Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Government The Courts News Science

Lie Detector Company Threatens Critical Scientists With Suit 367

Posted by timothy
from the slapp-ing-them-around dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Swedish newspaper DN reports that the Israeli company Nemesysco has sent letters to researchers at the University of Stockholm, threatening legal action if they do not stop publishing findings (Google translation). An article called 'Charlatanry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously' was pulled by the publisher after threats of a libel lawsuit." Online translations can be a little wonky; if your Swedish is as bad as mine, this English-language article describes the situation well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lie Detector Company Threatens Critical Scientists With Suit

Comments Filter:
  • 1. socially conservative politics

    2. intellectual property laws

    civilization is bettered in terms of happiness, health, and financial prosperity as long as the power of social conservatives and corporate oligarchy are held in check. certainly, there is now ay to ever completely defeat these forces, and they do actually do good some good in this world. but they must be eternally pruned, for in part sof the world where their power runs unchecked, corruption and classism, intolerance and tribalism take hold

  • How it works... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Smidge207 (1278042)

    Nemesysco's Poly-Layered Voice Analysis measures 18 parameters of speech in real-time for interrogators at police, military and secret-services agencies. Its accuracy as a lie detector has proven to be less important than its ability to more quickly pinpoint for interrogators where there are problems in a subject's story. Officers then can zero in much more quickly with their traditional interrogation techniques.

    The software measures voice for a variety of parameters including deception, excitement, stress,

    • by professorguy (1108737) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:34PM (#26658893)
      My poly-layered ectoplasmic analysis software measures 22 parameters of ESP in real-time for psychics. It's accuracy is not proven, but it lets psychics more quickly pinpoint where there are problems in psychic emanations. Officiating psychics can zero in much more quickly with their traditional testing techniques.

      .

      Hey, look! I can blast buzzwords and pretend my software works too!

      So how much would you pay? Wait, don't answer because this can flash the overall value for each parameter in a separate window! Now how much would you pay?

      ...boneheads...

    • Re:How it works... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by powerlord (28156) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:39PM (#26658961) Journal

      Nemesysco's Poly-Layered Voice Analysis measures 18 parameters of speech in real-time for interrogators at police, military and secret-services agencies. Its accuracy as a lie detector has proven to be less important than its ability to more quickly pinpoint for interrogators where there are problems in a subject's story. Officers then can zero in much more quickly with their traditional interrogation techniques.

      The software measures voice for a variety of parameters including deception, excitement, stress, mental effort, concentration, hesitation, anger, love and lust. It works prerecorded, over the phone and live, the company said. V Entertainment recommends it for screening phone calls, checking the truthfulness of people with whom you deal or gauging romantic interest.

      The display can show each measured parameter in a separate window, with real-time traces of instantaneous measurements while flashing the overall for each parameter, such as "false probable," "high stress" and "SOS." Ultimately, the company plans to offer versions of its detectors for cell phones, dating services, teaching aids, toys and games.

      Interesting. I wonder how it measures up to method acting. ... and politicians.

      I can imagine someone taking a politicians speech and running it through this sort of analysis, especially since it can use recorded audio.

      Heck, start by computing a baseline and run through recordings of previous Presidents, working your way toward the current administration.

      I expect it would make for a very interesting paper (and I expect a footnote, you can contact me for proper attribution. No grant money kickback necessary, but if you need a data-cruncher, I'd be happy to help. :) )

      • by Silentknyght (1042778) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:51PM (#26659153)

        Nemesysco's Poly-Layered Voice Analysis... measures voice for a variety of parameters including deception, excitement, stress, mental effort, concentration, hesitation, anger, love and lust. It works prerecorded... Ultimately, the company plans to offer versions of its detectors for cell phones, dating services, teaching aids, toys and games.

        Interesting. I wonder how it measures up to method acting.

        Screw that, you're really just curious if that phone sex girl is into you or not.

        Am I the only one who was expecting a statement from Nemesysco advertising "Our products are for entertainment purposes only." ?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I can imagine someone taking a politicians speech and running it through this sort of analysis, especially since it can use recorded audio.

        It would show no stress whatsoever. If a politician is reading from a teleprompter, it is duckspeaking, and not actually thinking about the words it's reading.

