Bruce Ivins, maybe a creep, but the anthrax killer?

So the world hasn't ended yet, despite the bold and confident prediction of my former employer Harold Camping. On May 23rd, Harold declared that Judgment Day did occur, but only spiritually, and revised his doomsday prediction, moving it up to October 21. Harold's rationale was that sometimes God doesn't open our eyes and reveal everything to us, and it was good that the prediction was made, even if it didn't happen, because now the whole world knows about Judgment Day, and the Word of God. As I observed Harold on his Open Forum television program in the days leading up to May 21, and on May 23 and days after, I couldn't help but notice the resemblance between Harold Camping and the kind of person being spoken of in Man and superman; a comedy and a philosophy (1903) by George Bernard Shaw:

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world : the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

Sometimes, a person can be so fixated on the conclusion that s/he wants, that the possibility of a mistake, an error, or even reasonable doubt, cannot be tolerated. If the person represents not just himself, but is the face of an institution, sometimes the expense, wholesale investment, and senselessness of a wasted effort is magnified. I am reminded of an interview on Slate's The Wrong Stuff on what it's like trying to free people who have been wrongly convicted of crimes:

You become more certain over time; that's just the way the mind works. With the passage of time, your story becomes your reality... They're so convinced that they are right that they feel exempt from behaving right... There's still a whole category of prosecutors and detectives who say, "No, I'm sure [the guy I convicted] is guilty. I can't tell you how, I can't give you a logical explanation, but he's guilty." What's scary is that these people are part of a system that's predicated on logic and reasoning to see that justice is done. Yet they will ignore all logic and reason to protect their egos and their psyches. And it requires a complete disconnect, too, because these guys rely on DNA to convict bad guys all the time. But when the DNA works against them, they say something must have gone wrong.
...based on my own experience, about half the time police and prosecutors bury their heads in the sand and insist that they were right no matter what the evidence says.
If a prosecutor or a detective is totally unable to admit they're wrong in one case, what that tells you is that they will be making dozens and dozens more erroneous decisions, because they're not allowing new information to affect their views... -- Peter Neufeld

I think the best way to gauge whether the person you're dealing with is being unreasonable is to ask him if there's anything you or anyone can say or do that will make him change his mind. If he deflects, doesn't answer, or says 'no', then you have someone who probably cannot be swayed (least of all by reality).

A couple of days ago, an excerpt was published in the Los Angeles Times, written by LA Times reporter David Willman. From the soon-to-be-published The Mirage Man, the excerpt reads like a hatchet job on Bruce Ivins, the supposed anthrax killer who struck shortly after 9/11 (when it really did seem like the world was going to end), painting a picture of the man as a major creep who was obsessed with the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority. With no citations or references to sources, the excerpt describes in vivid detail how the man broke into KKG sorority houses in North Carolina and West Virginia and stole a cipher used to decode secret rituals, and a book of rituals used by the young women, respectively. But a McClatchy News article, published 20 days before the LA Times excerpt, painted an entirely different picture of the whole story:

In ending the inquiry last year, the Justice Department said that a genetic fingerprint had pointed investigators to Ivins' lab, and gumshoe investigative techniques enabled them to compile considerable circumstantial evidence that demonstrated his guilt.

Among these proofs, prosecutors cited Ivins' alleged attempt to steer investigators away from a flask of anthrax in his lab that genetically matched the mailed powder — anthrax that had been shared with other researchers. They also noted his anger over a looming congressional cut in funds for his research on a new anthrax vaccine.

However, the FBI never found hard evidence that Ivins produced the anthrax or that he scrawled threatening letters seemingly meant to resemble those of Islamic terrorists. Or that he secretly took late-night drives to Princeton, N.J., to mail them.

The FBI declared Ivins the killer soon after paying $5.8 million to settle a suit filed by another former USAMRIID researcher, Steven Hatfill, whom the agency mistakenly had targeted earlier in its investigation.

While there is certainly circumstantial evidence that the FBI was correct in trying to pin the crime on Bruce Ivins, my fear is that there was too much at stake, especially after the FBI mistakenly focused on Hatfill; once Ivins committed suicide, there was a need for everyone at the Bureau to unify and say with one voice that Ivins was the guilty party, rather than deal with the possibility that they were responsible for a second tragedy.

Thanks to Art Diamond for pointing me to the source for the Shaw quote.

