Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 5:12 AM
Edited Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 5:19 AM All you guys stop conceding to the original poster. Adam's rant was fine. Adam wasn't saying we should use existing lie detector tests. He said that we should invest all the cash that goes in to maintaining our sucky, at best, jury system and put it in to inventing a lie detector that's accurate more than 99%. Our jury system is probably not 99% accurate, and anything better would be a step up. And it's not like you can argue logic on his key point of, "If we had a good lie detector we wouldn't need juries." We wouldn't need them, plain and simple. The key to his statement, that you missed, is that the current lie detector is junk and that he says we need to invest in a proper one. Don't fly off the handle and go OMG OMG IMPOSSIBLE. All of Adam's rants make sense for the most part and I can easily see society heading this direction if a good lie detector was invented. —Erlog |