        If the politician isn't using a teleprompter, you'd get the same flat-line reading you'd get from any other sociopath. Some sincerely believe their lies, others can switch that belief on for just long enough to

      • by iluvcapra (782887)

        I can imagine someone taking a politicians speech and running it through this sort of analysis, especially since it can use recorded audio.

        All it would do is sort the politicians by skill level; really really skillfull politicians and administrators generally construct their positions in such a way so that they are completely honest when the promise nothing, but leave enough room for your gestalt psychlogoy to fill in the blanks and hear promises all over the place.

        • I'd go so far as to say that skilled politicians are somewhat sociopathic in that regard - they can lie without any stress because they see nothing wrong with it and expect to get away with it.
          • Re:How it works... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by iluvcapra (782887) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @06:46PM (#26659835)

            My point is that this isn't lying, it's the listener lying to himself about what he heard... When Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down this Wall!" he wasn't lying about his unwillingness to tear down the wall himself, he was just phrasing his position in such a way the made everyone hear "OMG Reagan promises to defeat teh sovs!" when in fact Reagan was taking responsibility for no action on his part.

            Just the same, when Obama says "Yes we can close Guantanamo!" he isn't promising to do a goddamn thing, he's just phrasing his aspirations for what America could do in such a way that people hear "OMG Barack is gonna close gitmo!"

            This is not lying, and treating it like it is is just victimology of the voter against eeeeeeevil politicians.

            • by Chris Burke (6130) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @08:14PM (#26660813) Homepage

              Just the same, when Obama says "Yes we can close Guantanamo!" he isn't promising to do a goddamn thing, he's just phrasing his aspirations for what America could do in such a way that people hear "OMG Barack is gonna close gitmo!"

              This is not lying, and treating it like it is is just victimology of the voter against eeeeeeevil politicians.

              That is absolutely lying! We're talking about natural language communication here, not a programming language. Words and phrases have meaning that are not necessarily the sum of their individual parts, there is context involved that guides the necessary interpretation of both sides. As in, pedantic literal interpretation is not, and has never been, the sole judge of the meaning of a sentence.

              When the words spoken by a speaker are designed to convey a certain meaning to the listeners, and the listeners receive that meaning, then we call that successful communication. When that correctly conveyed meaning is deliberately false, that's a fucking lie!

              When the speaker also designs their words to leave themselves a semantic escape valve so they can claim to have meant something else later, that doesn't mean they weren't lying, it means they knew they were lying and thus needed the out!

              When Obama said "Yes we can close Gitmo", everyone correctly interpreted that to mean that if he were elected, he would close Gitmo. That is the meaning he obviously intended to convey. If he doesn't close it, then that's a lie*. And if he defended himself by saying that all he had meant was he thought it was something America could do hypothetically, then that makes him a double liar because that obviously is not the message he intended to convey when he spoke!

              The only people who think that isn't lying are:
              1) People who've sacrificed reason itself on the Altar of Pedantry.
              2) Liars who are lying about it not being lying and just like being able to use semantics to escape from obvious lies.

              I refuse to sacrifice my ability to detect lies covered with such a thin ruse to either group of people.

              * So far so good on this count, but of course I won't be happy until the thing is really truly closed.

              • by iluvcapra (782887) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @09:41PM (#26661519)

                I think you're arguing for complete solipcism in language, and that people should be held responsible for what their listeners conclude. and not what they themselves say.

                It's not about natural language. You're arguing that voters shouldn't be required to think critically about the things they hear, and that everybody gets to just sorta "decide" all subjectively what the speaker meant. I think you're giving voters an out clause to claim at any time that "politicians lie" because they weren't able to deliver the fruits of the voters' own self-delusion.

                Just open your ears and listen to what people are actually saying. It isn't a lie if you can tease the meaning of a sentence by reading it on the page. Anything less and you just turn into a mob singing slogans, like "Drill Baby Drill!" or "Yes We Can!" That's when people really begin to act like robots (speaking of programming languages...)

