Impressive you are so stupid you actually got me to log in on my phone to hand you your sign (too bad you didn't log in you partisan hack). Well, here it is you embodiment of the low information voter.
First, Obama didn't sign anything for this. His boy at the FCC got ISPs reclassified as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.
Second, while not a huge trump fan he has been in office about 2% of the time Obama was. After the first year blaming Obama will get old.
I am sure there is some other drivel I should respond to but the/. Interface sucks so bad I can't even reference your post.
First your comprehension is a bit rusty. I claimed nothing about what the compound interest would be other than to take the $15k that you actually saved and turn it into anything substantial in 30 years would take luck that is... suspect. I figured anyone could run some math an see where it could take them. Obviously I was wrong so lets start with a goal. Figure your goal is to buy a house worth $150,000 in 30 years. Saving $10 a week means you would need a >12% annually compounded interest rate every year to make it. This is obviously silly, unless you have some connection somewhere (read illicit dealings) you can get 2%-7% pretty reliably. Anything more appears to be luck (ya sure), and soon followed by the other kind of luck that wipes you out.
I will not 'slashdot' any of my local banks but I can tell you that I have an account with a $5 minimum, no fees (if you take e-statements), and if I have set up auto-deposit, and use my debit card a few times a month I get 2-3% on up to $15,000. This was attractive when I was a starving collage kid and its still attractive now that I am doing better. So they exist I would suggest looking around your local banks to see what they offer.
Yes, if someone has no money that is not locked down they have no options in regards to savings. If this is the case why would you even care what interest rates you could get as they won't do you any good. This sounds more like parroting someones talking points then real concerns. If this is your situation the name of the game then is reduction of costs and short-term boosts in earnings. If someone can put back $10 a week it would help them weather emergencies better and that is far more important than getting interest on a bank account anyway (3% interest earned isn't anything compared to your >15% interest you will pay on the credit card you use to bail your ass out of a jam).
Yes, I read your collage rant. Yes I responded to parts of it by telling you how people can succeed. Yes, everything is easier when you haven't dug yourself into a hole (hmm.. prety sure I already said that). Few holes are bigger than caring for another life for 18 years. You discount that collage is doable while looking out from the bottom of a large debt (what having kids should be considered). If you haven't made some really bad choices you can work your way through collage, I did, recently. So in general yes, collage is good and affordable if you are willing to work for it. If you are 70 years old with a mountain of dept then collage wont help you a bit.
Yes, I read your post more than once. Perhaps you should consider that you discount advice too rapidly and respond like your case is the general case everyone runs into. You move into attacking people because they are unable to provide you with magic faerie dust that fixes your particular situation. People get pissed at me because I don't offer the worthless 'you did all you could' crap that is so common now. My friends bring real financial concerns to me and we talk about strategies of dealing with them. They don't come to me for a shoulder to cry on, that would be my wife's department. Empathy is for end of life situations and breakups. Everything else deserves careful consideration and an action plan.
Other points - Mandatory dorms - read about community collages, no dorms, cheep - Interest rates - don't take loans unless you really have to - Interest on 20 years of school loans - This I didn't touch as it seemed obvious. Get a decent degree when you have few costs, it shouldn't be that expensive. Even if you had to take loans to cover the whole cost your talking sub $30k. Increase in earnings should cover this in a few years. Pay it off BEFORE you increase your life style. Get a degree in something desired, not basket weaving.
Perhaps people get tired of trying to help because suggestions to a general problem are always shot down with specifics from someone who has already spent a large portion of their life getting themselves into trouble. The base suggestion
People get angry because that is what they have been told they are supposed to do. Despite deplorable conditions peasants in medieval settings were not as unhappy as you would think they should be... http://www.voxeu.org/article/h...
As for being insulted that is not any of my concern. If you find your life in a deplorable state and you find someone offering suggestions as insulting then you are probably not motivated enough to fix your life so all I can say is that I am sorry I caused you pain by helping you see your options. Please move your bitching into the worthless Empathy Line to the left and we we know not to help out any more.
The $10 a week at 3% thing is pretty bad advice on face and I can only presume only the mathematically challenged would buy into it. That is like $520 saved a year or $15,600 over 30. To parley that into riches would take Hillary style luck (read corruption). So the whole thing is stupid on face.
That being said your, 'no investments for the poor person' line just just as silly. A quick search of the internet shows banks in my area offering things like 'rewards checking' that (comes with a couple minor stipulations like having direct deposit set up) but offer in the 2%-3% range on up to some mid-level amount of cash ($10,000-$20,000). That should easily get you started.
As for collage I love how you mix 'got myself into bad financial straights' with collage is unfavorable. Yes, if you have already got yourself in a hole anything you do will (at least temporarily) make the whole deeper. What you should be doing is looking for things that might make it worse in the short term but have long term payouts.
Looking again at my local area a 2 year community collage degree is about $6k. Many of them transfer to my local 'real' collage and are equivalent of the first two years of a four year degree (I know as this is what I did). So if you haven't already dug yourself into a hole this is really not that bad. If you have dug yourself into a hole then you look into loans, grants, or companies that offer tuition help to employees.
Again just in my local area a 2 year degree is good for some low level technical job. Probably talking $25k-$35k for a helpdesk/operations position. Most of these companies with cover some tuition reimbursement so if you want to do better the $21k (and two more years) to get a BS isn't that hard.
Yes, you are talking about 2-4 years of hard work and little leisure time. That being said compared to work even 100 years ago it really isn't 'hard' work.
Now, I know there are other paths. If you are fit and/or good with dirty jobs I have a friend who swears by sanitation worker positions. I have a relative who has done really well using the military as a stepping stone to being a mechanic. There are a million ways to success but all of them take some discipline.
Your 'right time' argument is true but doesn't look at the whole picture. Life is compound. Every good thing you do makes your life easier, every bad thing makes it harder. So the sooner you make good choices the better off you will be.
As for the 'road blocks' I can only be insulting and channel Yoda 'There is no try, there is only dew.' or wait was that a commercial... Seriously don't buy into the anger and hopelessness. Remember in the richest country in the world 10% of those born into the lowest 20% of earners makes their way to the highest 20% of earners. Your life is yours to make better!
*sigh* I think you have that wrong. Those born into situations where people tell them they have no choices tend to get angry when you try to help them out by pointing out paths that they could use to better themselves. Parties that rely on keeping said people angry or content do their best to keep it that way.
