Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Gary Has Friends in High Places, Thank Goodness!
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons -- Go Monthly
If you sign up, a sponsor will donate $10
Posted on 11/11/2011 3:33:11 AM PST by Scanian
First your repeated posts on this software are really not necessary, nor is your vanity posting...
Two technically police do not EXONERATE, they simply move to a different suspect. Exonerate is to absolve someone from blame for a fault or wrongdoing. Last time I checked you are innocent until PROVEN guilty, so you can’t be exonerated until you are charged and then cleared by a Judge/Jury after due consideration of the case.
Third, you state it is laughably inaccurate because using your ONE example it supposedly failed (I say supposedly because the case is STILL OPEN). So if 70 law enforcement agencies are using it and have each used it only twice and it failed once in your scenario...yep it meets the claim of 95%.
You are way to eager to take a he said - she said scenario from over a decade ago and claim one side or the other is guilty (in your case you are obviously anti-Cain). There was no wrong doing here...the hilarious thing about this is he was a man and she was a woman meeting in private. The meeting was not in a workplace, there was no employer - employee relationship, it was not an interview, it was a private meeting at a hotel/car. Hmmm...seems to happen all the time and some of those times one of the participants thinks there is more to the situation (ie. reading that this is a date or something) and makes advances and the other side says “whoa...hold your horses” and guess what it ends. and they go their separate ways. Other times they find out they are a match and they are off to wonderland together. No one will ever know why these two people really met (if in fact they did) nor will they know what happened. It was at worse case a failed date/a failed attempt to get a favor. At best case it is all made up...either way...non-issue.
actually, I’d be cringing because I heard about this software a few years ago and I *know* it’s good.
The software says Cain is being honest: OK, that’s good.
The software says that the blonde bimbo is lying: That’s a two-fer.
Combine that with the credibility issue (just looking at their past, public histories) and the way the blonde was behaving at the press conference and it’s all pretty clear to me.
“It seems when Gingrich had the contract with America he was on top of things, then he went downhill after he was not Speaker.”
No, he went downhill just after he became Speaker. First he was full of himself enough to call a special address to the nation—the Speaker of the House’s address—where he lectured the American public. Then he proceeded to be completely unable to compel his new wave of Republicans to do more than vote on things—not FOR things—that were in the Contract. He was an unethical weasel, too. Gingrich admitted that he broke House rules by failing to ensure that financing for two projects would not violate federal tax law and by giving the House ethics committee false information. Finally, he became an apologist for the left with his global warming and illegal immigrant loving statements. NumbersUSA, which advocates stricter controls on both legal and illegal immigration, has given his immigration agenda a D- grade — the worst of its ranking of the GOP presidential contenders.
His personal baggage of his aside, he has proven he cannot walk the conservative walk. He’s a loose cannon as dangerous as McCain.
Your initial question negates the rest of your post.
In our country, at least until Obama destroys this too, a person is innocent until proved guilty.
What these women are claiming happened in a very short span during a man's lengthy and public career. Why are we hearing about charges one of the women made against a subsequent employer (he sent me an inappropriate email) but nothing about Cain during the entire rest of his career?
Why would you automatically take the word of the woman who lives in the same building as David Axlerod?
No. The law is occasionally MENDACIOUS.
“But for reliability - you might just a well toss a handful of JuJu beans into a circle filled with chicken feathers drenched in goat’s blood.”
Actually, I know more about this than anyone here I suspect.
In 1992 the company I owned wrote and marketed a voice stress analysis software package that was sold internationally. We had two versions, one that was sold as more of a game of fun package, and another version that was technically the same that we sold to the Israeli’s.
It was not layered, but it compared a statistical sample of the subjects normal speech, to the speech in question. We accomplished this by doing a Fourier analysis, looking for micro-tremors as well as pitch changes in the speech pattern. PC’s were slow back then so we were limited to our sampling ability. With modern computers it would “rock”.
From what I remember, Newt’s problems involved cheating on his wife. This is a matter between husband and wife - none of our business because we don’t know the situation.
About 6 years ago the local police dept. one county over from where I practice bought a bunch of VSAs and trained their cops to use them. Within 6 months every cop in the department considered them a joke. One of the officers remarked to me that he could get more reliable results using a Magic 8 Ball. That PD no longer even bothers to use them - they are in a closet gathering dust.
“Within 6 months every cop in the department considered them a joke.”
I’m not surprised... It’s a tool and it has it’s uses. However as it turns out these things are more of a truth detector than a lie detector. Your looking for stress related changes in voice. The fact that there IS stress detected doesn’t mean that the subject is lying since stress can be caused by other things, however lack of stress is a very good indicator that the subject is telling the truth.
It is not just stress in the voice. It is many many things, so many that I don’t think a computer could sort them out. When I listened to and watched BUY-a-Lick’s statement it was tone of voice, the words she used, the space between words, the frequency of her voice went up slightly, facial expressions, eye brows did not go up, eyes where not wide open, when recounting the past the head will cock to one side or the other and hers did not. Just her trying to stop the beginning of a cheshire grin numerous times was enough to determine she was lying and I did not need any equipment to determine that fact. The equipment still needs an operator sensitive to other factors to be useful.
What about a teleprompter?
“It is not just stress in the voice.”
I understand that many factors can be utilized, however many of them can be faked with practice. The micro tremors and slight pitch changes in the voice are hard if not impossible to fake though.
That said, false positives are certainly possible. However the lack of these indicators (assuming a baseline has been established for the subject) would indicate a lack of stress. This makes false negatives much more unlikely in a normal person. Of course if the person “thought” he or she were telling the truth you would get a misleading result.
I was going to type more about Newt and his escapades because I don’t want to add fuel to the fire with specifics. I just think there is PLENTY of fuel for the fire.
I like Newt’s intelligence I just think the only way he will get to the Presidency is through being VP first. To get people used to him and get them passed his past issues without having him come under the fire he will if he becomes the nominee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.