Step 1: Establish disciplines that ridicule radical criticism.
Step 2: Hire undergraduate math/stats students who took criticism courses at gun point and hated them.
Step 3: ...
Step 4: "OMG Ponies and revolution"
Sir, you do not need a revolution, because it has already occured. You simply need employees who have read critical approaches to statistics AS AN INTEGRAL PART of their stats education. Those people are usually in
- feminist studies (did the requested stats revolution)
- gender studies (ibid, different name)
- women's studies (ibid, different name)
- lgbt studies (exploded feminist studies ftw)
- african american studies (ibid)
- critical studies (sociology, know of mainstream criticism only)
- american studies (good with convoluted language)
(I'm the OP, was on my phone so ended up with a diff account.)
Unfortunately, I am trying to move from academia to the private / non-profit sector's 'research associate' etc roles. Finding it to be truly difficult.
> Why do you want to move out of academia? Get a tenure and you'll be doing your research plus you'll secure a job for the rest of your life.
In short, the privatization (education for profit) and adjunct (severe labor exploitation) issues are horrible in that sector and I want no part in these.
These are the same issues both the non-profit and private non-academic sectors deal with too, but the private and non-profit sectors do not have the same amount of hypocrisy and blindness as academia when it comes to sticking a ten-feet pole on fire up one's ass.
If a profile gets censored / targeted, it's one profile, vs an entire social network. But, eg, content being replied to is typically duplicated across profiles, so there actually is distribution of content.
may be cutting 2 trees in general isn't that big a deal in some situations, but looking at the photo it was definitely overkill in that situation - these trees were easily climbable and once up there it would be enough just to cut the branches the payload stuck onto.
Author here, the payload hung about 20 meters ( ~60 feet) above ground, we tried to climb up those trees but couldn't make it up to more than 5 meters. We also lent a ladder, but realized that even a 15 meter ladder is not enough to reach the payload. It's also very dangerous without climbing experience and without any climbing equipment to climb up such trees.
It was the only option for us to cut those trees down, since the wood workers of the town were just a few kilometers away from us. They directly processed the trees to firewood, which they were intended for. :)
> They directly processed the trees to firewood, which they were intended for. :)
I honestly do not understand why you take video and pictures of a planet you do not care about. To try out your RPi toy, I guess? Or for some kind of publicity I do not quite understand?
A tree's function is not to "get processed." It is the terms you use that are failing you. By "get processed" you mean "to be killed." And by "function" you mean "the value humans commonly attribute to it." Politics is indeed the art of using this kind of language-bending. You follow these by coming up with a bunch of excuses to legitimize the unnecessary damage you caused to the flora of that region out of sheer arrogance.
> It's also very dangerous without climbing experience and without any climbing equipment to climb up such trees.
You either try, or accept defeat and design a better vehicle.
(1) I don't kill your partner just because s/he has parked her/his car at the spot where I wanted to park. (This is an exaggeration solely because we attribute more value to ourselves, out of arrogance, than to anything that we deem "other.")
(2) You don't burn the computer because your software has a bug. (This example is for those readers who persist on not shedding the aforementioned arrogance.)
> I honestly do not understand why you take video and pictures of a planet you do not care about.
And how exactly did you come to this conclusion? Cutting down 2 trees makes him a bad person?
Germany is consumed up to almost a third of its surface by forests. In the last 10 years alone there was an estimated growth in forest areas of 0.4%, that is about 500km².
Do you know what that is called? Preservation of resourses. Cutting down 2 trees doesnt really mean anything when there are thousands of trees planted every week.
If you care so dearly about trees, make sure to never buy furniture again and sell your house while you're at it.
Trees are a renewable source of energy / building materials. So again, its not that much of a big deal.
Try to direct your efforts towards things that you can actually change for the better.
> A tree's function is not to "get processed."
No it's not. It's function is what we choose for it to be. Why? Because we can. But it is going to die sooner or later anyway. Cutting it down for it to processed into firewood is neither cruel nor arrogant, it is simply efficient.
That aside, as I understood it, the forest workers were in that area cutting down trees anyway. So no unnecessary harm done by OP and his mates.
> Politics is indeed the art of using this kind of language-bending
Now you're just looking for an excuse to bash him..
Also, be wary that not everyone on the internet is a native english speaker.
Written words may be interpreted in different ways by different people.
He only stated what the forest workers were using the trees for.
> You either try, or accept defeat and design a better vehicle.
I'm sure that's what you would have done in that situation. Sadly, not everyone is such a good person.
>(1) I don't kill your partner just because s/he has parked her/his car at the spot where I wanted to park. (This is an exaggeration solely because we attribute more value to ourselves, out of arrogance, than to anything that we deem "other.")
According to your logic, we attribute more value to ourselves than to anything else.
And thats perfectly fine. When you think about it, each person is the center of his/her universe and everything around them stops existing if they cease to exist. Of course we're arrogant, that is just part of the human psyche.
It's perfectly normal to give things different values. As long as your views don't do any serious damage, that is. It determines what you really care about and what your passions are.
Let people decide for themselves what they deem important and go live on your own self-designated moral highground.
>(2) You don't burn the computer because your software has a bug. (This example is for those readers who persist on not shedding the aforementioned arrogance.)
No, because when your software has a bug you go fix it. Logical thinking has a way of making things easier.
That doesn't have anything to do with arrogance.
When your probe is stuck on top of a tree that you can't reach and there are forest workers nearby, go ask them and your problem shall be solved.
See?
But honestly at this point your exaggerationg so much that I don't even know what you're trying to get at.
And I don't even care. Guess I'll have to blame my arrogance for that.
> An acre and a half of Amazon rainforest disappears every hour, and this is the deforestation you get upset about.