No matter what you have been lead to believe by your echo chamber (and yes we all have an echo chamber) there are many people that live good lives without the internet. Don't let a tool become your life, its still just a tool.
Some people will not get by, the only way to tell if it is in their control or not is to push them to (or off) the brink. Arguments revolving around proving someone doesn't have the will to do 'X' are inherently worthless unless you are willing to prove it. The only way to help everyone get by is to take choices away from those who fail to get by.
So, given all this I have a moral solution for you. Anyone that can't get by should be given a free small plot of land, a reasonable set of tools, one year of food and the freedom to make their choices in life.
Lets see, person does 'X' and gets 'Y' punishment for doing it. Yep that would be a legal question. Unless you want to make some argument that 'X' is inevitable then 'X' would be the cause not the process by which you get from 'X' to 'Y'.
Should society have the ability to tell me to/notTo use product 'A' because they do/don't like it? Well, I wish the answer was no but as there is almost no part of the population of the USA that agrees with me I see recreational drugs as no worse a topic than many others.
Are there misguided laws that should be overturned? Sure, most laws in my opinion. Hell, classify all drugs (like antibiotics) in with this and I think you even have a topic that matters.
Interesting, I know I guy who lost his license, which lead to him losing his job, his wife and basically his whole life. Now I don't claim that puritanical speed limits created by overzealous busybodies destroyed his life. He was an idiot who flaunted the rules of the road and got what was the appropriate punishment.
That being said I don't have a problem with these laws being challenged and changed. I just don't think that destroying my concept of cause and effect is an appropriate reaction.
Yep, I watched the entirety of Buffy for my wife. The deal was I would watch it and she would live with me criticizing it. I still related people doing dumb things back to that stupid show all the time.
While just anecdotal information I would say that my experience does not support this. For each skilled programmer we keep we end up having to try 10 and slowly weed them out. We have actually talked about putting in our own, small, training facility as the prospects we see are so bad.
Proscribed drugs count if they impair judgment. Same goes for anything.
Just out of curiosity, if someone is suffering depression but is a high functioning individual are you saying you won't work with them because they are on prescribed medications? Are you aware that there are many people who have to take these medications do so to prevent them from commiting suicide?
Great example, who care? What I care about is performance. If you are a slack-jawed idiot on pot or just a slack-jawed idiot by nature makes no difference to me. If you have to take medications to survive and they cause you performance problems that is not my concern. I should not be chained to your problems just because you feel you should be protected. I agree with the GP in that I tend to find people consuming mind altering drugs tend to cause problems.
Are you also aware that it is that attitude that keeps many people in a depressed state because they cannot speak openly about what is affecting them forcing them into a cycle of dishonesty that exacerbates their condition?
Again, you have some concept that I am responsible for curing all of the worlds ills. I deal with people in an open an honorable way. Convincing people that they function better than they do does nothing but force a false perception of reality on them. I will not be responsible for doing this to another human.
My terms extend to coworkers and employers. I won't tolerate it if having sound judgement matters. And in anything important... sound judgement matters.
I could extend the same reasoning to people who have very little or no emotional intelligence as it is often their lack of impulse control that causes endless conflict. They don't need to consume drugs to do millions of dollars worth of damage in lost productivity to other employees. They appear to have sound judgement, but in reality they undermine everyone around them with emotional manipulation so that they look good.
I would hope the GP would be fine with this. I tend not to get along with people who use sudo-scientific babble like "emotional intelligence" so I would feel better if we didn't work very closely so I like the idea. I value progress, scientific discovery and insight. I find that people who complain about "emotional manipulations" and "undermining others" tend to really be complaining that they are held accountable for real results.
Perceptions of judgement can be manipulated and I suggest that psychometric tests to detect narrcissism or occupational psychopathy would do far more good than drug testing. I would take working with someone who smoked weed over someone suffering from narrcissism or worse, occupational psychopathy, yet I am forced to work with these people who are obviously psychologically impaired.
The best people to work with are the ones able to overcome differences and display empathy towards others because they make *everyone* more productive.
Yep, lets see can we get the "Group Hug Officer" to come out and make all the bad feelings go away? I actively avoid people who spend too much time in self analysis.
You cannot force me to employ you. You cannot force me to work with you. You cannot force me to work for you.
Do you drink coffee? I don't see why I should tolerate peoples bad mood if they haven't had their cup of coffee and that *clearly* effects their judgement. Do you smoke tobacco, same reason, third party smoke is harmful and makes my clothes smell. Why should a smoker get to have ten 6 minutes smoke breaks a day while I keep working?
Good point, I tend to heavily use caffeine. It has some minor side-effects but can help me stay focused long after I normally would space out. While it is possible I am self-delusional I think it brings way more pos
Seriously, "people have been put in prison and had their lives ruined" because they broke the law and got caught not because of a "misguided drug policy". I have no horse in this race, I don't care if they are legal or illegal as I value my mind in it's current state and so I would not engage in any activity specifically designed to alter it without a very compelling reason. What I do care about is that everyone is held to the same standard which you obviously don't care about.
Personally the best middle ground I have been able to find is these tenants. 1. Legalize all drugs 2. Make giving someone a drug without consent a capital offense. 3. Make all actions taken while under a drug count, taken with your consent, count as premeditated.
This way everyone gets what they hate and what they want. I get accountability which is what I want but (in my opinion) an on average lower the class of people I will end up dealing with. Moralists get punishment for real crimes but are not allowed to tell people what to do with their bodies. Druggies get to \\doWhateverDruggiesDo\\ but if they break laws they get to pay for it.
Yep, I understand and my apologies if I came off as hash. I actually used to use a combination of old andriod phones, an asterisk server and google voice as my home phone for a while before I got fed up with it.
While I don't read German I let google translate it and it looks like SIPGate is just a telephony gateway provider. The problem here is that you have a call going from your handset via POTS to your cisco device. Then on your network over IP to this SIPGate place. They then translate it probably to TDM (generic term covers all of the business/carrier style phone lines) to place the actual calls out to your destination.
Presuming you are trying to dial other people connected to the POTS then your solution is probably about the best you are going to get. If you were wanting to see better quality a direct computer to computer connection via SIP, with a headset mic could provide you with much better audio but given its limited scope I doubt it would be worth it in your case.
I am hoping that in the next couple years webRTC will make this type of thing much more wide-spread as you remove all the middle men.
