Speed Trap Hunter Forum: Best Radar Detectors, Laser Jammers, Laser Detectors, Speed Cameras Forum  

Go Back   Speed Trap Hunter Forum: Best Radar Detectors, Laser Jammers, Laser Detectors, Speed Cameras Forum > Speed Trap Countermeasures > Laser Jammers
Radar Detectors Forum Logon:


Laser Jammers Discussion forum related to laser jammers and laser jamming.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #101 (permalink)   IP: 75.91.38.156
Old 2009-07-10
steagall1000 steagall1000 is offline
Banned Indefinitely
 
Join Date: 2007 Jul
Location: Homer, Georgia
Posts: 30
steagall1000 is on a distinguished road
Default :)

Amen to that!!!!!!!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Trap Hunter View Post
Guys,

He are some of the legal commentary concerning the patenting process from one of the leading multi-national IP firms.

FACT: Patent application numbers are private until they are published.

FACT: One can always reveal them of their own free will if one wishes, but the idea is that up until something is published, the patentee has the right to abandon without making something public record.

FACT: If one doesn't want others to find a way to dig up one's abandoned applications, keeping the application number to oneself is one way to do that.

FACT: The patent application number is confidential information until published - as is the existence of the patent application itself.

FACT: It's okay to say "patent pending" if something is pending as an advertisement, but it is wholly optional and not required.

FACT:
One should not say it if it is not true, but one doesn't have to say if it is true. So, one can keep one's application private until it is published.

FACT: There are some exceptions to making pending applications public sooner or under different access circumstances (involving related applications and incorporation of a pending application by reference for information in a published application), but by and large - the rule is you file, and at 18 months it's published (including the publication and application numbers). Up until the 18 months, they are one's private information.

LEGAL OPINION:

I usually counsel people to keep the application and number private until publication, just in case they want to abandon, but that's up to the applicant whether to publish the application number prior to PTO publication.

The one true exception, is that in the US you can still file and request "Non-publication," in which case the patent application is not available unless and until the patent issues, but you can ONLY do this if you do not partake in foreign filing of any kind (including PCT) in a country that also publishes (which is pretty much all of them). So if you only want a US patent, you can ask not to publish.

Based upon this feedback, I would prefer that further discussion on this particular aspect of any company's IP (filed or assigned) be no longer discussed on this forum (or on any other forum, for that matter) as it will be in the best interest of all parties involved.

Discussions of the other related issues are fine, but please respect my request to cease discussing/speculating about the IP of any given company in a public forum.

As Happya$$ already indicated, this IS a matter for the attorneys to sort out, not for forum members.

STH

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #102 (permalink)   IP: 4.159.74.132
Old 2009-07-10
Stealth Enthusiast Stealth Enthusiast is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 2009 Jun
Posts: 7
Stealth Enthusiast is on a distinguished road
Smile

I would like to thank you STH for going the extra mile and helping the community to learn more about this. This is yet another example of what sets this forum above and beyond all the others
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #103 (permalink)   IP: 76.190.193.28
Old 2009-07-11
TSi+WRX TSi+WRX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 2008 Sep
Location: Cleveland/Shaker Heights, Ohio, USA
Posts: 44
TSi+WRX is on a distinguished road
Default

RE: Forum biases -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Enthusiast View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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......

Quote:
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:
Quote:
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 preview 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.

Aside:

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:

Quote:
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.
Exactly.

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.

Why?

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.

Quote:
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.


