) 572

by JacksBrokenCode (#29842075) Attached to: Yahoo Offered Lap Dances At Hack Event

FWIW, Having Strippers at the company is *NOT* a good idea. The last game company I worked for had a stripper come in for the art directors birthday. I t was very awkward -- especially since she tried to get him to strip as well (which is something I did not need to see). Plus between married guys and nerds, no one really knew what we should be doing (I guess neither married guys nor nerds get sex).

Oh, and to top it all off, the one woman who was working there at the time (the receptionist) ended up suing the company for sexual harassment when she quit.

I'm guessing your event was in the US? FWIW, an event held in Asia is nothing like an event held in the US. In the land of karaoke bars and "anything goes", a stripper at an event is nothing of note.

Comment: Re:This is a GOOD THING (Score 1) 154

What would you prefer, that this be rushed through without planning, server load testing, and figuring out exactly how it interacts with existing services?

I'm afraid that's wasted sentiment on this board. The same people that are quick to bash MS for rushing the hardware and experiencing massive failure rates are the same trolls claiming MS is just holding this up until they can milk it for every last penny. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Comment: Re:gaming the system? (Score 1) 261

The people who want more government regulation want more of a public say.

Yet people continually re-elect incumbents, despite their poor performance. "Public say" has been available since the birth of the republic, we don't need a bigger government so we can have more "public say".

People who truly want a "public say" should be conservative leaning - choosing what to do with their own money as opposed to paying ever increasing taxes that fund things the don't approve (ie., "oppressive world military", etc.)

Doesn't it bother you that 1-2 days of your work week are essentially solely for the purpose of paying for government programs (many of which you don't approve of)?