1. SIP really is just the command channel protocol. What you are probably talking about when you say SIP is the combination of the SIP control channel and a RTP audio payload. 2. SIP can and does run as both UDP and TCP. There is a popular Microsoft SIP stack that actually gave up on the UDP side of SIP as there were too many issues with it in a home (AKA poorly maintained) environments. 3. RTP runs as UDP (well I know of some related TCP projects but the whole concept is just stupid) as TCP is wildly unsuited for a real-time connection protocol. 4. Studies show that unbuffered jitter greater than 2ms or latency of greater than 100ms rapidly make phone calls unmanageable for human users. There is a direct trade-off (via buffering) between jitter and latency, however TCP makes both worse which is why nobody would use it like this. 5. If you want to see quality compare SIP with the G.729 codex (probably what you are using) vs the POTS system (normal telephony) vs a wide-band SIP codex like G.722. If you can spare the bandwidth it really is impressive how nice it sounds.
So, any communication method that relies on low latency and reliable delivery with the "other side of the planet" is going to suck. I would suggest that you move to video as some studies have shown that people tend to be happier with video calls when there are technical glitches as they are able to correct some of it with the associated visual queues.
There have always been those that that push this (educators to be paid, elitists to divide the world and true believers to have someone to brainwash). It has always seemed like a self fulfilling prophecy to me. I mean seriously how is the proverbial "Russian Lit" degree really going to help anyone be successful (maybe some chance at translator work)?
However, I think you overstate that everyone pushes people that way. There is quite a movement to tell kids that they don't need College to be successful. There was quite a bit of debate a few years ago when I was in college about the real worth of it. Hell, I remember reading about the top 10 CEOs and how the majority thought that current college degrees were pretty worthless.
Further, I would say that either they are children in which case we shouldn't allow them to enter into binding contracts, or they are adults and yes it is fair to hold them to the consequences of their choices.
As for the trade school argument I don't think it will work. There would be a rush of cash as the government started to support it, they would lay down a bunch of insane requirements. The costs would go up just like it has for your standard university and you would be right back in the same place. The only way to control this is to force people to realize their choices have consequences that they will have to live with and then give them enough information to make good choices.
Cooked numbers show whatever you want them to. Unemployment, under-employment, discouraged workers and labor participation.There are a thousand ways to slice this and each one shows something different.Add in who's to blame President, House, Senate and States now you have a hodgepodge that is impossible to untangle. As far as I can tell its just a religion on both sides.
1. Nobody forces young adults to take on huge debt. At best stupid people propagate a debtor lifestyle by teaching it to their kids to party now and pay sometime in the future. It is not hard to make it through without debt. It just takes a little planning and work.I know, I did it only a few short years ago.
2. At least you got part of this right. People who blow their money on silly things tend not to have disposable income. If it wasn't this type of debt it would be credit-card debt for something else. Debtors will find things to put themselves in debt for.
3. Yes, primary/secondary education is very expensive, ~$12k/year/student. No, we don't tend to get a lot for it. We still have rather high dropout rates. We still have people graduating with little to no understanding of math, science and dubious literacy skills. I suspect the problem is nature as anyone with even a small drive to learn seems to do just fine. I have no solution to this but I suspect some people would just be happier if we left them alone.
4. As for the rich I have the solution there. Make personal long-term transactions illegal. The average person is not mature enough to sell their future self into virtual slavery. If you get rid of this inexhaustible well of stupidity, that even the modestly bright can tap into, you should have little problem with the current batch of family wealth or bubble rich. The bubble rich won't happen because nobody stupid enough to buy in will have the money. The family wealth will dwindle when they no longer have easy targets to perpetuate themselves on. Once that is cleared up those who are left rich deserve to be and if you want to continue your current 'eat the rich' tune all I can do is wish that you too get eaten when someone else decides they want what you have.
Nope, you just jumped from tin-foil territory back to religion. I know, you hate the guy. Having never met him I feel a rather lack of either hate or love for him. That being said here is why its hard to believe this stuff.
1. The Talk sections of these wikis are just a riot to read. Many diverse opinions to read 2. As with Nostradamus you can convince your-self that you can find the hidden meaning you want in anything. 3. The Lee Atwater storyyou linked in both the paragraph before and after the one you cited says things like "Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster." Now I know you take that to mean these are just coded messages but that seems to be more your problem than theirs. 4. A better link in my opinion would be this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... That being said I don't buy it. I wouldn't equate "welfare queen" nor "young buck" with blacks so those seem kind of odd to me. Both are good examples of known fraud in the system. Further it uses the example of him changing his language (same point just trade young buck out for young fellow) as proof that he was racist. So even when he changed the words he used because someone found it offensive it still was just proof he was racist.
The reality of the situation seems to be that he obviously didn't believe the same things you do (see original economic theory as religion post) so that make him a heretic. I understand, it just doesn't seem to help to raise the level of discourse. I would be more interested in why you think the work he did that eventually ended up with old BJ.C. signing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was such a bad thing.
1. What BS. The us has been a creditor for a long time. In 1835 the full dept was payed off (only time ever). It lasted until 1836. If you care to see reality try this.. https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
2. At least this one has some truth to it. He did increase the deficit in real terms.The rest of it is just religious blather. Half of people believe in personal responsibility. Half of the people believe in collectivist responsibility. Sign-up for your camp, I have yet to see conclusive evidence for either side.
3. Given that more than a quarter of chronic homeless are mentally ill I would say it is probably more the fault of getting rid of institutionalization. The push to get rid of institutionalization was from many places (of which Reagan was one). See this for real information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
4. Hmmm, looks like your conspiracy nut hat is showing. I would stick to policy and stop jumping at shadows if I was you. Oh, oh, I said shadows isn't that some code word for something else... I must be a racist...
4 (the second one).Hmmm, in a world without the US would the USSR have fallen as quickly... Probably not (they were doing well at the expand to acquire capacity plan for a while). In a world where Reagan wasn't pushing so hard would the USSR have fallen over as quickly... Probably not (It was probably military spending that helped push them over). Would they have fallen eventually? Yes, everything dies eventually.
As to how much money there was I find it hard to care that much. There is probably some waste that needs to be dealt with. That being said Defense spending as percent of GDP continues to go down. It looks like success to me. http://www.usgovernmentspendin...