According to this logic, I ought to not get upset, nor criticize any policy, perspective, or activity that causes less deaths than a previous or current one did.
Assuming that for you, trees < animals < humans,
since the European colonization of Americas killed off about 100 million human beings,
I will have to wait for a catastrophe that kills off 101 million people to criticize anything that happens on earth.
This might depend on country, but in most countries that have some consumer protection, replacing a hard disk and similar reasonable operations are considered to be normal use of the machine, and the consumer law says that the consumer may not be prevented from doing this.
When the customer is not a consumer but a company, then things might be different (companies may be able to give away their rights in a way that consumers may not).
In EU countries, a manufacturer may offer a warranty, but this is just supposed to be an extra service; the seller is at least required to provide defect liability (i.e. a device must fixed if broken when it is sold and it must last for a reasonable time in reasonable use).
I have a T440p laptop which opens up very nicely and cleanly for user hard drive replacement. 2 screws and the whole back cover pops off, no "warranty void" stickers or any of that. I also upgraded the WiFi module to one that supports 5 GHz, and upgraded the RAM to 16GB, all without any fuss from the chassis. It was significantly cheaper to order the barebones system and do these upgrades myself than to order a more advanced system pre-assembled from Lenovo.
So I don't think changing a hard drive would void it. But also, I don't usually care about warranties. Things usually break only after the warranty expires, and for any electronic device, as long as it's a common enough model number it's usually possible to get spare parts on eBay when the time comes.
Kinda offtopic, but this is a bit misleading. The T4x0s series, for instance, makes it very difficult to access anything -- and the T series is known as one of the good ones!
Also, Thinkpads all have a BIOS whitelist that prevents you from actually using the hardware you just easily installed.
Wow, wouldn't have guessed. Haven't played with a T4x0s. I have a T4x0p (T440p) and it's extremely easy to access everything. But I just looked at some Youtube videos and the 's' is indeed a world of difference from the 'p'.
I've yet to encounter a manufacturer that considered a hard drive swap to be warranty-voiding. Capacity upgrades are generally perceived to be routine enough to be considered normal use; making it warranty-voiding would be like making the installation/removal of USB devices warranty-voiding.
For example, If your HDD fails under warranty, they'll ship you a new one with the simple instructions to replace it. Only tool needed is a small Philips screwdriver. :-)
> After a long and complicated trial, the jury agreed that my client was not at fault.
The client EMS is as much at fault as the police officer.
He let someone whom he knew in his medical opinion to be having a serious medical problem go to jail because he was intimidated.
If he's not at fault, no medic ever is at fault for anything, even those who are present and supervise torture and police brutality, because "oh I'm sorry I was intimidated."
Did you read the article? The patient did not go to jail. There was a 10 minute delay in care, until the patient became unresponsive and was transported to the hospital.
Do you really see no difference in culpability between someone standing by and allowing torture to happen, vs someone who attempts to argue with, but eventually concedes to a guy carrying a gun?
The patient was almost taken to jail. The EMS left him there to be transported to jail.
> There was a 10 minute delay in care, until the patient became unresponsive and was transported to the hospital.
Please don't be apologetic for other people's screw ups. We have enough of that everywhere already.
"Oh it was just 10 minutes more of stroking and stuff. No biggie." It's a stroke, you die in that 10 minutes.
> Do you really see no difference in culpability between someone standing by and allowing torture to happen, vs someone who attempts to argue with, but eventually concedes to a guy carrying a gun?
No.
We are talking about the legal system, where such cases can be used as precedents.
When you are an EMS or physician otherwise, you were at fault, and it is pardoned because "I was so very much intimidated oh my," it will be pardoned as long as you can prove you were "intimidated."
"Oh judge it was a CIA agent, I was intimidated so I stayed and supervised it."
I find it disturbing and disgusting that (1) the defense attorney is using that as an excuse, and (2) the EMS allows his defense attorney to do that.
And where is the lawsuit against the cop for intimidation (civil) and misconduct (criminal)?
I'm not excusing a 10 minute delay. I am just describing what happened, and that the patient did not, in fact, go to jail. In the case of a stroke every second matters. "Time is brain" as the saying goes...
The paramedic absolutely screwed up. He should have called his supervisor, or his medical control physician. He was inexperienced and let himself get pushed around and eventually backed down when he should have stood up for his patient. I still don't see how you can remotely compare that to being a willing participant in a crime.
> The police officer is 100% at fault here. The paramedic has medical equipment. The cop has weapons.
This is not a zero-sum game. They can be (and, I think, are) 100% at fault.
The paramedic has a medical responsibility to ensure the medical safety of the patient. He abandoned his job because he got afraid / didn't know better. These are not valid excuses.
You talk like you'd have any chance at standing up to an _ARMED MAN_ when you have little other than a stethoscope. I doubt you've ever had any interaction with the police but I can assure you they are some of the least pleasant times of my life, and they can be _VERY_ intimidating, especially if you disagree with them. In this situation, the medic was opposing a trained, armed person who could not be convinced he was wrong, if he had not backed down the officer may have become violent endangering both the patient and the medic.
Step 2: Hire undergraduate math/stats students who took criticism courses at gun point and hated them.
Step 3: ...
Step 4: "OMG Ponies and revolution"
Sir, you do not need a revolution, because it has already occured. You simply need employees who have read critical approaches to statistics AS AN INTEGRAL PART of their stats education. Those people are usually in
- feminist studies (did the requested stats revolution)
- gender studies (ibid, different name)
- women's studies (ibid, different name)
- lgbt studies (exploded feminist studies ftw)
- african american studies (ibid)
- critical studies (sociology, know of mainstream criticism only)
- american studies (good with convoluted language)