The Gays and The End of the World

My former employer Harold Camping, a UC Berkeley graduate in civil engineering who sold his construction business and retired early so he could devote his life to studying the Bible and sharing the gospel, is predicting the world will end on May 21, 2011. Unlike many religious leaders who preach a prosperity gospel or claim that Jesus would have wanted us to invade Iraq, two messages that I believe are contrary to what Jesus taught, Harold, a lay preacher who lacks any formal training in theology and is proud of that fact, lives humbly, does not take a salary, drives the same brown pickup truck he's driven for many years, and usually tries to distance his religious non-profit, Family Radio, from political questions like what candidates and issues you should support and vote for. One thing he's done recently, though, that worries me a bit, is Harold has started to claim that the gay rights movement, and social acknowledgement of homosexuality in human society, is a sign that the world is becoming the embodiment of wickedness, and since God cannot stand the sight of uncleanliness, He will soon destroy us all, much like wiping dirt off the floor. Now, I no longer work for Harold, so I no longer have a vested interest in obeying the political instinct we all have of trying to please the man who signs our paychecks, but you have to give the guy credit for being bold enough to stake his reputation on something he insists, very authoritatively, "absolutely will happen"; this new behavior of his, where Harold says that the increasing political and social acceptance of homosexuals openly serving in the military and as religious leaders somehow is a sign that the world will end soon, is troubling to me, and reeks of desperation:

It's almost as if Harold is grabbing at straws, trying to pander to an ugly theme in popular religion of bigotry, in an effort to rally the troops, who would otherwise question why none of the other foretold signs of judgment day and world destruction are literally happening, such as the sun and the moon turning dark, and the stars falling from the sky.

Harold Camping's moment of truth will come in a few days, no matter what. Either the end of the world will ruin your Saturday, May 21st, at 6pm standard time, or there will be no great earthquakes, nor bodies of true believers flying out of their graves to meet up with Jesus Christ in Heaven. If it's all business as usual, then Harold will have some explaining to do.

The matter of Armageddon Day aside, when I was last there, Family Stations Incorporated was taking in approximately $15 million in donations every year. If you ever wanted to start your own religion, here's what the Economist has to say:

FANCY founding a religion? Keen to reform a flagging faith? Here a few tips on how to attract and retain followers, thus ensuring that your gospel spreads far and wide, affording spiritual solace to as many souls as possible.

At the outset, you must realise that success is unlikely if you go wholly against the grain of human nature. Granted, religion is all about forging the perfect man, or at least ensuring that, as far as possible, he lives up to divine expectations. But preternatural power has forged man in such a way that he will swallow some of your ideas about how to achieve this more easily than others.
...
As in the case of states, your principal concern is to encourage co-operation among your flock. In the long run, groups that co-operate more have an advantage over those whose members are less willing to do so. This also means limiting the number of actual and potential shirkers. People, it seems, are naturally inclined to do this anyway, but you can egg them on with a few simple tricks.

First, you are better off plumping for a personal god, rather than some sort of indeterminate life force. Research shows that people who profess a belief in such a deity judge moral transgressions more harshly, which in turn tends to make them more willing to abide by the rules, and expend resources on enforcing them. This may be down to a conviction that they are being incessantly watched over by an attentive minder, who tallies their contributions (or lack thereof) and rewards (or punishments) in a cosmic ledger. Speaking of which, incorporating the idea of just deserts is a fine plan, too. Apparently, people are born with an intuition to that effect. Just remember to keep the misfortunes visited on wrongdoers commensurate with their misdeeds. Otherwise people will think it unfair and won't buy it. No fire and brimstone for littering, and suchlike.
...

Green Travel: Bring a Folding Bicycle on an Airplane

I was in Los Angeles last week to attend an event; a friend from high school had gotten married, and his wife was having a baby shower. Shortly after I received the invitation, the best deal I could find was 3 weeks away, and so I booked the first flight leaving Oakland on a Tuesday morning, and the last flight coming back to Oakland the following week on a Wednesday night. My sister, who lives in LA, being a mother of an almost 4-year-old girl, hadn't been getting much sleep, and she balked at picking me up when my plane arrived at Burbank airport at 7:15 am. I decided that, when I arrived at my destination airport, I was not going to jump into a rented car, but get on my bike and, depending on the grace and mercy of the public transit system, ride to where I needed to go. The last time I was in Los Angeles was 4 years ago, for my sister's own baby shower, and I had a rental car for a week; by the time I came back to the Bay Area, I had gained 10 pounds, due to increased caloric intake and lack of physical activity. This time I was going to save money and get some more exercise. Here's what I did to become a green traveler (or, a green traveller, as they say in the United Kingdom):