Interesting, I tend to be the opposite. I tend to buy disks as they are cheap and watch them when I feel like it. I feel no need to watch something right when it comes out so I average about $3 a DVD or $6 a Bluray. When they get sub $1 I will go with anything vaguely interesting. I have found several gems that I never would have seen otherwise doing this (and some real stinkers but hey). I figure that even basic cable is usually in the $40/month range around here so I can re-task that money to buy moves (or tv shows) and I never have to deal with the 'nothing interesting on TV to watch' problem. My worst problem is working out a system for what to watch when I have nothing new and I don't have anything in mind (but I hope to find/build a DJ program for that).
It also means I don't have the 'oh, I must watch this last episode of before someone spoils it for me' mentality. The TV works for me, not the other way around.
Currently Watching Series MacGyver Penn & Teller's BS!
Next Movies The Maze Runner Shame The Devil Big Game
I won't go into the war on women statement is just a talking point so commenting on it means nothing.
Fraudulent Footage - Not sure what you mean is fraudulent about it (unless you are calling most investigative journalism fraudulent). Snopes again has a good write up on it. They show it as mixed. Short videos were obviously edited for impact. Long videos show some of the same things but are obviously not as impactful being spaced out over 2 1/2 hours of conversation. http://www.snopes.com/pp-baby-...
Communism is a great idea... I can't even see an ideal world where Communism would be a great idea. Maybe a world where there were no humans but now you are into the Pixie Dust type solutions (wouldn't it just be great if pixie dust just solved all our problems...).
Speaking (or writing) as an agnostic I would say that rabid atheists (such as you in case you missed the point here) are about on the same level as evangelical Christians. Both believe their positions based on dogma. So, neither tend to have discussions that are anything but talking points and emotional appeals. Neither really care about those that their positions hurt. Not actively evil just kind of sad.
The term has become quite a bit more generic over the years. For historical reasons there is a lot of technical infrastructure along I-29 so we get quite a few businesses springing up to take advantage of it.
(been away from a computer for a week so haven't had a chance to see this, apologies for the late reply)
I am sorry but your numbers seem all forms of shady.
Your 'killed by police' number seems wildly off. I have found no 'definitive' source but the best numbers I have seen say between 350 to 750 people a year are killed by officers. I would be interested where your number for this actually came from as you are putting this at 2x the high number I have been able to find.
Your first two stats show a clear risk assessment. The average person is over 10x more likely to be killed by a non-cop than a cop. This takes into account everything. Add in other forms of crimes and they are clearly the greater risk. After this at best you could classify people into 'more likely' and 'less likely' groups.
After this you supply 'arrests per year' and 'number of police' do derive 'arrests per officer per year'. Mathematically valid up to this point but meaning less when compared with murdered numbers per year.
Now you perform your magic 'adjustment'. Here is where I cant even fathom what you are thinking. So, per every 100,000 officers you hare a 5.6% chance of one of the people they arrest being murdered? I think maybe that is what you are saying? What does that even mean?
I am sorry, but you seem to be trying to bend the numbers to meet your preconceived notion here.
If you wanted something to support where I think you were going you should compare felons vs murders and cops vs murders. At 20m felons presumably committing 5 murders per 100,000 people we get.25 murders/1m felons/100,000 people/year. This is obviously less than the cop number.
Now that we have some fact that seems to support that cops kill more people per capita than felons do, I can now say: Who care? Be good and you will have limited interactions with cops. When you interact with cops be aware and don't do anything aggressive and you have a very low chance of being hurt by a cop. Yes, there is always a chance, but the chance is small.
I have in the past (and chances are it will continue into the future) been the victim of several moderate to petty bad crimes. The worst I have gotten from a cop is tongue lashing. I am sorry, but criminals are a much greater danger than the cops (at the current time, in the USA).
(been away from a computer for a week so haven't had a chance to see this, apologies for the late reply)
Not sure what is strange about of sense of reality. I can watch these videos and compare them to the actions I would have taken (on either side) and see what the outcomes are. I have yet to see one that would conform even remotely to what I would do so none of them concern me greatly.
From the non-cop side I would say several mistakes were made. I was taught as a youngster to stay calm, make no quick movements and comply with officers. If you think s/he did something wrong that is something to take up with their boss not them. (presuming the cop flashed lights/siren to pull the guy over) His first mistake was getting out of the car, you should always let the cop come to you. (presuming there was no weapon in the car) His second mistake was quickly spinning around and reaching for something in the car. His mistakes were minor but not something that applies to my family as we just wouldn't do these things.
From the cop side I would say he made several mistakes as well. If an officer does not feel in control of the situation he shouldn't start by asking for documentation to be provided. He should take the time to get comfortable (get the guy to move away from the car or get in the car) before proceeding. Second, "get out of the car" is not the instruction he should have given when the non-cop made the sudden move. If the guy is pulling a gun it does no good. If the guy is honest it will be moving him into a confrontational stance which will get him shot anyway.
At this point there are mistakes on both sides. Now you have the interesting part. The non-cop turns back around (in compliance with what the officer says) and the officer fires two shots. I can't know what the cop thought he saw so I have no idea if this was legit or not. If it would have stopped right here I would say the non-cop needs a talking to and the cop needs some training on clear communications and situation control. However, at the point the non-cop does exactly what he was supposed to. He puts his hands up and complies in a non-aggressive manner. The cop however, shoots twice more. This is clearly wrong.
At the minimum the cop needs to get fired (clearly unable to calm down in dangerous situations). At the maximum the cop should be gotten with attempted murder (presuming this is a pattern). I did a touch of searching and can't find out what actually happened to the cop so I don't know if there was a miscarriage of justice or not here.
All of that being said, none of this applies to me or my family. In any situation with a police officer we always follow instructions and do whatever we can to make sure we are clearly not a threat. When I get pulled over, hands stay clearly on the wheel so they can see them. When they come up to the window if they ask for something that I must reach for I clearly state what I am doing before I do it. The one abusive cop I have run into I continued to comply until the cop went away and then I went down to the station and talked to her boss. I heard that a couple years later she ended up getting enough complaints that they booted her.
Be calm, be polite, be helpful. Clearly communicate about anything that you think might be misconstrued.
So, you get the criminals to conform to the same standards and I will start going downtown again after sundown (one too many run-ins with shady people). Until then, they are still a wildly larger threat than any officer I meet.
Slashdot Mirror
Impressive you are so stupid you actually got me to log in on my phone to hand you your sign (too bad you didn't log in you partisan hack). Well, here it is you embodiment of the low information voter.
First, Obama didn't sign anything for this. His boy at the FCC got ISPs reclassified as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934.
Second, while not a huge trump fan he has been in office about 2% of the time Obama was. After the first year blaming Obama will get old.