TSi+WRX's Sig:- Allen/Usual Suspect "DumboRAT"/One of the Three Stooges

LI Rev.2.8, Ver.7.03 - quad 8.0A-f w/ 8.5 Slim-r
LPP v8.3h(CAN/AU)/10.1s, 2xF/1xR
9500i, Red (4307) w/ZR3
VEIL G4
CR8APL8s, w/LaserShield(F)
Cheetah GPS-Mirror

[ Wifey's FXT -> Bue 8500x50 (Rev.5); LI Rev.2.9, Ver.7.08 - dual 8.5 ]

Me: '05 Legacy 2.5GT Ltd., mildly modified
Wifey: '09 Forester XT, barely modded
Baby-Anna: too short to reach any pedals!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #104 (permalink)   IP: 4.159.74.97
Old 2009-07-12
Stealth Enthusiast Stealth Enthusiast is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 2009 Jun
Posts: 7
Stealth Enthusiast is on a distinguished road
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by TSi+WRX View Post
There are many members of the RD.net Forums who will not participate here
Good, a mixed blessing if I ever saw one The last thing a respected forum like this one needs is to have their immature, egotistical, one-sided grand standing displayed here. Thank God there is at least one forum like this one where people can discuss serious matters seriously, without being railroaded into the pettiness that people see on other forums on a almost daily basis.

Quote:
due to the pro-Blinder, pro-Escort, and pro-VEIL bend of these Forums
I don't see any forum as being against Veil. It works, that much we know, so anyone who would say otherwise would be wrong. You can go on any forum and find people praising it, and for good reason. I'm not talking about when it first came out, I'm talking about now that it's been tested and proven to work. You could take a poor performing jammer and add Veil to the mix, and it will synergistically make it work much better. That speaks volumes. I don't see this forum as being pro-anything. I know I'm relatively still new here but I find the atmosphere fair and balanced. If I am wrong then you'll need to show me specific recent threads that show otherwise. I think you're talking about something else.

Quote:
Again, this is all in how the individual decides to perceive things. Bias exists in the eye of the beholder
As soon as someone becomes aware and conscience of something they perceive it, so that is a moot point. What makes them perceive it one way or the other is a different matter. I make decisions based on facts. That is not bias. Bias is unfair prejudice. I know many other people also do not go to rd.net based on what they've seen displayed there. That is a persons preference to stay away from that site, not a bias.

Quote:
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.
As I mentioned before a key element for any forum to perform is to allow its members to teach a specific topic (in this case countermeasures). That involves people asking questions without the fear of being ridiculed, or a sermon about this or that product from a competitors product fanboy. You are right, the person trying to learn does not have to like the other members (especially if they find them distasteful) BUT those other members DO need to allow those people asking the questions the chance to ask them without being rude towards those asking the questions. If you were in school and every-time you raised your hand to ask a question some hotshot made fun of you, after a while you would just stop making any attempt to ask anything. IMO rd.net is not a good place to learn anything, except the art of immaturity and rudeness. As I said before, just because they are big does not mean they are good. The higher-ups there want that forum to operate as it currently does, and that is all I need to see to be nauseated and to be turned off by it.

Quote:
Despite the bias, RadarDetector.net remains a valuable resource
That is your opinion, not a fact.

Quote:
to outright refuse any information therein would be to miss much of the historical facts and context
That is not true. A person could ask for any of that information on any other forum and learn the same things. Even if the person replying to their post linked back to rd.net to show a specific thread, it still would be a win-win situation because the person clicking on the link wouldn't have to wad through all the nonsense that is displayed on the that forum on a almost daily bases. One does NOT need to be a member of that forum to use its resources, and besides, learning this communities historical background only goes but so far. Most people aren't trying to learn the subject of history, they're trying to learn how to best make their car as stealth as possible with current technology, and you can learn those things just as well at this forum. So no, rd.net is not needed. It's just a habit that you've yet to break, that others already have

Quote:
in order to sort the trash from the valid information.
But that's just it, you shouldn't have to sort through the trash. There shouldn't be ANY trash! If that forum was run professionally then trash wouldn't be a concern in the first place. So this is where you say "all forums have trash".... yadda yadda yadda. All I can say is when I come to this forum I occasionally see a gum wrapper lying on the floor, but when I go to rd.net it's like going to a landfill. Now you tell me who's got the worse trash problem, and which has the better atmosphere to learn in

Quote:
You've said that the RadarDetector.net Forums is "pro-LI." History proves contrary.
Not current history

For example; I have seen some of the regulars there proclaim that they would NEVER buy a Blinder jammer even if they performed superiorly. Does that sound mature to you? Does that sound rational to you? Would you want to learn anything from these type of people? I wouldn't.