What you will need:

• tape measure
• folding bike
• bicycle lock
• clear plastic garbage bag
• bungee cord, also known as a shock cord

1. Confirm your airline's baggage policy. I was allowed to check-in two bags for free, in accordance with the Southwest Airlines checked bags policy:

   Weight and Size Allowance:
   Maximum weight is 50 pounds and maximum size is 62 inches (length + width + height) per checked piece of luggage. ...[O]verweight items from 51 to 100 pounds and oversized items in excess of 62 inches but not more than 80 inches (e.g.; surfboards, bicycles, vaulting poles) will be accepted for a charge of $75 per item.

   If you don't want to be forced to pay $75 at the ticket counter, use measuring tape and a scale to make sure your bicycle conforms to the size and weight limitations. Besides your folding bike, I recommend you bring a backpack as your other bag, because your folding bike's wheels are smaller than your standard bicycle, and you don't want to make your ride even more unstable by having a heavy bag slung around your neck, hanging off one side, making your bicycle ride unpleasant and unsafe.
   
   If your bicycle lock is a U-lock, it's likely the TSA agent may consider that it can be used as a weapon, so don't try to bring it onto the airplane cabin in your carry-on; rather, lock your U-lock to your bicycle during the check-in.


2. Pack light. Erykah Badu, in her famous "Bag Lady", exhorts, "Bag Lady, you're going to miss your bus. You can't hurry up, cause you got too much stuff."
   
   Do not be the bag lady, who would surely hurt her back, dragging all her bags like that! Besides my folding bike, I had one backpack, into which I put my laptop computer, a change of underwear and an extra pair of shorts, an extra 16-inch inner-tube, and hard plastic steel-core tire levers, in case I got a flat tire. I got a lot of my tips for how to pack light from this article.


3. I decided to enclose my bike in a plastic bag in an effort to conform to Southwest's Special Luggage Sports Equipment Policy:

   Bicycles (defined as nonmotorized and having a single seat), including Bike Friday and Co-Pilot, properly packed in a hard-sided bicycle box that fall within the dimensions and weight limits established for normal Checked Baggage, (i.e., 62 inches or less in overall dimensions and less than 50 pounds in weight). Pedals and handlebars must be removed and packaged in protective materials so as not to be damaged by or cause damage to other Baggage. Bicycles packaged in cardboard or soft-sided cases will be transported as conditionally accepted items.

   "Conditionally accepted" means Southwest assumes no liability for damage sustained during transport. I decided on a see-through transparent bag because I imagine the airport baggage handlers will be a bit more careful if they are able to see that it's a bicycle they are handling, than if the bicycle was in a canvas bag or hard-sided case. Once your bike is unfolded at your destination airport, you can easily store the plastic bag in your backpack.


4. You will also want to bring a spare inner tube that is in your folding bike's tire size, and tire levers, in case you get a flat tire. Los Angeles has a lot of gas stations, bike shops, and people with bicycles and tire pumps in their garages, where you can use a pump if need be, but if you will not be in a densely populated area, you may also want to bring along a bike pump. By the way, for those of you concerned with how the change in air pressure during a flight may or may not affect the compressed air in your bicycle tires: before I began my voyage, I had my tires inflated beyond the recommended upper limit, and at both of my destination airports, when I received my bike, there was never any problem with my tires or inner tubes.

My 2005 Dahon Presto Lite. This model is no longer available for retail sale. I bought mine second-hand. It came without mud guards.


Folded size, with right pedal, is 30 x 20 x 17, for a total of 67 linear inches. On this model, the right pedal is easily removable. Folded size, without right pedal, is 30 x 20 x 11, for a total of 61 linear inches. Weight is about 18 pounds.


Folded bike with U-lock, locked to frame.


Folded bike with U-lock, locked to frame, covered by clear plastic garbage bag, and secured with bungee cord.

Did you ever have any problems, or unexpected events or hiccups, with checking-in your bike at the airport?
On my recent flight, during both check-ins, with my removable right pedal affixed, neither Southwest ticket counter agent made an issue of the extra few linear inches or, for that matter, ever took out a measuring tape. There was one incident where, during my first check-in, a Southwest ticket counter agent said she would have to charge me $50 to transport a bicycle. However, I pointed out that, on their website, the Southwest policy is that bikes under the size and weight limit count as checked-in baggage and are not subject to a fee. The agent looked up the policy, gave my folding bike a once-over, looked at the bike's weight, and said it was ok.