I am sure there is some other drivel I should respond to but the /. Interface sucks so bad I can't even reference your post.
First your comprehension is a bit rusty. I claimed nothing about what the compound interest would be other than to take the $15k that you actually saved and turn it into anything substantial in 30 years would take luck that is... suspect. I figured anyone could run some math an see where it could take them. Obviously I was wrong so lets start with a goal. Figure your goal is to buy a house worth $150,000 in 30 years. Saving $10 a week means you would need a >12% annually compounded interest rate every year to make it. This is obviously silly, unless you have some connection somewhere (read illicit dealings) you can get 2%-7% pretty reliably. Anything more appears to be luck (ya sure), and soon followed by the other kind of luck that wipes you out.
I will not 'slashdot' any of my local banks but I can tell you that I have an account with a $5 minimum, no fees (if you take e-statements), and if I have set up auto-deposit, and use my debit card a few times a month I get 2-3% on up to $15,000. This was attractive when I was a starving collage kid and its still attractive now that I am doing better. So they exist I would suggest looking around your local banks to see what they offer.
Yes, if someone has no money that is not locked down they have no options in regards to savings. If this is the case why would you even care what interest rates you could get as they won't do you any good. This sounds more like parroting someones talking points then real concerns. If this is your situation the name of the game then is reduction of costs and short-term boosts in earnings. If someone can put back $10 a week it would help them weather emergencies better and that is far more important than getting interest on a bank account anyway (3% interest earned isn't anything compared to your >15% interest you will pay on the credit card you use to bail your ass out of a jam).
Yes, I read your collage rant. Yes I responded to parts of it by telling you how people can succeed. Yes, everything is easier when you haven't dug yourself into a hole (hmm.. prety sure I already said that). Few holes are bigger than caring for another life for 18 years. You discount that collage is doable while looking out from the bottom of a large debt (what having kids should be considered). If you haven't made some really bad choices you can work your way through collage, I did, recently. So in general yes, collage is good and affordable if you are willing to work for it. If you are 70 years old with a mountain of dept then collage wont help you a bit.
Yes, I read your post more than once. Perhaps you should consider that you discount advice too rapidly and respond like your case is the general case everyone runs into. You move into attacking people because they are unable to provide you with magic faerie dust that fixes your particular situation. People get pissed at me because I don't offer the worthless 'you did all you could' crap that is so common now. My friends bring real financial concerns to me and we talk about strategies of dealing with them. They don't come to me for a shoulder to cry on, that would be my wife's department. Empathy is for end of life situations and breakups. Everything else deserves careful consideration and an action plan.
Other points
- Mandatory dorms - read about community collages, no dorms, cheep
- Interest rates - don't take loans unless you really have to
- Interest on 20 years of school loans - This I didn't touch as it seemed obvious. Get a decent degree when you have few costs, it shouldn't be that expensive. Even if you had to take loans to cover the whole cost your talking sub $30k. Increase in earnings should cover this in a few years. Pay it off BEFORE you increase your life style. Get a degree in something desired, not basket weaving.
Perhaps people get tired of trying to help because suggestions to a general problem are always shot down with specifics from someone who has already spent a large portion of their life getting themselves into trouble. The base suggestion
I am not sure I follow you.
People get angry because that is what they have been told they are supposed to do. Despite deplorable conditions peasants in medieval settings were not as unhappy as you would think they should be...
http://www.voxeu.org/article/h...
As for being insulted that is not any of my concern. If you find your life in a deplorable state and you find someone offering suggestions as insulting then you are probably not motivated enough to fix your life so all I can say is that I am sorry I caused you pain by helping you see your options. Please move your bitching into the worthless Empathy Line to the left and we we know not to help out any more.
The $10 a week at 3% thing is pretty bad advice on face and I can only presume only the mathematically challenged would buy into it. That is like $520 saved a year or $15,600 over 30. To parley that into riches would take Hillary style luck (read corruption). So the whole thing is stupid on face.
That being said your, 'no investments for the poor person' line just just as silly. A quick search of the internet shows banks in my area offering things like 'rewards checking' that (comes with a couple minor stipulations like having direct deposit set up) but offer in the 2%-3% range on up to some mid-level amount of cash ($10,000-$20,000). That should easily get you started.
As for collage I love how you mix 'got myself into bad financial straights' with collage is unfavorable. Yes, if you have already got yourself in a hole anything you do will (at least temporarily) make the whole deeper. What you should be doing is looking for things that might make it worse in the short term but have long term payouts.
Looking again at my local area a 2 year community collage degree is about $6k. Many of them transfer to my local 'real' collage and are equivalent of the first two years of a four year degree (I know as this is what I did). So if you haven't already dug yourself into a hole this is really not that bad. If you have dug yourself into a hole then you look into loans, grants, or companies that offer tuition help to employees.
Again just in my local area a 2 year degree is good for some low level technical job. Probably talking $25k-$35k for a helpdesk/operations position. Most of these companies with cover some tuition reimbursement so if you want to do better the $21k (and two more years) to get a BS isn't that hard.
Yes, you are talking about 2-4 years of hard work and little leisure time. That being said compared to work even 100 years ago it really isn't 'hard' work.
Now, I know there are other paths. If you are fit and/or good with dirty jobs I have a friend who swears by sanitation worker positions. I have a relative who has done really well using the military as a stepping stone to being a mechanic. There are a million ways to success but all of them take some discipline.
Your 'right time' argument is true but doesn't look at the whole picture. Life is compound. Every good thing you do makes your life easier, every bad thing makes it harder. So the sooner you make good choices the better off you will be.
As for the 'road blocks' I can only be insulting and channel Yoda 'There is no try, there is only dew.' or wait was that a commercial... Seriously don't buy into the anger and hopelessness. Remember in the richest country in the world 10% of those born into the lowest 20% of earners makes their way to the highest 20% of earners. Your life is yours to make better!
*sigh* I think you have that wrong. Those born into situations where people tell them they have no choices tend to get angry when you try to help them out by pointing out paths that they could use to better themselves. Parties that rely on keeping said people angry or content do their best to keep it that way.
No matter what you have been lead to believe by your echo chamber (and yes we all have an echo chamber) there are many people that live good lives without the internet. Don't let a tool become your life, its still just a tool.
Some people will not get by, the only way to tell if it is in their control or not is to push them to (or off) the brink. Arguments revolving around proving someone doesn't have the will to do 'X' are inherently worthless unless you are willing to prove it. The only way to help everyone get by is to take choices away from those who fail to get by.
