Trolling My Kids with Google Home [video]
coursetro.com
coursetro.com
Side note, Dad sounds JUST LIKE Ron Howard.
In the US it's possibly a good idea to avoid police.
In the UK where they still work to Peelian principles we don't need to fear every interaction with the police.
Sometimes it depends on other factors... Look at the city I am in right now, Omaha. If you appear to be white it is just about the safest city in the country. But if you have dark skin, run for your life.
A nice thing to learn.
In just about any situation, I'd much rather have the help of a firefighter, then a police officer.
It's incredibly unlikely that introducing a scared man with a gun and broad extrajudicial power will make a situation better.
That's very very unlikely. You are probably failing to take into account that an interaction with police only makes the news when it goes bad. You don't hear about the 99.99% of interactions that go fine.
Here's a list of the known police killings so far in 2016: http://www.killedbypolice.net
There are just over 1000 of them, out of tens of millions of interactions with police. Pick about 20 of those 1000 at random, and click through for the details. You will almost certainly find that the overwhelming majority of those are ones where the person who got shot was actively committing a serious crime, or threatening imminent harm to someone.
If you can call the police, and can be absolutely certain that there will be no negative consequences to you as a result - great. This is not what life is like for many Americans - and any one of these outcomes can be enough to ruin a life.
Your friend has developed a bias because they're constantly around people who have been (or at least claim to be) wronged by the police. They see these people at a significantly higher rate than the people who have been saved by the police, or have otherwise been on the other side of the crime. There simply isn't a need to defend the other side of the fence.
Absolutely. Which is why I am glad he pointed these risks out to me - no one else who is unbiased does or is even aware of the worst-case outcomes. If there is a way to resolve a situation without calling the police, why would you take the risk?
Another thing my friend likes to do is post news reports of police abuse to social media. One of these is very relevant to the original post. In 2013 a father called the police on his son, after the latter drove off in the father's automobile without permission, to "teach him a lesson." The police response was to murder his son: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tyler-comstock-killing-iowa-poli...
Threatening your kids, family, neighbors etc with the police is not only distasteful but can end up in tragedy.
As soon as he backed into the cruiser on dashcam, I really don't see any way that ending well.
I saw at least two moving violations in the span of 15 seconds. Backing that trailer into the cruiser would generally be counted as assault with a deadly weapon, so application of force is "end the situation" at that point.
"Yeah, he's getting shot."
Scots Police Teach US Cops How to Avoid Gun Use: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8qa5Wk_f7U
The problem with these cases is the police have attempted to carve out large categories where they can do anything ("they feel threatened") and that's unacceptable. They are licensed to carry guns, they need to use discretion.
Driving your car at high speed into a police car in an attempt to hit them is different than a fender bender at 5 miles an hour in the real world. When I have a fender bender and the car in front of me stops too suddenly and I hit them (happens 1000s of times per day), you don't get to shoot the person who hit you because it was "textbook vehicular assault". And it shouldn't be different if the other car was driven by a policeman.
I have a number of friends who ended up becoming officers and I sympathize with a lot of their struggles.
There are problems with our Law Enforcement system. There are bad officers. But let's try to not over-generalize, stereotype, and point fingers at a single point of failure. It's a complex issue with many parts.
As far as LA police go, I am motorcyclist which randomly lead me to find out about "OfficerRob" who motovlogs some of his on duty experiences as a motorcycle cop in LA:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2DeutGisK66k4JdomiiUyw
I personally like his motovlog...
Oh yeah, I am not saying that all cops are bad or that you will get killed if you call them. Just that there are risks to doing so. I should also mention that my father worked as a cop and has given me similar advice in regards to interaction with police (don't), based presumably on his personal observations of the job and his colleagues, and it did not even occur to me to mention that in the post above. I certainly don't mean to demonize cops.
That is, of course, an American (and urban) perspective.
We should use the Asch Test in schools.
Reminds me of Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure when they hide the cassette player on a timer to distract Ted's Dad at the police station, or of 'Soundboards' to call places with Arnold's voice. I do have a fondness for pranks.
You're a cool dad.
But yes, it could also be used with unmonitored and very cheap solutions, like door-stoppers with built-in alarms. It might not fool every criminal, but compared to the cost of a full-blown, monitored system (thousands up-front and hundreds/year) it'd be a steal (pun intended).
I remember as a kid we got a Commodore 128 computer and I was teaching myself to write BASIC programs. I had two younger brothers (I was maybe 9 years old, they would've been 6 or 7) and while they generally grasped "computers", they didn't really know the difference between what they saw in movies and what our little home computer could do.
After seeing Wargames or something like that, I wrote a program that simulated dialing into "the government" and displaying menu options. Even had the Hollywood-style one character at a time by adding delays to my PRINT commands.
Basically it was just a bunch of menu options you could pick from but in the end you end up selecting an option that commands it to launch nukes or something like that. Like I said, I was a kid so my understanding of things wasn't very subtle either.
Still, it scared the shit out of my brothers before my mom told me to quit screwing with them. Hell, we didn't even have a modem hooked up to the thing... Mom was a big no-fun.
I don't think he had a modem at the time either... though his dad did try to build an acoustic modem from plans in Circuit Cellar. I don't recall if they ever got that working.
Good times.
Looking back it was probably a good move. No "hacking" the DOD or anything but I'm sure I'd have at least ran up some phone charges once I discovered BBSes.
Then they can talk wistfully to one another of "the fun they had!" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fun_They_Had
We don't have the energy to travel fast enough for relativistic time dilation to make the trip short enough to make the trip in the working lifetime of the crew. The usual solution to that is the "generation ship"...a ship that takes hundreds or even thousands of years to reach its destination, but that is a self-contained ecosystem that can keep the crew, and their plants and animals, alive for the multiple generations it takes to get there.
Another proposed solution is to cryogenically suspend the crew, and then revive them when they arrive. The big problem with that is the "revive" part. Cryogenic suspension of a whole person is currently a one-way process.
While we can't do a whole person, we can do embryos and sperm.
That raises the possibility of sending a ship that is fully automated, with a cargo of embryos and sperm. When the ship finds a habitable planet it can land, unfreeze the embryos and sperm, and make some babies, and then raise them to be adulthood.
Depends what you understand as "can be raised". Seems to me that there is the potential for such persons to become mentally unstable or tuned to a highly different set of ethics than we are. If a person is only raised by robots, how do they learn dealing with actual humans?
I'd also expect that children raised exclusively by robots would be raised in the company of other similarly raised children that they would play and socialize with, giving them some experience and chance to practice what they learn formally in school and informally from movies/tv/books.
Kids need love, not that. Giving them instruction without love doesn't work at all.
The reverse works fine.
> in the company of other similarly raised children that they would play and socialize with, giving them some experience and chance to practice what they learn formally in school and informally from movies/tv/books.
Yikes. You would raise a generation of severely damaged psychopaths if you did that.