If you're looking to buy a folding bike, I recommend:

http://foldingcyclist.com/folding-bike-buyers-guide.html

though one drawback is the guide doesn't have folded-size dimensions. If you have the time to look for a second-hand, well-maintained bike for a good price, I recommend Craigslist, which is how I found mine.

Conceivably, you could also bring a folding bike with you on a boat cruise, or sight-seeing in an RV or tour bus. So now you have another option as a green tourist. Next time you travel, don't rent a car; bring a bicycle.

How to Pack Light, for Men and Women

In preparation for a recent trip to Los Angeles, I read up on some tips on how to travel smart and avoid baggage fees. Debra Saunders advises people to pack heavy, but this part of her column I definitely agree with:

European travel guru Rick Steves has recommended that, regardless of the length of a trip, that the savvy male tourist pack only three pairs of socks and underwear, a pair of shorts, two short-sleeved shirts, a long-sleeved shirt, a sweater, a windbreaker and one pair of shoes. On his Web site he tells vacationers they should fit everything they are taking into one "carry-on size bag."

A tip for couples traveling with a small child or children, from John Flinn:

"But you can't pack light if you're traveling with small children," protested several readers. Apparently no one told Andy Sedik of South San Francisco: "My wife and I just returned from a two-week trip to Eastern Europe with our 14-month-old daughter using only two carry-ons, an umbrella stroller and a diaper bag. Not only is it possible, it makes life on the road so much easier. Once you travel light, you never go back."

Tips for men from John Flinn (Note the sidebar, "The Art of Packing", which covers 'Packing for Cruises' and 'What Women Want'):

This is everything I pack for a typical three-week trip to Europe or South America, riding trains and buses and splitting my time between town and country. It all fits easily into a carry-on bag, with room left over for a bottle of Côtes du Rhône, a baguette and a few souvenirs.

Tips for women from Eliza Hussman:

I had carried around heavy suitcases for years, mostly because I always seemed to get a bad case of the "what ifs" while packing: "What if someone spills something on my dress and I need a backup?" or "What if it stops raining while I'm there and I need a swimsuit - or three?" or the dreaded "What if those sandals don't look as cute with that dress as I'd thought and my friend asks me if I brought a different pair?"

Tips for women from Christine Delsol

• Two pairs of shoes is the maximum: Good walking shoes that will hold up for eight or 10 hours at a stretch, and a lighter pair -- comfortable sandals that can go with skirts for more formal outings in hot climates, or perhaps stylish flats in cooler weather.
• A light, longish skirt is the best staple for hot climates. Unlike shorts, skirts can dress up or down, they are as welcome in restaurants and cathedrals as at the beach, they ward off sunburn and require little space. Take several.

How to use Perl, PHP, Python, R, and Ruby to find Euclidean distance between two points

According to Wikipedia:

In the Euclidean plane, if p = (p1, p2) and q = (q1, q2) then the distance is given by:

Assuming you are using the Cartesian coordinate system, your two coordinates must both be of length n, where n can be any non-zero positive integer. So if the two points in question, p and q, each had 3 values:

p = (p₁, p₂, p₃), q = (q₁, q₂, q₃)

Then n would equal 3, and the distance formula would be:



The hardest part for me, when putting this all together, was figuring out, for each scripting language, how to iterate over, i.e., step through, the respective elements of both coordinates, simultaneously:

Perl 5 (5.12.2):

use List::Util qw(sum);
use List::MoreUtils qw{ any pairwise };

sub get_distance_between
{
  if (scalar(@_) != 2)
  {
    die "You must supply 2, and only 2, coordinates, no more, no less.  Stopped";
  }

  my $a_ref = shift;
  my $b_ref = shift;

  if (@$a_ref != @$b_ref)
  {
    die "Coordinates do not have the same number of elements, stopped";
  }
  else
  {
    @x = pairwise { ($a - $b)**2 } @a, @b;
    return sqrt(sum(@x));
  }
}