So, given all this I have a moral solution for you. Anyone that can't get by should be given a free small plot of land, a reasonable set of tools, one year of food and the freedom to make their choices in life.
Lets see, person does 'X' and gets 'Y' punishment for doing it. Yep that would be a legal question. Unless you want to make some argument that 'X' is inevitable then 'X' would be the cause not the process by which you get from 'X' to 'Y'.
Should society have the ability to tell me to/notTo use product 'A' because they do/don't like it? Well, I wish the answer was no but as there is almost no part of the population of the USA that agrees with me I see recreational drugs as no worse a topic than many others.
Are there misguided laws that should be overturned? Sure, most laws in my opinion. Hell, classify all drugs (like antibiotics) in with this and I think you even have a topic that matters.
Interesting, I know I guy who lost his license, which lead to him losing his job, his wife and basically his whole life. Now I don't claim that puritanical speed limits created by overzealous busybodies destroyed his life. He was an idiot who flaunted the rules of the road and got what was the appropriate punishment.
That being said I don't have a problem with these laws being challenged and changed. I just don't think that destroying my concept of cause and effect is an appropriate reaction.
Yep, I watched the entirety of Buffy for my wife. The deal was I would watch it and she would live with me criticizing it. I still related people doing dumb things back to that stupid show all the time.
While just anecdotal information I would say that my experience does not support this. For each skilled programmer we keep we end up having to try 10 and slowly weed them out. We have actually talked about putting in our own, small, training facility as the prospects we see are so bad.
Not the guy but I will chime in...
Proscribed drugs count if they impair judgment. Same goes for anything.
Just out of curiosity, if someone is suffering depression but is a high functioning individual are you saying you won't work with them because they are on prescribed medications? Are you aware that there are many people who have to take these medications do so to prevent them from commiting suicide?
Great example, who care? What I care about is performance. If you are a slack-jawed idiot on pot or just a slack-jawed idiot by nature makes no difference to me. If you have to take medications to survive and they cause you performance problems that is not my concern. I should not be chained to your problems just because you feel you should be protected. I agree with the GP in that I tend to find people consuming mind altering drugs tend to cause problems.
Are you also aware that it is that attitude that keeps many people in a depressed state because they cannot speak openly about what is affecting them forcing them into a cycle of dishonesty that exacerbates their condition?
Again, you have some concept that I am responsible for curing all of the worlds ills. I deal with people in an open an honorable way. Convincing people that they function better than they do does nothing but force a false perception of reality on them. I will not be responsible for doing this to another human.
My terms extend to coworkers and employers. I won't tolerate it if having sound judgement matters. And in anything important... sound judgement matters.
I could extend the same reasoning to people who have very little or no emotional intelligence as it is often their lack of impulse control that causes endless conflict. They don't need to consume drugs to do millions of dollars worth of damage in lost productivity to other employees. They appear to have sound judgement, but in reality they undermine everyone around them with emotional manipulation so that they look good.
I would hope the GP would be fine with this. I tend not to get along with people who use sudo-scientific babble like "emotional intelligence" so I would feel better if we didn't work very closely so I like the idea. I value progress, scientific discovery and insight. I find that people who complain about "emotional manipulations" and "undermining others" tend to really be complaining that they are held accountable for real results.
Perceptions of judgement can be manipulated and I suggest that psychometric tests to detect narrcissism or occupational psychopathy would do far more good than drug testing. I would take working with someone who smoked weed over someone suffering from narrcissism or worse, occupational psychopathy, yet I am forced to work with these people who are obviously psychologically impaired.
The best people to work with are the ones able to overcome differences and display empathy towards others because they make *everyone* more productive.
Yep, lets see can we get the "Group Hug Officer" to come out and make all the bad feelings go away? I actively avoid people who spend too much time in self analysis.
You cannot force me to employ you. You cannot force me to work with you. You cannot force me to work for you.
Do you drink coffee? I don't see why I should tolerate peoples bad mood if they haven't had their cup of coffee and that *clearly* effects their judgement. Do you smoke tobacco, same reason, third party smoke is harmful and makes my clothes smell. Why should a smoker get to have ten 6 minutes smoke breaks a day while I keep working?
Good point, I tend to heavily use caffeine. It has some minor side-effects but can help me stay focused long after I normally would space out. While it is possible I am self-delusional I think it brings way more pos
Ya, and killed over an Ice-Tea and skittles.
Seriously, "people have been put in prison and had their lives ruined" because they broke the law and got caught not because of a "misguided drug policy". I have no horse in this race, I don't care if they are legal or illegal as I value my mind in it's current state and so I would not engage in any activity specifically designed to alter it without a very compelling reason. What I do care about is that everyone is held to the same standard which you obviously don't care about.
Personally the best middle ground I have been able to find is these tenants.
1. Legalize all drugs
2. Make giving someone a drug without consent a capital offense.
3. Make all actions taken while under a drug count, taken with your consent, count as premeditated.
This way everyone gets what they hate and what they want. I get accountability which is what I want but (in my opinion) an on average lower the class of people I will end up dealing with. Moralists get punishment for real crimes but are not allowed to tell people what to do with their bodies. Druggies get to \\doWhateverDruggiesDo\\ but if they break laws they get to pay for it.
Well, obviously if its not at least 1gbps and free then we are just out to sc^ew those poor people!
Yep, I understand and my apologies if I came off as hash. I actually used to use a combination of old andriod phones, an asterisk server and google voice as my home phone for a while before I got fed up with it.
While I don't read German I let google translate it and it looks like SIPGate is just a telephony gateway provider. The problem here is that you have a call going from your handset via POTS to your cisco device. Then on your network over IP to this SIPGate place. They then translate it probably to TDM (generic term covers all of the business/carrier style phone lines) to place the actual calls out to your destination.
Presuming you are trying to dial other people connected to the POTS then your solution is probably about the best you are going to get. If you were wanting to see better quality a direct computer to computer connection via SIP, with a headset mic could provide you with much better audio but given its limited scope I doubt it would be worth it in your case.
I am hoping that in the next couple years webRTC will make this type of thing much more wide-spread as you remove all the middle men.
hope it helps,
Let me help you a bit.
1. SIP really is just the command channel protocol. What you are probably talking about when you say SIP is the combination of the SIP control channel and a RTP audio payload.
