Electronic

"Electronic House Arrest. This is a high-tech method of intensive probation. The subject wears an electronic bracelet which transmits a signal to a base station, located within the home. The base station automatically notifies the probation officer if the subject moves out of range, enabling the protection officer to keep much closer track of the subject than by any other means except close confinement...
One staffer in a control room can surveil many subjects, alerting a probation officer only in case of a detected deviation. Another attractive aspect of this program is that it's possible to charge the probationer or parolee a fee for the equipment, making the program partly self-sustaining"

This is what Tony said.

"The Buddhists believed that Buddha had repeatedly assumed a human form to facilitate the reunion of men with his own universal soul, so they believe that 'in the latter days,' he will come again. Their sacred books predict this coming and relate that his mission will be to restore the world to order and happiness. This is exactly the Christian idea of the millennium."
"The Chinese also believed that in the latter days, there is to be a millennium upon earth...
The ancient Persians believed that in the last days, there would be a millennium on earth, when the religion of Zoroaster would be accepted by all mankind."

This is what Thomas said.

"Although a 'Do Drugs, Do Time' program makes for good demagoguery for a candidate seeking election, it's impractical and excessively harsh for first offenders.
Intensive probation differs from traditional parole and probation by requiring the subjects to be under much closer control of the probation officer. Intensive probation can include random drug testing, curfews, and other restrictions. The subject must report in as often as once or twice a day, to keep the probation officer apprised of his whereabouts and activities. Intensive probation requires more manpower than traditional probation because each officer has a smaller case[-load, but it is still more cost-effective than imprisonment because the state doesn't have to support the offender.
Probation does not expose them to the 'crime college' of prison."

This is what Tony said.

Beta

"Beta blockers calm the nerves. These have been used, for example, by biathletes, pool players, and archers. They are detectable by urinalysis, and there is no known way to hide or disguise them because they must be taken just prior to the completion,"

"PCP is one of the most difficult drugs to clean from the body. It can appear in urine tests up to six months after just one use. It goes without saying, then, that PCP should be avoided at all costs institutions where drug testing is possible."

There is no way to obtain a prescription for PCP to legitimize its use, and there are no other drugs that will mess up the test." Pg. 30Pg,. 29"LSD and psilocybin (mushrooms) are hallucinogens. They each have different chemicals, but none are detectable by blood or urine tests.The reason is that the amount of each drug that a person would take to get high is minute. For example, there are only four nanographs oflysergic acid in an average hit of blotter acid (a type of LSD). The minimum standards used by drug testing labs vary, but they are hundreds of time higher than this. To my knowledge, there are no labs."

This is what Ed said.

Some People's Opinions About Pilar At Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC)

Some people's opinions are that they believe that Pilar who works as a Supervisor for Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC) in the San Francisco Bay Area is a cocky, rude,
arrogant bitch who needs to learn some proper manners. Some people's opinions are that they believe that Pilar is a very fussy person when she said: "I'm a very picky." and "I'm a stickler."

Despite

"Despite the claims of test publishers, it seems likely that the overall rate of dissatisfaction is much higher than 5 percent. One need only look at the number of complainants who signed onto Sibi Soroka's MMPI lawsuit to realize that these tests are not just invasive- they are downright offensive. They contain gross intrusions into sensitive areas, and more importantly, they show little disregard for an individual's dignity and self-esteem. Nowhere is this more evident than in the way they lump the entire job-seeking population into two categories: 'recommended for hire,' and 'not recommended for hire.'
Discovering that you had been denied employment due to a poor test score would be bad enough if it happened only once, but what if there are long-term repercussions? Two possibilities exist. In the first, your score could find its way into some kind of labor pool data base much in the same way your financial history now resides in one (or more) of the three giant credit-reporting firms. Second, if integrity tests are found to be sufficiently reliable (not valid, just reliable) then their use could lead to a burgeoning population of individuals who are systematically denied employment due to their constant failures. Both of these scenarios would result in the establishment of a permanent score-derived underclass: applicants unable to find work because of their inability to jump through the correct integrity test hoops. Is this fair?
I don't think so, and I know that many, many other people feel the same way. A paper-and-pencil integrity test will never be ethically defensible until it can prove its scientific validity and that doesn't appear to be anywhere on the horizon.
Benjamin Klemimuntz may have said it best when he said:"They are dishonest towards employers because they reject many potentially productive workers, hence causing greater costs than savings, and they are dishonest toward prospective employees because they constitute an unfair method of screening."

