RE: Forum biases -
Originally Posted by Stealth Enthusiast
There is a night and day difference between the atmosphere there, and the atmosphere here. I think that's important to note
That depends on who you ask.
There are many members of the RD.net Forums who will not participate here, due to the pro-Blinder, pro-Escort, and pro-VEIL bend of these Forums.
It's all in how one perceives things.
Without getting into specifics all I can say is the admins/mods over at rd.net are unprofessional. They have banned some VERY good community members, and chased all their good admins/mods away.
Again, this is all in how the individual decides to perceive things.
Bias exists in the eye of the beholder.
Isn't that kind of like saying that a person can't be a good Christian unless they learn witchcraft? I hope you don't believe that. It is not a prerequisite to be a member of rd.net to learn about countermeasures. You said yourself that they are a biased community, so that would also make them inherently a biased resource. Sorry but I am not comfortable learning from a biased resource, because in the end I cannot trust a biased resource.
No, you don't need to be a good Christian unless you learn witchcraft.
Similarly, one doesn't need to be a Nazi in order to understand the persecution of Jews - nor does one need to be a White Supremacist to understand the Civil Rights Movement. All that's needed is basic knowledge, and no, it doesn't even mean that one has to "like" or even be able to understand or empathize with a group that one finds, inherently, distasteful or even just unappealing.
Despite the bias, RadarDetector.net remains a valuable resource, and to outright refuse any information therein would be to miss much of the historical facts and context, as well as to miss the forefront of current developments.
No, I won't press you - or anyone - to go there, to either be an active member or to even just lurk and read, and do background research. I am not one to impose my views on *anyone*.
But I will reiterate the importance of a comprehensive knowledge base, to at least use what's there, along with your good common sense as a guide, and your reasoning logic - in order to sort the trash from the valid information.
Which is demonstrated just shortly below......
I guess it's all in what you are looking for. Personally I am not looking for 'large' - I am looking for helpful, nurturing, and a pleasant atmosphere.
It depends on the individual.
There are many who, despite espousing different viewpoints from the mainstream, still find a comfortable existence there. I was - and remain - an example of such.
And in wrapping back to what I said before, about having the complete story, the historical context and facts:
I have also heard that the LI that GOL used in their tests is not the same design that they sell everyone else.
This has been *repeatedly* discussed, ever since the first test of the units, at the 2007 GOL
Shootout, was published.
I honestly cannot count the number of times that this supposed
"gotcha" or "catch" has been pointed out by those who bear some form of vested-interest/bias (or when it was utilized as an outright assault, witness the infamous "Consumer Alert" video made by The Goons
) - although, of-course, this also presents as a persistent question of newcomers to our community who have not done the proper research.
It was always
open knowledge to anyone who read the testing details, discussed openly and without any secrecy on the RadarDetector.net Forums, that the tested unit was a prototype, and that it used a twin-receiver, twin-emitter design that was later revised to a single-emitter.
I remember this detail clearly, because I was one of those who was initially interested in purchasing the LI, and as-such, not only closely followed this detail, but also voiced my initial displeasure at the change of design, which then, at that time, meant that the device which I was interested in purchasing was not the same one whose performance we were given a peek towards, by the GOL
of the item.
What I still don't understand, after all these years, is why many still are not aware of this fact - despite all the discussion of it throughout the various speed-detection countermeasures communities, and despite even all that the GOL
has done to reiterate the fact that what was tested, then, was a pre-production/prototype unit.
Even the GOL
2007 Shootout page clearly notes this fact.
As I've said before, I was going to make an example - and this is the perfect case.
Without having done one's homework on the RD.net Forums, how would anyone know of the PRECISE history of this particular detail, despite the clear text appearing in the GOL
2007 Shootout text?
And to-note, the unit tested in 2008 was a production-retail unit, one and the same as the units that were and remains sold, as the "Standard" variant. The GOL
2007 Shootout tested variant, with dual-receivers and dual-emitters, in improved formatting (to account for the new LIDARs that have been developed and are in-use since that time, as well as simply from continued technical updates of both hardware and firmware), is now available as the "High Power" variant.
You've said that the RadarDetector.net Forums is "pro-LI."
History proves contrary.
The original "LI Convention" (what RadarRoy
calls a "Forum/sub-Forum") was removed by RadarRoy
himself, when it became apparent that the LI did not meet truly legitimate open-market standards.
Complaints of the product's revised pricing tier as well as the fact that the item which arrived to us was not going to bear that second transmitting head (despite assurances from various of the LI party that it was un-necessary - and to-note, it is, even today, on RadarDetector.net that the sole independent testing of the "High Powered" LI system has been undertaken by independent hobbyists, and of those who tested this system, more than one has openly stated that he does not recommend it, for its quantitative tested performance seems, at this point, to be strangely worse than that of the "Standard," single-emitter counterpart) which was seen in the 2007 GOL
test were also first logged there, and remains to be seen there. Same goes for the early product's potential performance "hole" versus the Stalker LZ-1's various generations.
Additionally, when the first-on-shore, first-US-run LIs started exhibiting weathersealing problems, Elvis
- who was then the stateside LI-reseller, and a personal friend of RadarRoy
's - as well as the entire LI Team, was repeatedly called-out by community members, who wanted action to be take...but whose actions were stalled or aborted, until Cliff took over management, to turn things around the full 180-degrees, thankfully.
I know this all first-hand, because I was there.
I was among those who voiced many of these complaints.
LI has won-over the enthusiasts and hobbyists there simply from a war of attrition.
It's proven to even doubters (Stealth Stalker
was perhaps the most recent example, who started-off with strong and vocal doubts on the LI's capabilities, but whose sentiments were turned once he himself saw, first-hand, of the LI's performance capabilities, via rigorous first-hand testing) that it works.