2. SIP can and does run as both UDP and TCP. There is a popular Microsoft SIP stack that actually gave up on the UDP side of SIP as there were too many issues with it in a home (AKA poorly maintained) environments.
3. RTP runs as UDP (well I know of some related TCP projects but the whole concept is just stupid) as TCP is wildly unsuited for a real-time connection protocol.
4. Studies show that unbuffered jitter greater than 2ms or latency of greater than 100ms rapidly make phone calls unmanageable for human users. There is a direct trade-off (via buffering) between jitter and latency, however TCP makes both worse which is why nobody would use it like this.
5. If you want to see quality compare SIP with the G.729 codex (probably what you are using) vs the POTS system (normal telephony) vs a wide-band SIP codex like G.722. If you can spare the bandwidth it really is impressive how nice it sounds.
So, any communication method that relies on low latency and reliable delivery with the "other side of the planet" is going to suck. I would suggest that you move to video as some studies have shown that people tend to be happier with video calls when there are technical glitches as they are able to correct some of it with the associated visual queues.
There have always been those that that push this (educators to be paid, elitists to divide the world and true believers to have someone to brainwash). It has always seemed like a self fulfilling prophecy to me. I mean seriously how is the proverbial "Russian Lit" degree really going to help anyone be successful (maybe some chance at translator work)?
However, I think you overstate that everyone pushes people that way. There is quite a movement to tell kids that they don't need College to be successful. There was quite a bit of debate a few years ago when I was in college about the real worth of it. Hell, I remember reading about the top 10 CEOs and how the majority thought that current college degrees were pretty worthless.
Further, I would say that either they are children in which case we shouldn't allow them to enter into binding contracts, or they are adults and yes it is fair to hold them to the consequences of their choices.
As for the trade school argument I don't think it will work. There would be a rush of cash as the government started to support it, they would lay down a bunch of insane requirements. The costs would go up just like it has for your standard university and you would be right back in the same place. The only way to control this is to force people to realize their choices have consequences that they will have to live with and then give them enough information to make good choices.
Cooked numbers show whatever you want them to. Unemployment, under-employment, discouraged workers and labor participation.There are a thousand ways to slice this and each one shows something different.Add in who's to blame President, House, Senate and States now you have a hodgepodge that is impossible to untangle. As far as I can tell its just a religion on both sides.
Sorry for the language but, BS.
1. Nobody forces young adults to take on huge debt. At best stupid people propagate a debtor lifestyle by teaching it to their kids to party now and pay sometime in the future. It is not hard to make it through without debt. It just takes a little planning and work.I know, I did it only a few short years ago.
2. At least you got part of this right. People who blow their money on silly things tend not to have disposable income. If it wasn't this type of debt it would be credit-card debt for something else. Debtors will find things to put themselves in debt for.
3. Yes, primary/secondary education is very expensive, ~$12k/year/student. No, we don't tend to get a lot for it. We still have rather high dropout rates. We still have people graduating with little to no understanding of math, science and dubious literacy skills. I suspect the problem is nature as anyone with even a small drive to learn seems to do just fine. I have no solution to this but I suspect some people would just be happier if we left them alone.
4. As for the rich I have the solution there. Make personal long-term transactions illegal. The average person is not mature enough to sell their future self into virtual slavery. If you get rid of this inexhaustible well of stupidity, that even the modestly bright can tap into, you should have little problem with the current batch of family wealth or bubble rich. The bubble rich won't happen because nobody stupid enough to buy in will have the money. The family wealth will dwindle when they no longer have easy targets to perpetuate themselves on. Once that is cleared up those who are left rich deserve to be and if you want to continue your current 'eat the rich' tune all I can do is wish that you too get eaten when someone else decides they want what you have.
Or that is just my opinion,
*replaces Trump with Obama and wonders how many people see the hypocrisy*...
Nope, you just jumped from tin-foil territory back to religion. I know, you hate the guy. Having never met him I feel a rather lack of either hate or love for him. That being said here is why its hard to believe this stuff.
1. The Talk sections of these wikis are just a riot to read. Many diverse opinions to read
2. As with Nostradamus you can convince your-self that you can find the hidden meaning you want in anything.
3. The Lee Atwater storyyou linked in both the paragraph before and after the one you cited says things like "Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster." Now I know you take that to mean these are just coded messages but that seems to be more your problem than theirs.
4. A better link in my opinion would be this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That being said I don't buy it. I wouldn't equate "welfare queen" nor "young buck" with blacks so those seem kind of odd to me. Both are good examples of known fraud in the system. Further it uses the example of him changing his language (same point just trade young buck out for young fellow) as proof that he was racist. So even when he changed the words he used because someone found it offensive it still was just proof he was racist.
The reality of the situation seems to be that he obviously didn't believe the same things you do (see original economic theory as religion post) so that make him a heretic. I understand, it just doesn't seem to help to raise the level of discourse. I would be more interested in why you think the work he did that eventually ended up with old BJ.C. signing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act was such a bad thing.
1. What BS. The us has been a creditor for a long time. In 1835 the full dept was payed off (only time ever). It lasted until 1836. If you care to see reality try this..
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
2. At least this one has some truth to it. He did increase the deficit in real terms.The rest of it is just religious blather. Half of people believe in personal responsibility. Half of the people believe in collectivist responsibility. Sign-up for your camp, I have yet to see conclusive evidence for either side.
3. Given that more than a quarter of chronic homeless are mentally ill I would say it is probably more the fault of getting rid of institutionalization. The push to get rid of institutionalization was from many places (of which Reagan was one). See this for real information
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
4. Hmmm, looks like your conspiracy nut hat is showing. I would stick to policy and stop jumping at shadows if I was you. Oh, oh, I said shadows isn't that some code word for something else... I must be a racist...
4 (the second one).Hmmm, in a world without the US would the USSR have fallen as quickly... Probably not (they were doing well at the expand to acquire capacity plan for a while). In a world where Reagan wasn't pushing so hard would the USSR have fallen over as quickly... Probably not (It was probably military spending that helped push them over). Would they have fallen eventually? Yes, everything dies eventually.
As to how much money there was I find it hard to care that much. There is probably some waste that needs to be dealt with. That being said Defense spending as percent of GDP continues to go down. It looks like success to me.
http://www.usgovernmentspendin...