"While acknowledging that business owners have a right to protect themselves from counterproductive and criminally inclined employees, integrity test critics question whether these paper-and-pencil confessionals are fair to the vast majority of honest job applicants. One persistent criticism focuses attention on he actual test items; they are flawed, it is argued, because they are based on unproven assumptions. A passing score cannot be achieved unless the applicant demonstrates a punitive and authoritarian attitude; leniency is unacceptable, even though there is no hard evidence linking a charitable dispositon to dishonesty. Admissions items- equally unsupported- also give rise to some devilish catch-22s and logical conundrums: If Applicant A honestly reports his past misbehaviors, he is penalized with a lower test score. Applicant B, on the other hand, can withhold equally damaging information about his past and obtain a higher score- thus being rewarded for lying. As far as the integrity test is concerned, the applicant who tries to turn his life around and plot a course on the straight-and narrow is deemed less trustworthy than the applicant who continues to lie. This kind of twisted logic should be reason enough to cast doubts on the predictive capabilities of attitudes/admissions items, but there's more: these items consistently fail to take into account the strong role that situational variables play in determining behavior. The trait-heavy nature of most integrity tests is indefensible against what many see as fundamentally a security or 'environment management problem.'
Whether or not integrity test items are based on an ill-conceived theory of honestly is still hotly debated by opposing camps of psychologists and professional researchers. Other groups (like civil libertarians) are more concerned with privacy issues raised by the tests...There is a strong possibility that many of the applicants did not want to hurt their chances for employment by maligning the test, so they stuck with a socially desirable response. (Interestingly, this kind of 'self-protecting' instinct may have helped them more than they realized: additional studies have shown that those who object more to integrity tests are more likely to receive lower scores)."

This is what Charles said.

Silence

"Sometimes people get confused and think that informal conversation is okay, as long they don't 'make a statement,' or 'give a confession.' That's dangerously wrong. Anything you say (anything at all can be used against you, even questions, casual remarks, and jokes. It doesn't matter whether your words are written down or spoken, or whether you're in custody or free to go. And your statements can easily be twisted, taken out of context or misquoted. It's impossible to predict all the things that could go wrong once you start talking. So the only safe course is to remain silent."
"If you've been arrested and break your silence to give your name and address, immediately follow-up by repeating the Magic Words: 'I'm going to remain a silent. I would like to see a lawyer.' This restore your constitutional protection, making it illegal for the police to question you further.'
"The only exception to remaining silent is giving your name and address. You will have to provide that information if you want to be 'released on promise to appear.' Do not give any other information such as your social security number, the names of family members, employment data, etc. This is important because one of the most effective police interrogation techniques is to relax the subject by posing safe, normal questions- the kind that come up on countless forms and applications."

This is what Attorney Kataya said.

Unlicensed

"Large-scale unlicensed broadcasting got a big boost in Italy in the wake of the Golden Age. Italian courts ruled that the radio licensing procedures were unconstitutional, and the field was left wide open. Anyone who could get along some gear together could go on the air, and many did. This included stations with various political points of view, commercial stations, and those whose purpose could perhaps be described as for the Hell of it...But since this is a case of state consent (through the courts) for unlicensed broadcasting, it doesn't strictly fall within the category of pirate radio."

"The FCC is seldom interested in tracking down and seizing hobbyist pirates unless there is some kind of complaint. They estimate that they close down fewer than twenty pirates a year, a small fraction of the total."

This is what Erwin said.

Affluent

"In affluent parts of the country, people own summer homes and leave them totally unattended during the off-season. This provides burglars with tremendous 'window of opportunity' to break in and ransack them. Because these are usually located at the end of country roads, and with few neighbors, burglars run little risk of observation. In many cases, the only neighboring houses are other summer homes. Some vacation cottages are very well-furnished, with expensive electronics, making them rewarding targets.

Burglars like to work in solitude. A house with a side entrance unseen from the street makes a better target than one with entries in full. A corner house, one with a lot of shrubbery screening the entries, and one isolated at the end of a long drive offers the burglar more privacy."

This is what Burt said about how to try to prevent burglaries from happening to one's home.