It's proven its capabilities against the Blinder Mx5 J11 revision (which, if you'll look more closely at the dates of initial postings on the RadarDetector.net Forums, you'll see that it was the failure of this product to deliver "advertised" [particularly of the claims of one of its representatives, who was later asked to leave the RD.net community, by no other than BlinderDude
himself] levels of protection [and to even match the outgoing Mx0 variants' performance], that caused so many in that community to turn so vehemently against Blinder - and that this sadly included some of Blinder's most vocal and most ardent supporters of the day) and even the now very highly thought-of J16 update to the Mx5 series.
It's proven its capabilities versus the defunct Escort ZR3, as well as, for lack of better words, eclipsed the quantitative testing performance to be had from the Escort ZR4 - even when the latter was supplemented with passive protective measures.
It proved that it could evolve faster than AntiLaser and LPP, who both failed due to a lack of proper customer response - the latter of which still is in-doubt, even today (while the former, AntiLaser, is attempting to do precisely what Cliff did with LI's Stateside efforts) - and who were, at various points in history, the "favorite sons," performance-wise, of the RadarDetector.net community.
And while the LaserStar never even was given a chance there, by most of that community's members (due to the past history associated with Neil Brown as well as The Goons
), the Cheetah-USA PASS was given a fair shake, only to then have greatly disappointed all of its early-purchasers upon first-hand quantitative testing.
The LI remains there, on RD.net, as a "favorite" simply because it's won the war of attrition. And it is by no means somehow favored by the Forum Administration, for it directly competes with the Forum's sponsor products, and this can well be seen in the severe limitations placed upon Cliff as well as anyone of the LI Team, to post anything that even resembles a sales pitch.
In my view, RD.net has been nothing but the harshest test one could put the Laser Interceptor, and its crew, through.
And if that Forum's members are somehow "pro-LI," it's honestly because the product's earned its place - and if I were the manufacturer of any of the products' competitors, I'd be honored to have been put through such paces, and to come out as LI has.....which is, currently, at least, something that no other product has been able to accomplish.
RE: what I said prior, about "Whose words are we supposed to believe? How can we potentially discount one but not another?" - which I feel covers both of the following:
I don't know if that is true or not but the fact that LI is usually present whenever GOL performs their tests....I would like to test my LI quad one day and see just how good or bad it really is. Regardless of how it turns out, that is the only test that I will believe.
There are too many potential influencing factors.
To carry the argument in favor *ANY* party, then, is simply illogical, by your statement above, which is, in my view, plenty valid.
Well, what about the other tests of Escort's products - the early tests of the ZR4, of which its accessibility was privy only to a select group of individuals who are, in many cases, based on their vested-interest ties, can only be described as "pro-Escort?"
What about the current "early peek" at the Blinder Mx7, which is also a pre-production unit? Could this not be seen as "pro-Blinder?"
This is precisely the reason why the GOL
was started - to encourage independent, hobbyist-level, testing - it's the war-cry of current GOL
guys like happya$$
and its ex-members such as RacerX
, as well as crazyVOLVOrob
It's also what's CONSISTENTLY voiced by the members of the NE-testing group and the central-FL, TX, and GA testing groups.
To get out there, and test, for yourself - which is what you've concluded the above paragraph with.
It doesn't matter who else says what. You've simply gotta prove things to yourself, simply because, with all other sources, no matter how seemingly complete or incontrovertible the documentation, there always exists the shadow-of-doubt.
You say that you're a scientist. Am I fair to conclude that you use electronic testing equipment and math to determine facts in your field? If so then here is a hypothetical question for you; what if there was a device.... When someone tells me that the way things are now is the way they have to be, I kindly disagree. I think there's a much better way to do things, the community just hasn't found it yet |
If only such a device was available.
No, no-one is telling you that the way things are now is the way that things have to be.
Look at what IRCMUSA
brought to the table a short 3 years ago, with real-time IR-videography. Look at how he literally turned the entire community on its head with what he was able to share with us (cementing our thoughts of the importance of LIDAR *reception*), and also look at how his testing methods have both contributed positively towards helping true enthusiasts optimize their countermeasures setups as well as look for potential faults in varying systems, as well as, sadly, have allowed The Goons
to corrupt and exploit.
Look at how the different groups do different tests, or even do the same tests, differently. CFL pursued not only the "nose-dive" effect, but also was among the first to demonstrate to us the importance of proper device aiming and leveling.
Look at what RacerX
taught us about "destructive interference/cross-talk."
Look at what SpeedLabs (again, not SML, but rather, the European group) taught us about sun-interference.
Look at what the TX guys taught us about the enforcement side of the equation (as well as our own actions), with not only officer Fritter
, but also with erickonphoenix
's dissection of what went wrong with his particular encounter.
Look at what the GA and NE guys are now reporting, of the effects of different lighting elements on police LIDAR, as well as how each individual vehicle's unique LIDAR profile can greatly affect results.
There really should -NEVER- be any "this is how it is, this is how it should be done."
That kind of stagnation is what allows the "other side" to gain an advantage.
Although I understand and appreciate the type of "versus" testing that occurs now, I agree, it's definitely not the end-all, and also, yes, that it certainly could be improved upon.
Similarly, I also do not think that testimonials towards a product being "ticket proof in all my travels/miles" or "0 tickets out of 10 LIDAR encounters" is a fair way to judge real-world effectiveness, either.
Indeed, there should be better standards - both to quantify absolute performance envelope as well as to more ideally perfect the more elusive "real-world effectiveness" quotient.
But like you've said yourself, we're, so far, just still too stupid to see it. Yet.