                Relatedly, good administrators, in government, business, the military are able to consolidate the will of many into aspirational goals, in such a way that everyone marches together, and no one starts the backbiting and recriminations when some arbitrary marker is not crossed. Letting people know what you want and getting them to help you regardless of the setbacks is kinda the heart of leadership. Not everything in the world is some quid-pro-quo where the leader says "obey me and you'll get a chicken," and then if you don't get the chicken you get to toss the leader over (viz. France thru the 19th century, or Germany between the wars). That's pretty shitty political theory, and it's not how a healthy political system works.

    • While I would love to have this, I'd prefer nobody else did. I can use the minesweeper algorithm when I need to, and I know nobody else can do that; I never lie, but I still have my secrets.
    • Re:How it works... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Achromatic1978 (916097) <robert@chrBOHRom ... minus physicist> on Thursday January 29, 2009 @06:53PM (#26659933)

      V Entertainment recommends it for ... gauging romantic interest.

      Because a relationship built on a situation where you knowingly or surreptitiously subject your partner's speech to a voice analysis to determine if they like or love you is bound for success, right?

  • by Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:23PM (#26658721)
    to refute this libel claim, is a lie detector test :-)

    Oh wait...
  • by Zironic (1112127) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:24PM (#26658747)

    I wonder when companies will realize that trying to silence people in this modern age will just lead to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Silentknyght (1042778)
      truth. From TFA:

      "It was hardly their intention. But since the article was withdrawn, I have received lots of mail and requests for copies of the article. The article would not have been read to this extent if the company had simply ignored it in silence," says Francisco Lacerda to the Dagens Nyheter.

      I also find it funny, and sad, that a Swedish entity caved so easily to a legal threat from outside the country (and from outside the country's legal system).

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The article was published in and withdrawn by "The international journal of speech, language and the law", presumably not a Swedish entity.
      • by Zironic (1112127) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:43PM (#26659019)

        It was a British journal.

        • by jgtg32a (1173373)
          Well if it was Briton there's no way they would take the chance.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
      • by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:48PM (#26659109)

        I also find it funny, and sad, that a Swedish entity caved so easily to a legal threat from outside the country (and from outside the country's legal system).

        To be clear: the researchers are Swedish, but the publisher which caved to the legal threat was in the UK (Equinox [equinoxpub.com]). From TFA:

        In the autumn, Equinox, the British publisher of the magazine, were canvassed by the Israeli company Nemesysco Limited, a manufacturer of lie detectors. Following this the company demanded that the article be withdrawn, which the publishers duly did.

        Your point remains: it's sad that a UK publisher caved so easily to what appears to be a rather baseless accusation. (The article isn't libelous; merely factual.) Luckily the Swedish researchers are doing a good job distributing the information anyways.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by terjeber (856226)

          it's sad that a UK publisher caved so easily to what appears to be a rather baseless accusation

          The sad part is not that they caved, they had no choice but to cave. British libel law is absurd in the extreme and tantamount to "accusation equals guilt". It is impossible for the publisher to defend itself.

          Hopefully, some day, Britain and a number of other European countries will learn the meaning of free speech. As of now, most of them have no clue what that means.

          When you allow people with appalling and disgusting opinions to hold them and express them, then, and only then do you have free speech. When

      • by powerlord (28156)

        truth. From TFA:

        "It was hardly their intention. But since the article was withdrawn, I have received lots of mail and requests for copies of the article. The article would not have been read to this extent if the company had simply ignored it in silence," says Francisco Lacerda to the Dagens Nyheter.

        I also find it funny, and sad, that a Swedish entity caved so easily to a legal threat from outside the country (and from outside the country's legal system).

        Actually, from an english version of the article:http [thelocal.se]

    • Companies believe money and power makes things go away. They're half right: Money begets power, but the masses have far more power. We already know why: how do you shut down/filter/etc the entire Internet? Threaten me legally and the courts have to release the details of the case to the public; threaten me physically and I'm liable to do it myself.
    • by kalirion (728907)

      The problem is that once in a while you'll have a real victim trying to get libelous or whatnot information removed, and they'll be SOL. This isn't the case here of course.

  • english article (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:24PM (#26658749)
  • A Simple Solution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CopaceticOpus (965603) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:26PM (#26658771)

    Forget the lawsuits. Ask the researchers if they'd be willing to be connected to the lie detectors and to then testify that their research and conclusions were made in good faith.