Quote:
LI has won-over the enthusiasts and hobbyists there simply from a war of attrition.
I'm not so sure that's the only reason...

Quote:
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?"
No it couldn't. You're not comparing apples with apples. LI's pre-production unit was tested by GOL and used to give their product favorable ratings. The Blinder pre-release thread was just that, a discussion about the new upcoming product. GOL did NOT test the pre-production Blinder, nor to my knowledge did Blinder at any time even give a pre-production unit to GOL for any testing while testing was being conducted. Yes they were both pre-production units, but how they were utilized is worlds apart.

Quote:
To get out there, and test, for yourself - which is what you've concluded the above paragraph with.
Yes I feel that people shouldn't rely on any 'groups' testing results, but instead test the unit right in front of them that's installed on their car themselves. That is however, against human nature, which is why I feel the community needs more people with radar/lidar guns helping others to test what's on their car. This is currently the hole in the countermeasures donut.

Quote:
If only such a device was available.
I won't make any predictions but I am confident that you will see such things soon, but you probably wont see them advertised on rd.net So much for your "missing the forefront of current developments" by-not-being-at-other-forums theory

Quote:
But like you've said yourself, we're, so far, just still too stupid to see it. Yet.
No I wouldn't say that the community hasn't found them yet because they are stupid, far from it. The collective knowledge of the community is incredible. Penicillin was discovered by accident. Sometimes you just need to be in the right place at the right time


Stealth Enthusiast's Sig:.
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #105 (permalink)   IP: 129.22.227.193
Old 2009-07-13
TSi+WRX TSi+WRX is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 2008 Sep
Location: Cleveland/Shaker Heights, Ohio, USA
Posts: 44
TSi+WRX is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth Enthusiast View Post
I don't see any forum as being against Veil. It works, that much we know, so anyone who would say otherwise would be wrong. You can go on any forum and find people praising it, and for good reason. I'm not talking about when it first came out, I'm talking about now that it's been tested and proven to work. You could take a poor performing jammer and add Veil to the mix, and it will synergistically make it work much better. That speaks volumes.
^ There's plenty of debate on RadarDetector.net as well as other communities as to the extent of VEIL's benefit, particularly given a jammer that works well. While I don't agree with those views, I do see their merit, both in terms of academic debate, as well as what's been tested (evidence counter to the claims that VEIL works is also plenty to be had).

Quote:
I don't see this forum as being pro-anything. I know I'm relatively still new here but I find the atmosphere fair and balanced. If I am wrong then you'll need to show me specific recent threads that show otherwise. I think you're talking about something else.
No, I'm definitely talking about this Forum being pro-Blinder, pro-Escort, pro-VEIL.

There have been those who have been here, who have not agreed with such views, who have chosen not to come back.

In light of what Bob/VEIL Guy/[b]SpeedTrapHunter has chosen as the Mission Statement of this Forum, I will respect those rules and not debate this argument, for it will simply drag-in people who choose to no longer be here, and will perpetuate much negativity.

Quote:
As soon as someone becomes aware and conscience of something they perceive it, so that is a moot point. What makes them perceive it one way or the other is a different matter. I make decisions based on facts. That is not bias. Bias is unfair prejudice. I know many other people also do not go to rd.net based on what they've seen displayed there. That is a persons preference to stay away from that site, not a bias.
Personal preference/bias, to me, it's all the same - it's something that's simply not objective.

One can sort out the differences between what should not be taken into account, when critically reading through *any* Forum, and yet still retain enough presence-of-mind to know and understand what any potential data set would suggest.

To me, it is worth it to sift through the detritus, in order to gain a fuller understanding of all the facts in-play.

