i'm going to stumble out to the local store tomorrow and see if they'll just plug it in for me to check.
i wasn't able to try it from an e-sata 'cause i don't actually have the right cable.
i mean, the data is there. i should be able to get it off. it seems like the power is broken. it's not whirring, it's just not reading.
i need it to bypass the bios somehow to determine if it's the power or not. if it's the power, i'm going to have to pay somebody to replace it...
the only other thing i can think of is that the self-test is failing, and that's why it's neither whirring nor being read by the bios. still reduces to paying somebody to swap it out.
L00NGB00W
Gotta ask, are you guys affiliated with RT?
selvmordspilot
afaik they're based in australia. I'm afraid it's the other way around. RT has gotten their hands on some great journalists - that are worth featuring in the rap news. #powerfulabbymartin
deathtokoalas
they are recently, yes. check their facebook page.
L00NGB00W
I can see no evidence of this.
dangerouslytalented
They have some great journalists, and are not afraid to use them... But only if and when the facts are on the Kremlin's side. The problem is when the facts are not on the Kremlin's side, whoops journalism broke.
selvmordspilot
true, and it's still up to us to decide who to believe in these matters.
dangerouslytalented
... basically, if Russia has a vested interest in not telling the truth, then don't trust them.
deathtokoalas
all media has a motive, otherwise it wouldn't exist. i mean, it's not like rap news is void of bias, either, we just all like their biases. so, i dunno why people have this naive perception that some media is more trustworthy than other media. all media is full of lies; it would't exist if it wasn't. and the other response consequently gets it right. you have to be constantly skeptical....
dangerouslytalented
That completely depends on what the motives are, Take the Guardian for example, their business model relies on their integrity. If they sell that, then there is no more money. Ever.
L00NGB00W
Assuming that all media is lies borders on paranoia.
One must take the stories with a grain of salt, and realize there is bias.
The idea of the fifth estate is to report on the actions of those in power. With enough viewpoints, one can piece together the truth.
deathtokoalas
the guardian is one of the worst advocates of liberal imperialistic bullshit and general state apologism out there. their coverage of foreign conflicts often seems written by the british state department, if not by the cia. kind of like the new york times, actually, which markets itself as relying on integrity, but is basically state media. both cnn and fox claim to be "trusted" as well; generally, when "trust" is a part of your advertising campaigns, that's a flag not to trust you. to see how bad the guardian is, all you have to do is read the independent, who is a rare source in the western world. you can at least vaguely trust the general idea of what they're presenting. but, even they have certain lines that they need to be artistic in dancing around.
@L00NGB00W it's not paranoia, it's a type of hypothesis testing. the null hypothesis is that what they're telling me is bullshit. now, can enough evidence be generated to reject that null hypothesis?
i suppose scientists are just a bunch of schizophrenics, living in a delusional fantasy reality.
we need more scientific thinking, to increase the bar so to speak, not vague accusations of paranoia and more pandering to rupert murdoch.
L00NGB00W
There you go. Case in point.
I'm not pandering to Rupert Murdoch, he manipulates the news. <_<
Assuming everything is a conspiracy is not a null hypothesis. Even if it were... One true news article would debunk said hypothesis.
Weigh each story on an individual basis. And skeptically if it is merited.
Pretty sure I am the one thinking scientifically here.
deathtokoalas
you don't know what science is, clearly.
this is painful: "Assuming everything is a conspiracy is not a null hypothesis. Even if it were... One true news article would debunk said hypothesis."
and i'm just going to request that you stop, educate yourself and come back.
L00NGB00W
Ugh.
The truth is painful sometimes. ^_^
I will stop now. But I will not return.
It's not like I have anything to gain from this conversation, other than enlightening someone.
Good day to you. ;)
deathtokoalas
can somebody other than me explain what a null hypothesis is and why the statement that it can be contradicted with a single counter-example is hilariously misinformed?
L00NGB00W
Sure, I'll explain it to you with an example. ;)
Hypothesis: Squirrels are eating my strawberries.
Null Hypothesis: Squirrels are not eating my strawberries.
Experiment: Set up a camera to see what is eating my strawberries...
Result: squirrels.
Hence, the Null hypothesis is contradicted.
LOGIC
You're welcome. ;)
deathtokoalas
that's right. now, what happens when you apply that to the question of whether media coverage is accurate or not?
(note that i'm being generous for brevity, there's no use in getting
picky about the language given that the discussion is circling around an
idea)
this is all getting to the point that if you want to approach the question of media truth with a scientific perspective, you begin by assuming falsity and then generate evidence otherwise. that doesn't mean you should be calculating p-values to analyze the evening news and it doesn't mean you need to walk around with a tinfoil hat on, literally or figuratively. it's just a rule of thumb, in context. one could summarize it with the word skepticism.
...and to clear up that loose end (if it's not clear), suggesting that finding one "counter-example" (which in this case would be an honest newscast, and these do certainly exist) proves that all media is correct is one of those classical logical fallacies. i'm pretty stingy with my likes, but i'll +1 the first person that points it out.
L00NGB00W
Same. But your original statement was that 'all media is biased', Not whether 'all media is accurate'. They're rather different statements.
With the former, finding one contradiction invalidates the Null hypothesis.
With the latter, all media would have to be true to falsify the null. Which it isn't.
Perhaps I'm just being picky.
deathtokoalas
yeah, you very much misunderstood what i said. the statement "all media is full of lies" is not the same thing as "all media is solely lies". and if you could find me a media source that's never lied, i'd be interested in hearing what it is. further, you couldn't do a meaningful test on the question of "is all media solely lies?" because you're not dealing with a specific enough question. i mean, sure, a counter-example would demonstrate it false, but it's an absurd statement to begin with. hypothesis testing has to work in a more specific context than that. i thought that was obvious, but apparently not.
it's again a basic fallacy. x is in Y does not meant Y only consists of x.
what you could do, i suppose, is generate a data set of broadcasts from a single news source and then ask "does this specific news source lie?". but that's about as broad as the method allows for (and perhaps badly (but, with some sources, perhaps reasonably - it's a question) sets all reporters as equivalent), and is something different altogether.
i was working on the assumption of analyzing claims on a statement-by-statement basis by beginning with the perspective that, because all media is full of lies, skepticism is perpetually required.
i couldn't imagine anybody not realizing that.
dangerouslytalented
There are two classes: "trust but verify", and "these guys are full of horseshit, if I want to know about this story, I am going to go somewhere else for the primary source".
L00NGB00W
No I did not, but I'm tired of arguing with you.
"It's an absurd statement to begin with."
Yes. Precisely. Some reporting is honest and accurate, some isn't.
Good day.
deathtokoalas
well, it works out to the same thing in the end. you're presenting a categorization of required rigour, if anything. i think it's largely illusory, and reduces to your own biases. one person will put fox in a and democracy now in b, and the other will flip them around. in the end, you're doing your homework, either way. that's the important part.
personally, i think it's more worthwhile to figure out what the biases are so that they can be actively countered. this whole crimea thing has actually been useful, as it's brought some closet communists out (and hopelessly misguided ones, given that russia is currently the most right-wing of any major country, including the united states. one might even call them useful idiots.).