    If the detectors indicate a lie, the situation doesn't really change. But if the detectors do not indicate a lie, the manufacturer is pretty well cornered.

    • by geekoid (135745)

      except that are flawed, so your flipping a coin.

    • The lie detectors would indicate the researchers believe their own conclusions and their process, if they didn't evade it. It wouldn't indicate truth or accuracy; but libel doesn't rely on either of those, it relies on malicious intent spreading known falsehoods. The ultimate defense against libel and slander is truth; second that, is believing you speak the truth.
    • Better yet, ask the manufacturers if they would be willing to bet money (let's say equal to the value of the company) on a simple test: 100 people will be evaluated with your machine; 50 of them will be lying, 50 will not; your machine must score 95% or better.

      Chances are they wouldn't take the bet because they know damn well that their machine is actually no better than random.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by PaganRitual (551879)

      Nah what you need is two scientists and two doors. One of the scientists always tells the truth, and the other always lies.

      Of course, the answer is that you poison both the drinks, after spending the previous years building up an immunity to the poison.
       
      At least I think that's how it worked.

  • Suits suck (Score:2, Funny)

    by bluefoxlucid (723572)
    I'm so glad my employer lets me come in casual every day.
  • by Cathoderoytube (1088737) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:30PM (#26658817)
    It's apparently fairly easy to fool a lie detector, and it's gotten to the point now where lie detector tests can't be submitted as evidence in court because they're so unreliable. Mind you, they still have a use on Maury to determine who's been cheating on who. That's always entertaining.
  • E-meter (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:31PM (#26658845)

    I guess it's back to using an E-meter or flipping a coin to see who is telling the truth. :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-meter [wikipedia.org]

    • Perhaps we should bring back Trail by Ordeal [fire, water, combat, rabid wolverine] as a means of determining truth. Give them each a broadsword and let Odin decide who's telling the truth. Besides cutting back on this sort of dispute, it might make for an excellent (or at least revenue generating ) reality teevee series.
  • Abstract... (Score:5, Informative)

    by BigGar' (411008) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:34PM (#26658895) Homepage

    Here's the abstract of the article from http://www.equinoxjournals.com/ojs/index.php/IJSLL/article/view/3775 [equinoxjournals.com]

    ABSTRACT

    A lie detector which can reveal lie and deception in some automatic and perfectly reliable way is an old idea we have often met with in science fiction books and comic strips. This is all very well. It is when machines claimed to be lie detectors appear in the context of criminal investigations or security applications that we need to be concerned. In the present paper we will describe two types of âoedeceptionâ or âoestress detectors" (euphemisms to refer to what quite clearly is known as âoelie detectorsâ). Both types of detection are claimed to be based on voice analysis but we found no scientific evidence to support the manufacturersâ(TM) claims. Indeed, our review of scientific studies will show that these machines perform at chance level when tested for reliability. Given such results and the absence of scientific support for the underlying principles it is justified to view the use of these machines as charlatanry and we argue that there are serious ethical and security reasons to demand that responsible authorities and institutions should not get involved in such practices.

    I wasn't able to find a copy of the paper itself.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by novakyu (636495)

      I think the authors are in part responsible for the manufacturer's response. Words like "charlatanry" doesn't really belong in a scientific paper.

      If the authors simply published their findings, that these machines do not work better compared to random guessing, and let the results stand for themselves, then regardless of how much the manufacturer disliked and disagreed with the researchers' findings, he would have had no grounds for a libel suit (and the journal/publisher would have seen that right away).

      Sc

  • An Israeli company is saying that Swedes are lying about how easy it is to fool a machine capable of detecting lying. But the Swedes are publishing results that meet the standard of good science: verifiable and repeatable.

    I'm goin with the Swedes on this...
  • Actually, my first reaction on reading the article was "holy *&#$&*#*$, this is amazingly good for an automated translation."
    Looks like Google's making some serious statistical-translation progress. Mindblowing.
    • Or that Swedish syntax and expressions are amazingly similar to English.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by gzipped_tar (1151931)
      I guess that's because English and Swedish share a lot of common roots... both are languages of Germanic peoples... Anyway it's my guess that falls within the category of "folk linguistics" :-)
    • I don't know about Swedish, but I use Google translate for Chinese and Arabic translations into English a lot ,and they've gotten notably better in some places over the past year.

