In 2009, a National Academy of Sciences committee embarked on a long-overdue quest to study typical forensics analyses with an appropriate level of scientific scrutiny--and the results were deeply chilling. Aside from DNA analysis, not a single forensic practice held up to rigorous inspection.
Far from an infallible science, forensics is a decades-long experiment in which undertrained lab workers jettison the scientific method in favor of speedy results that fit prosecutors' hunches. No one knows exactly how many people have been wrongly imprisoned--or executed--due to flawed forensics. But the number, most experts agree, is horrifyingly high. A complete overhaul of our evidence analysis is desperately needed.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 14 2014, @10:55AM
If this is true, then you are prejudiced against craigslist.
This is typical of people; To erroneously over-associate points of data which are actually unrelated.
I like to think it's a necessary feature for any intelligence to be capable of self-learning.
There is a pickup-artist "mind-hack" that is used to great effect: A stranger, upon meeting you for the first time, will associate you with any feelings they have at the time. If you get them to merely think about nice past experiences, enough to feel good - they will associate the "goodness" with you, and consequently will like you.
Repeat ad-nauseum if you want them to marry you. It is brutally, terrifyingly effective.
But it only works if they don't know about the technique. If they know you are only trying to manipulate them, they will be inoculated against it.
Craigslist is just a service. It is full of scum, because people couldn't be bothered helping cleaning it up. It has a mechanism to report scams, but most people couldn't be bothered. Once they realize they've "fallen for it" they just want to have nothing to do with anything associated with "it", and this includes even reporting the scam.
"The standard you set is the one you walk past."
Posting as AC as my identity rightly ought have nothing to do with the quality of expressed ideas - the latter is for you to establish.
If you're prejudicial against "AC", well....