While

"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 disposition 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.

Non

"Non U.S. citizens who've been arrested for a crime have the rights to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during question. These rights are based on the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the US Constitution, and they protect everyone, citizens and non-citizens, adults and children. You have these rights even if you are 'undocumented' or no longer have a valid visa.
Immigration and other law enforcement officers often try to intimidate non-U.S. citizens by saying 'You're a foreigner, you don't have any rights,' or 'The Constitution only applies to citizens, not aliens. These are lies ( or gross ignorance). So if you are arrested, it's critical that you invoke your rights- especially the right to remain silent-regardless of what the officers are telling you."

This is what Kataya said.

Squatting

"In Philadelphia, there are 35,000 abandoned buildings. One good solution is squatting. Living a squat is safer (and warmer) than living on the streets. It is cheaper by far than paying rent. Occupied buildings are safer than empty ones...

.Move in. Secure the building (locks inside and out, good strong doors). Fix holes....

Check out the legal status. To do this, take the address of your possible building to the tax record room on the bottom floor of the Municipal Building (Broad St. & J>F.K. Blvd in Philadelphia). Talk to people in charge there who will help you look up the address(es) in your records book. if your building is city,s state or federally owned, it is probably caught up in red tape and is safe to move into. If it is privately-owned, more than $1,000 tax delinquent, it is also probably safe."

This is what a person said.

Serious

Once a relationship becomes serious, you both need to speak up and express your thoughts and feelings. If either of you is overly private or withdrawn, the relationship will be in jeopardy. If the man is too quiet, do not assume all is well. Draw him out. Even if you are shy or reserved, you need to tell him about yourself.

Some quiet people take great pride in being self-sufficient, even to the point of hiding their personal needs or wants. These folks display affection by performing their duties in their relationship, but not by talking about the relationship or its problems. Excessive people take pride in verbalizing their wants and needs...

Some people have a very strong sense of personal privacy and consider inquisitive people to be nosy. Yet people who are caring and concerned will inquire about a loved one's private life and expect some answers."

This is what Margaret said.

Bundy

"What did Ted Bundy have for his last meal? this is, by far, the most frequently asked question. Surprisingly, Ted Bundy had no speical last meal request. He was served the traditional last meal of steak, eggs, and potatoes...Ted did not dine with the same gusto...Perhaps he believed a little last minute weight loss would help him slip from the shackles of the Florida electric chair for a third dramatic escape from judicial confinement. (He already mastered two escapes from a Colorado jail)."

This is what Ty and Michelle said.

Guards

Prison guards soon find out if they want to earn some extra money, they can smuggle as a sideline. Often, it starts out in a minor way, with a convict asking a guard if he'd smuggle out a letter that he doesn't want read by prison officials. If a the guard accepts, and takes payment from the addressee, the hook is planted. The next request might be to bring in an envelope or small packet, without disclosing the contents to the guard.

If the packet contains illicit drugs, the guard is more beholden than ever. this gives the inmate and his outside confederate a hold over the guard, and leverage to oblige him to do more 'favors.'...

In some especially corrupt prisons, administration officials are part of the scheme. The prison administrators can try to stamp out smuggling if they wish, by enforcing strictly all of the regulations, or they can turn a blind eye. Some will go so far as to take part of the action by themselves, on the basis that, as smuggling is inevitable, they might as well profit from it. In one prison, the deputy warden was the leader of the smugglign ring, and the illicit drugs 'passed across his desk.'....

The guards who are 'clean' resent this, but are powerless to do anything. Smugglers operate secretly, and in any event any guard who exposes another runs the risk of reprisals from his fellow employees, much the same situation that affects a corrupt police department. This affects the morale of honest guards."

Correction To ISP

ISP should correctly read what Thom said, not Martin.