      MT system performance is often very dependent on language genre. They tend to be good at translating news because news text has been a big focus of NLP training corpus development. It's a pretty well controlled genre (you don't get a lot of random slang or neologisms, non-standard syntax, etc.) and there's a whole lot of it alrea

  • Nemesysco? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    As in, Nemesys co, as in Nemesis Co? Man, I sure wouldn't work for my nemesis. These scientists should have seen it coming.

  • by RDW (41497) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:37PM (#26658947)
    It's probably because the scientists' bullshit detector [thecryptmag.com] infringed on Nemesysco's patents.
  • by kabocox (199019) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:38PM (#26658955)

    I know lie detectors have only been more of toys or threats than really useful tools. A trained questioner doesn't need a lie detector. A lie detector is more for them to let you know that they are almost positive that you've lied on the subject.

    There are folks that want lie detectors to work like in the movies or have it on their cell phones so that they know when the other person is lying. They'd hate to have it used on them though. I have news for you.

    Everyone has a built-in lie detector. It's just how well that it's been trained to work. How would the world be different if we gave elementary school kids the same questioning for lies tools that are usually taught to police detectives? Short answer; not too different. They'd just know faster when the teachers are lost and clueless, and any attempts to bring new information that you know the teacher doesn't have would just be punished faster. We would get politicians that are even better at lying though.

  • by scotts13 (1371443) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:46PM (#26659091)
    Ever take a lie detector test? Years back, a prospective employer sent me for one. Unlike most people, I actually read the release they asked me to sign, and discovered: 1. I'd be giving up the right to challenge the results of the test, by any manner, and 2. The testing agency reserved the right to sell the results of the test, good or bad, to ANYONE, in perpetuity. Does this sound ethical, or as though they trust their own test? I told them to stuff the test, and the job. The next day, I was called about the position, and explained I could not, in conscience, acquiesce to the polygraph test. They said, "Oh, don't worry about that, we get it if we can, but it doesn't mean anything. Welcome aboard!"
  • Easy... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nicopa (87617) <nico.lichtmaier@ ... .com minus punct> on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:55PM (#26659205)

    Easy solution: the scientists should agree to undergo an interview in which they would be asked if they have proof of what they are saying. A lie detector provided by this Nemesys Co. would then detect if they are lying or not.

  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @05:57PM (#26659249)

    If lie detectors *really* worked, we wouldn't have to torture so many people, would we? We'd just hook them up to the lie detector, and ask them questions, like, "Will the LHC discover the Higgs boson?", and then we would know if they were guilty or not.

    The US could close down Guantanamo in a fortnight.

    But then the Torture Industry would need a bailout.

    Or maybe the Torture Industry should just get a cut of every lie detector sold?

    • by Tony Hoyle (11698) *

      If they worked we could do away with trial by jury - just hook them up and ask "did you kill your wife?" and if the detector says they did then throw them in jail for 20 years.

      • by dkf (304284)

        If they worked we could do away with trial by jury - just hook them up and ask "did you kill your wife?" and if the detector says they did then throw them in jail for 20 years.

        Wouldn't work so well if the person being questioned believed at the time that they did not. (Now, if lie detectors were accurately named, they'd be called "stress detectors", but lies are not the only source of stress in a courtroom...)

    • by kalirion (728907)

      If lie detectors *really* worked, we wouldn't have to torture so many people, would we? We'd just hook them up to the lie detector, and ask them questions, like, "Will the LHC discover the Higgs boson?", and then we would know if they were guilty or not.

      Even if lie detectors worked, that wouldn't force the suspect to actually say anything.

      And the Higgs boson will be swallowed by a micro black hole before the LHC has the chance to detect anything :)

    • by dbIII (701233) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @09:09PM (#26661247)
      Torture doesn't work either except as a tool to get somebody to admit to things you've already decided you want them to admit to or as a tool of terror. That is why the KGB used it. One classic is the guy that admitted to blowing up more trains than the USSR had at the time. Another classic is the "evidence" of Saddams involvement in 911 being the ravings of a drowning man and getting presented to the UN to show the world that the US administration no longer cared about truth or the rule of law.
  • by jeko (179919) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @06:10PM (#26659429)

    Polygraphs, voice stress analyzers, coin flips, sticking your hand in the statue's mouth and Scientology's "E-Meters" all share the same validity in catching lies -- basically none. It's all pretend "science" with cool moving needles and wires, but you might as well be watching a seismograph for all the good it does you. It simply gives government agencies and insurance companies an excuse to call you a liar. "Hey, don't look at me, the MACHINE says you're lying..."