# Usage:
@a = (1008, 2243, 976), @b = (1005, 2249, 974);
$ad = get_distance_between(\@a, \@b);
print "\$ad == $ad";

PHP 5.3.6:

function subtract_and_square($n, $m)
{
  return(pow($n - $m, 2));
}

function find_distance_between($p, $q)
{
  $numargs = func_num_args();
  if ($numargs != 2)
  {
    die("You must supply 2, and only 2, coordinates, no more, no less.\n");
  }
  else if (sizeof($p) != sizeof($q))
  {
    die("Coordinates do not have the same number of elements.\n");
  }
  else
  {
    $c = array_map("subtract_and_square", $p, $q);
    return pow(array_sum($c), .5);
  }
}

Python 2 (2.5.4):

def get_distance_between(p, q):
  if len(p) != len(q):
    raise Exception
  else:
    sum = 0
    for pval, qval in zip(p, q):
      sum += (pval - qval)**2
  return sum**(.5)

R (2.12.1):

get_distance_between = function(p, q)
{
  if (length(p) != length(q))
  { 
    stop("\nCoordinates do not have the same number of elements.") 
  }
  else
  {
    element_products = mapply(function(a,b) (a - b)**2, p, q)
    sqrt(sum(element_products))
  }
}

Ruby 1.9.2:

require 'generator'

def get_distance_between(p, q)
  if p.length != q.length
    raise Exception
  else
    sum = 0
    syen = SyncEnumerator.new(p, q)
    for pval, qval in syen
      sum += (pval - qval)**2
    end
  end
  return Math.sqrt(sum)
end

In the Perl example, thanks to Miller Hall and Jon Bjornstad for their review and suggestions on how to improve my Perl code to make it more readable.
In the R example, thanks to Spencer Graves and Nicholas Lewin-Koh for pointing me to mapply and plyr (which I did not have time to research and use).

Update: On October 31, 2011, my friend Nikita Borisov, assistant professor in Computer Science, offered the following suggestion on facebook re the R and Python code:

This person clearly hasn't used these languages very much. In R, you can say sqrt(sum((p-q)**2)). Similarly, in Python you can write sqrt(sum([(x-y)**2 for (x,y) in zip(p,q)]))

Thanks, Nikita!

The 3 Most Important Things a Programmer Must Know

Write code, run code, fix code is essentially what a programmer does, said the speaker at an intriguing talk I recently attended, hosted by the Perl Mongers group. Zed Shaw is the author of Learning Python the Hard Way and in review, I have to agree with this user-generated comment:

Very knowledgeable not just with Python, but he has a deep understanding of programming. He inspired me to be a better thinker and programmer.

I was interested in this talk because Zed Shaw made a name for himself by coding the Mongrel web server, as well as Mongrel2, both of which were and are integral parts of Ruby on Rails. I looked forward to the rather unique confluence of a core Ruby on Rails programmer giving a talk about Python at a Perl meetup. I had a prior discussion with a female attendee at a Ruby on Rails Workshop for Women on why religious wars in technology were so prevalent; some people get worked-up over a particular choice of scripting language (Perl vs Python vs Ruby) or text editor, and soon flame wars ensue on the internet about which technology is best. Rodney King asked us after the Los Angeles riots, and Zed is living proof that we can all get along, at least when it comes to scripting languages.

Zed took a year off to learn jazz guitar. He realized, when learning music, you have the concept of a trainer, who tells you to play individual chords multiple times until you get better at it. Then the trainer tells you to play another chord, and then play a song in both chords, in a progression, until you have some experience under your belt. Whenever you want to learn something difficult, it's hard to explain the ideas unless you have some experience under your belt. Using this same principle, Zed decided to introduce the beginner to simple coding exercises, until you get better at writing computer programs, and then he slowly introduces the concepts to you.

The fact that Zed was able to use an analogy from music learning in explaining hard-to-grasp concepts in computer programming makes his experience valuable and his book a must-read for me. Zed strikes me as hard-working, dedicated to his craft, and he knows something about how to get beginner programmers engaged in a new, complex, but rewarding venture. One last thing he said that really hit home for me: Zed recommends learning parsing and lexing, the two most important things, other than algorithms, that a programmer must know. Right now, Zed is doing C and Lua, and he mentioned software called Corona that enables the Lua programmer to write iPhone games.

