Comment Re:Why? (Score 1) 41
Easy, so the early adopters and ZuckBuck evangelists can be aptly named "Zuckers."
I recommend reading Mildford Wolphoff & Rachel Caspari's Race and Human Evolution. It's quite interesting. Before I read it, I thought that the Out of Africa theory was set in stone. However, the authors argue that the various early hominids (e.g. homo erectus) are not distinct species but were able to interbreed with homo sapiens. This would include neanderthals. More extreme versions of the Out of Africa theory assume that homo sapiens slaughtered all the neanderthals, while moderate versions, along with the multiregional theory of Wolphoff and Caspari, argue that we actually interbred with neanderthals. The multiregional theory of Wolphoff and Caspari sees this kind of interbreeding as an integral part of human evolution. The development toward homo sapiens, in their view, happened in a much more complex and global manner than that entailed by the Out of Africa theory. Even though homo erectus came out of Africa, modern humans evolved around the globe.
While I can't say that their theory is foolproof, it does show how the story of human evolution often looks very different from an anthropologist's perspective compared to that of a geneticist. I believe one reason for Wolphoff's theory is that, in his view, regional variations of homo erectus skeletons have some surprising similarities to the skeletons of modern humans in the same region. Asian homo erectus looks too much like Asian homo sapiens for there to be no genetic connection. If homo sapiens only came out of Africa, and could not interbreed with homo erectus, then how did their skeletons come to bear similar traits? Since I'm not an anthropologist I can't verify this information, but it is interesting.
Moreover, I think it's at least well argued that the genetic evidence is not as solid as the media and certain scientists pretend. As I understand it, the Out of Africa theory is strongly supported by genetic evidence, which is its strength, of course, but it could also be a weakness. Since geneticists argue backwards from contemporary DNA--not from some mythical Jussasic Park preserved-in-amber sample--they utilize a lot of questionable assumptions in regard to things such as the rate of DNA change over time. Even a slight correction of some of these assumptions could have drastic consequences on the theory's claims.
I know what you mean. I remember watching an episode of some TV show that was all about this, and one guy they "caught" was clearly only around 19 and he thought he was traveling to another state to visit a 16 year old. Yes, it was illegal and perhaps even creepy, but it looked clear to me that he was not popular with women and was really hoping that someone had finally taken an interest in him. 3 years of age difference would be no big deal at all if they were both adults, so it was probably easy to convince himself that it was not a real problem. As far as he knew she was consenting to the encounter. In his mind, her consent was just as real as his own, despite her purported age. In short, the "sting" bagged a pathetic, desperate, and lonely young man--barely an adult. It surely embarassed him to no end and probably ruined his life. Yet the point was never to save or protect children. This young man was highly unlikely to actually seek out and prey upon anyone. He was just lonely. The point of the "sting" was to make money off of his misery by generating TV ratings.
I'm reluctant to say that there's never any situation in which such an approach might be used. Clearly it should only be used against someone who has full intelligence and knows what he is doing, i.e. someone who is both legally and morally culpable. A mentally-disabled adult should not be targeted, because he likely is neither morally nor legally culpable. Depending on the disability, it may be that he does not understand what he is doing or why the law applies to him. Moreover, it's unlikely that his behavior is actually predatory; if he is unable to fully understand, then he is unable to scheme and seduce. Merely agreeing to an underage relationship is not predatory.
However, if the morality of such a trap hinged upon the person to be trapped, the problem is thus: how can you fully know whom you are trapping before you actually trap them? And then, once you've uncovered evidence of a crime, I doubt someone can simply throw it away--toss the fish back--on the basis of sympathy for the perpetrator. One might even be charged with a crime if one threw away evidence on such a basis. Thus, it may not be good to use such a trap at all unless one knows ahead of time whom one is trapping, which is probably a rare cause if it exists at all.
Heather R. Morgan was a contributor between 2017 and 2021. Her most recent bio: She “is an international economist, serial entrepreneur, and investor in B2B software companies. She is an expert in persuasion, social engineering, and game theory. Morgan is the co-founder and CEO of Endpass, which uses Artificial Intelligence (AI) to automate identity verification while proactively detecting fraud. When she's not reverse-engineering black markets to think of better ways to combat fraud and cybercrime, she enjoys rapping and designing streetwear fashion.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/heathermorgan/2019/04/30/got-burnout-tech-ceo-try-rapping/?sh=798d92123102
It's probably fairly easy to use AI to detect fraud when you're the one committing it.
An example from the report:
The NRC principal then told us that he inquired about this situation with NRC subject matter experts, but was told that a recent series of NRC Office of the General Counsel regulatory interpretations had allowed utilities to use license event reports for reporting the failure of parts in service. Furthermore, if an inservice failure was evaluated for potential reporting under 10 C.F.R. 50.73, it did not need to be reported under Part 21 even if it was determined the failure was not reportable under 10 C.F.R. 50.73.
The principal said the criteria and purpose of reporting under Part 21 are very different from reporting failures under 10 C.F.R. 50.73, and under the latter, the threshold for reporting is much higher as it requires safety system failures. In the case of an emergency service water pump, for example, both pumps would have to have failed to meet reporting requirements under 10 C.F.R. 50.73. Part 21 staff members told the principal that though they agreed with his concerns, they could not do anything about them, and he should no longer consider the violation. The principal said:
“They told me that they had already initiated rulemaking to restore the original intent behind Part 21. This rulemaking was subsequently terminated as part of a cost reduction effort."
TLDR: they're having difficulty properly cataloging and addressing the issue of counterfeit parts because the regulation on reporting them (Part 21) is too open to interpretation. It's taken to mean that the counterfeit must be reported only if discovered prior to use. When it's in service, it seems to fall under a different regulation (10 C.F.R. 50.73), but this regulation only requires reporting if a safety system actually fails. Lastly, the NRC was going to have a little chat about fixing the regulation, but they decided that talking about fixing it would be too expensive. Way to go, NRC!
Yeah, their actual crime was not limited to Minecraft. They were building actual bombs. Lol, my favorite part is the quote from one of the boys' mothers:
"I always knew where he was, even when they were making these bombs."
That makes it soo much better. It's not like he was making bombs at a stranger's house. And sure he almost blew up the house a few times, but at least he finished his homework first.
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