Interesting, I tend to be the opposite. I tend to buy disks as they are cheap and watch them when I feel like it. I feel no need to watch something right when it comes out so I average about $3 a DVD or $6 a Bluray. When they get sub $1 I will go with anything vaguely interesting. I have found several gems that I never would have seen otherwise doing this (and some real stinkers but hey). I figure that even basic cable is usually in the $40/month range around here so I can re-task that money to buy moves (or tv shows) and I never have to deal with the 'nothing interesting on TV to watch' problem. My worst problem is working out a system for what to watch when I have nothing new and I don't have anything in mind (but I hope to find/build a DJ program for that).
It also means I don't have the 'oh, I must watch this last episode of before someone spoils it for me' mentality. The TV works for me, not the other way around.
Currently Watching Series
MacGyver
Penn & Teller's BS!
Next Movies
The Maze Runner
Shame The Devil
Big Game
*yawn* Lets see above post was on wackjobs, nice to see you (as a wackjob) decided to chime in.
Michigan issue - Here is the snopes 'mostly false'
http://www.snopes.com/michigan...
I won't go into the war on women statement is just a talking point so commenting on it means nothing.
Fraudulent Footage - Not sure what you mean is fraudulent about it (unless you are calling most investigative journalism fraudulent). Snopes again has a good write up on it. They show it as mixed. Short videos were obviously edited for impact. Long videos show some of the same things but are obviously not as impactful being spaced out over 2 1/2 hours of conversation.
http://www.snopes.com/pp-baby-...
Communism is a great idea... I can't even see an ideal world where Communism would be a great idea. Maybe a world where there were no humans but now you are into the Pixie Dust type solutions (wouldn't it just be great if pixie dust just solved all our problems...).
Speaking (or writing) as an agnostic I would say that rabid atheists (such as you in case you missed the point here) are about on the same level as evangelical Christians. Both believe their positions based on dogma. So, neither tend to have discussions that are anything but talking points and emotional appeals. Neither really care about those that their positions hurt. Not actively evil just kind of sad.
The term has become quite a bit more generic over the years. For historical reasons there is a lot of technical infrastructure along I-29 so we get quite a few businesses springing up to take advantage of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(been away from a computer for a week so haven't had a chance to see this, apologies for the late reply)
I am sorry but your numbers seem all forms of shady.
Your 'killed by police' number seems wildly off. I have found no 'definitive' source but the best numbers I have seen say between 350 to 750 people a year are killed by officers. I would be interested where your number for this actually came from as you are putting this at 2x the high number I have been able to find.
Your first two stats show a clear risk assessment. The average person is over 10x more likely to be killed by a non-cop than a cop. This takes into account everything. Add in other forms of crimes and they are clearly the greater risk. After this at best you could classify people into 'more likely' and 'less likely' groups.
After this you supply 'arrests per year' and 'number of police' do derive 'arrests per officer per year'. Mathematically valid up to this point but meaning less when compared with murdered numbers per year.
Now you perform your magic 'adjustment'. Here is where I cant even fathom what you are thinking. So, per every 100,000 officers you hare a 5.6% chance of one of the people they arrest being murdered? I think maybe that is what you are saying? What does that even mean?
I am sorry, but you seem to be trying to bend the numbers to meet your preconceived notion here.
If you wanted something to support where I think you were going you should compare felons vs murders and cops vs murders. At 20m felons presumably committing 5 murders per 100,000 people we get .25 murders/1m felons/100,000 people/year. This is obviously less than the cop number.
Now that we have some fact that seems to support that cops kill more people per capita than felons do, I can now say: Who care? Be good and you will have limited interactions with cops. When you interact with cops be aware and don't do anything aggressive and you have a very low chance of being hurt by a cop. Yes, there is always a chance, but the chance is small.
I have in the past (and chances are it will continue into the future) been the victim of several moderate to petty bad crimes. The worst I have gotten from a cop is tongue lashing. I am sorry, but criminals are a much greater danger than the cops (at the current time, in the USA).
(been away from a computer for a week so haven't had a chance to see this, apologies for the late reply)
Not sure what is strange about of sense of reality. I can watch these videos and compare them to the actions I would have taken (on either side) and see what the outcomes are. I have yet to see one that would conform even remotely to what I would do so none of them concern me greatly.
From the non-cop side I would say several mistakes were made. I was taught as a youngster to stay calm, make no quick movements and comply with officers. If you think s/he did something wrong that is something to take up with their boss not them. (presuming the cop flashed lights/siren to pull the guy over) His first mistake was getting out of the car, you should always let the cop come to you. (presuming there was no weapon in the car) His second mistake was quickly spinning around and reaching for something in the car. His mistakes were minor but not something that applies to my family as we just wouldn't do these things.
From the cop side I would say he made several mistakes as well. If an officer does not feel in control of the situation he shouldn't start by asking for documentation to be provided. He should take the time to get comfortable (get the guy to move away from the car or get in the car) before proceeding. Second, "get out of the car" is not the instruction he should have given when the non-cop made the sudden move. If the guy is pulling a gun it does no good. If the guy is honest it will be moving him into a confrontational stance which will get him shot anyway.
At this point there are mistakes on both sides. Now you have the interesting part. The non-cop turns back around (in compliance with what the officer says) and the officer fires two shots. I can't know what the cop thought he saw so I have no idea if this was legit or not. If it would have stopped right here I would say the non-cop needs a talking to and the cop needs some training on clear communications and situation control. However, at the point the non-cop does exactly what he was supposed to. He puts his hands up and complies in a non-aggressive manner. The cop however, shoots twice more. This is clearly wrong.
At the minimum the cop needs to get fired (clearly unable to calm down in dangerous situations). At the maximum the cop should be gotten with attempted murder (presuming this is a pattern). I did a touch of searching and can't find out what actually happened to the cop so I don't know if there was a miscarriage of justice or not here.
All of that being said, none of this applies to me or my family. In any situation with a police officer we always follow instructions and do whatever we can to make sure we are clearly not a threat. When I get pulled over, hands stay clearly on the wheel so they can see them. When they come up to the window if they ask for something that I must reach for I clearly state what I am doing before I do it. The one abusive cop I have run into I continued to comply until the cop went away and then I went down to the station and talked to her boss. I heard that a couple years later she ended up getting enough complaints that they booted her.
Be calm, be polite, be helpful. Clearly communicate about anything that you think might be misconstrued.
So, you get the criminals to conform to the same standards and I will start going downtown again after sundown (one too many run-ins with shady people). Until then, they are still a wildly larger threat than any officer I meet.
*pft* Jump first, only ask questions later and only if they are needed to promote more funding.