    Now FOX has this propaganda puff piece for the TSA called "Lie to Me" going where an actor I like is helping spread nonsense I can't stand.

    Can you imagine the revolution society would undergo if "voice stress analyzers" actually worked? "I did not have sex with that woman!" BZZZ! "Saddam Hussein is building nuclear weapons!" BZZZ! "The 700 billion will be wisely spent!" BZZZZ! "I was misquoted!" BZZZ!

    • "I did not have sex with that woman!" BZZZ!

      The full quote was "I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski." Which, if Bill were actually addressing Monica and referring to Hillary might have been true.

    • by Chris Burke (6130) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @06:46PM (#26659831) Homepage

      Polygraphs, voice stress analyzers, coin flips, sticking your hand in the statue's mouth and Scientology's "E-Meters" all share the same validity in catching lies -- basically none. It's all pretend "science" with cool moving needles and wires, but you might as well be watching a seismograph for all the good it does you. It simply gives government agencies and insurance companies an excuse to call you a liar. "Hey, don't look at me, the MACHINE says you're lying..."

      Oh, all those things (including the seismograph) can have quite a bit of validity at catching lies... if the person being interrogated believes they are valid lie-catchers. As a psychological tool in the hands of an interrogator skilled in the 'old fashioned' method of detecting lies, they can be quite handy.

      That's about the only use a polygraph has. Enough people don't know what crocks they are that they may be convinced that their lies have been or will be discovered by the machine and spill the truth. I've even heard of a detective faking it by using a non-functional box, with a concealed switch that made red and green lights come on. He made it flash red when he thought the suspect was lying, and well he was right enough that the suspect panicked and confessed.

      Of course, if an empty box and a hand switch work equally well as the 'real thing', that kinda defeats the need for polygraph vendors and their expensive toys. Thus this kind of lawsuit.

    • Now FOX has this propaganda puff piece for the TSA called "Lie to Me" going...

      Have you actually watched the show? If anything there's constant disdain for lie detectors and other mechanical lie detection techniques, favoring microexpression interpretation. I'd hardly call it propaganda, just a cross between "The Mentalist" type shows and CSI.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by MichaelSmith (789609)

      It's all pretend "science" with cool moving needles and wires, but you might as well be watching a seismograph for all the good it does you.

      Not true! Seismographs give you useful information.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    It was extremely tasteless and irresponsible for the Swedes to publish this, especially considering the fact that two days ago was Holocaust day. Shame on them for insulting the victims, killing them a second time. Being a Holocaust fundamentalist, I ask everybody to join me in boycotting everything Swedish.

  • quick! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crazybit (918023) on Thursday January 29, 2009 @06:49PM (#26659883)
    send this to Mythbusters, i'll like to see that company tying to sue them.
  • by mlwmohawk (801821) on Friday January 30, 2009 @01:03AM (#26662697)

    How do you test a lie detector? For it to work you have to have someone ACTUALLY LYING, not saying something contrary to the truth, but actually trying to be secretly untruthful. It is an impossible situation because you have to know 100% that they are lying and they have to be 100% concealing a secret. Otherwise, its all just guess work.

    There is NO WAY to test a lie detector without the existence of a 100% accurate working lie detector. Short of that, there is no way to objectively or theoretically test any such device.

  • by Bearhouse (1034238) on Friday January 30, 2009 @06:38AM (#26664295)

    FTA:
    'At the same time, Nemesysco's actions have led to even greater media attention for the two Swedish professors' research. "It was hardly their intention. But since the article was withdrawn, I have received lots of mail and requests for copies of the article. The article would not have been read to this extent if the company had simply ignored it in silence," says Francisco Lacerda to the Dagens Nyheter.'

    So now, instead of the just the readers of some obscure journal, it's all over da Intertubes. Well done boys!

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Working...