Reality Television's 'Cheaters' is Fake

I'm someone who has lived in Oakland for about 3.5 years now. I love what I do everyday. I like hanging out with my friends, and maybe having a few drinks on the weekend. That's it really. Well, I'll also admit to enjoying so-called "reality" television, which sometimes caters to the dark human desire to live out revenge fantasies. Most anyone who's been jilted, especially in love, has dreamed of getting even. It's why shows like Cheaters are so readily watched: you locate your significant other and have them followed by private investigators, who covertly record their rendezvous. Then you surround the target with a television crew of 15-20, along with a vocal leading man who takes charge for you and orchestrates the ambush of the person you feel has hurt you. You overcome the protestations of your target with a video recording of the infidelity, embarrass the heck out of that denying, unfaithful, lying liar, and, if the planets are aligned correctly, a shoving match or physical altercation may ensue. As I grew accustomed to watching the show, I realized the real payoff was the thrill of not knowing what would happen next, and I'll confess to craning my neck, out of morbid curiosity, to see if the confrontation would turn violent, much like you might expect fisticuffs or a brawl at a hockey game, crashes at a race-car event, or some other dramatic development of extreme behavior we humans can all process and talk about the next day.

The host of Cheaters who leads the charge to surprise your cheating lover, and plead your case, was once Tommy Habeeb (stage name Tommy Grand), but, since 2002, it's been Joey Greco (Clark Gable III took over starting in 2012). Joey was present during some episodes I still remember, such as the one where Steve French, caught, spooked, cornered and insulted, kicked in a car's passenger window, and then decked his accusatory girlfriend Rene Reardon in the face, or the episode where entrepreneur Aaron Rodriguez, in a relationship with a subordinate female employee, Emily Cruz, discovers he had kissed his girlfriend's mouth, just after she had performed a sex act on another male coworker, Jay Evans, right under Aaron's nose. Earlier, we saw that subordinate male employee urinate in the office coffee; we then see the man-being-cheated-on, Aaron, drink the very same coffee laced with urine:Let's not forget the explosive confrontation that interrupted Dalia Santiago's outdoor marriage ceremony, as it slowly dawns on the bride in her wedding dress that the man she was about to marry had been carrying on with Jamie Isaacs and had been recorded picking up a one-night stand at a saloon:
Good times, good times... Yet, come to find we the Cheaters audience may all have been cheated on, by Cheaters! According to the Houston Press:

Actors don't need to be tailed by Gomez for weeks on end. They don't present security risks, and they don't need counseling. They also tend to be younger and better looking than real cheaters, who often will not consent to allow the show to air their faces.

The bogus cheaters interviewed for this story say they've never heard of Goldstein and that Gomez stressed to them never to reveal to Grand or the camera crew that they were acting.

One of the actors, Michelle, met Gomez last fall. "What he told me was that some of the episodes are real, but...a lot of people didn't want to be on the show once they'd been busted, so they would do these ringer episodes to supplement the show," says Michelle, who asked not to be identified by her last name.

If the reports are true, it's all very troubling, for it means Bobby Goldstein was trying to hide information from his business partner, Tommy Habeeb. I think it's telling that when the Houston Press report first came out in 2002, alleging falsehood on the part of Cheaters, Tommy Habeeb and Bobby Goldstein parted ways shortly after because Tommy had "differences with the production company"; I can even imagine the confrontation that occurred between Habeeb and Goldstein, with Tommy demanding that Bobby be straight with him, then Tommy and Bobby have their falling out, and Tommy leaves the company. Two reports from Inside Edition in 2009 seem to indicate that the infamous program where Tommy's replacement Joey Greco got stabbed was also staged, and when Inside Edition sets upon the man himself, rolling up on and presenting to this frequent accuser apparent evidence that seems to support the accusations of fakery and cheating, Joey Greco would neither confirm or deny any specific allegations, such as whether the blood was fake.

I would prefer not to believe these revelations, as I then would need to accept that some of my favorite Cheaters episodes are no more real than professional wrestling. If Cheaters is scripted, then this means that the voyeuristic thrill we get in watching people being secretly captured on camera is based on a false premise, and that it is we, the viewers, who are being had, led on by actors, who knew they were on camera, playing a role. But how can a reality television program broadcast fiction and claim that it's the truth? The same Houston Press article reports:

According to a Federal Communications Commission spokesman, there's no law or regulation against presenting acted-out scenarios as reality on television.

In response to the quiz show scandals of the 1950s, when impropriety was uncovered in rigged game shows, Congress did pass a law, in 1960, amending the Communications Act of 1934, and preventing anyone from fixing quiz shows. Well, apparently, it's not illegal to portray scripted shows as "actual true stories filmed live", even as said program, to this day, claims nothing is staged and every broadcast episode starts out with language reiterating the show is not fake. So, on television at least, you can call it non-fiction and sell it as non-fiction, even if, the truth is, Cheaters is fiction.