Quote:
As I mentioned before a key element for any forum to perform is to allow its members to teach a specific topic (in this case countermeasures). That involves people asking questions without the fear of being ridiculed, or a sermon about this or that product from a competitors product fanboy. You are right, the person trying to learn does not have to like the other members (especially if they find them distasteful) BUT those other members DO need to allow those people asking the questions the chance to ask them without being rude towards those asking the questions. If you were in school and every-time you raised your hand to ask a question some hotshot made fun of you, after a while you would just stop making any attempt to ask anything. IMO rd.net is not a good place to learn anything, except the art of immaturity and rudeness. As I said before, just because they are big does not mean they are good. The higher-ups there want that forum to operate as it currently does, and that is all I need to see to be nauseated and to be turned off by it.
^ I completely agree with this, and find it both well-considered and well-said.

To me, there are no stupid questions, and also, to me, it is important that *every* possibility be pursued fairly and equally.

The pervasive atmosphere there is not conducive to such, unfortunately.

RE: RadarDetector.net being a valuable resource:
Quote:
That is your opinion, not a fact.
Really?

Where else is one to find a gathering of many enthusiasts, many of whom, in-turn, gather for independent, hobbyist-level based testing?

Where else is data from such testing published?

Where else is the background of what happened with AntiLaser, Laser Pro Park, LaserStar, and Drive Smart logged?

Where else is there the same level of documented background on the various iterations of today's countermeasures arsenal, including not only LIDAR jammers, but RADAR detectors?

RE: my comment on "outright refusal any information therein [of RD.net] would be to miss much of the historical facts and context" -
Quote:
That is not true. A person could ask for any of that information on any other forum and learn the same things. Even if the person replying to their post linked back to rd.net to show a specific thread, it still would be a win-win situation because the person clicking on the link wouldn't have to wad through all the nonsense that is displayed on the that forum on a almost daily bases. One does NOT need to be a member of that forum to use its resources, and besides, learning this communities historical background only goes but so far. Most people aren't trying to learn the subject of history, they're trying to learn how to best make their car as stealth as possible with current technology, and you can learn those things just as well at this forum. So no, rd.net is not needed. It's just a habit that you've yet to break, that others already have
Your own reply confirms my statement as true and valid.

No, one does not need to be a member of the RD.net Forums. I've stated that very clearly:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TSi+WRX View Post
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.
But you yourself cited that even if one only linked to the pertinent RD.net threads/posts, it would be a "win-win."

And it is VITAL to learn the history.

Without the history, we would not properly understand why it is that so many members constantly cry "wait until the production variant comes out, before getting hyped-up about a product."

The reasons for this is clearly demonstrated in the history, of Blinder's prototypes tested by the GOL, in their respective "early days," which were then found to not perform up-to-par, and also again with both AntiLaser products and, once more (although performance was not an issue, the actual physical packaging of the product was), with Laser Interceptor.

Without knowing the history of Neil Brown and DriveSmart, as well as the history of The Goons, one would easily have succumb to the LaserStar's rather well-conceived marketing tactics - and many did just that.
It is only through the proper historical context that one is able to understand why many of us asked for caution.

Without knowing the history, newbies would not properly understand the importance of passive countermeasures such as VEIL in enhancing a vehicle's overall LIDAR profile - why the Stalker LZ1 is so capable of exploiting a "weaker" jammer's defenses, which is so nicely handled by VEIL. Similarly, one would not understand the importance of VEIL and other point-countermeasure passive defenses when it came to devices like the TruSpeed.

Without the proper historical perspective, we cannot hope to understand, fully, what makes for good CURRENT defenses.

Quote:
But that's just it, you shouldn't have to sort through the trash. There shouldn't be ANY trash! If that forum was run professionally then trash wouldn't be a concern in the first place. So this is where you say "all forums have trash".... yadda yadda yadda. All I can say is when I come to this forum I occasionally see a gum wrapper lying on the floor, but when I go to rd.net it's like going to a landfill. Now you tell me who's got the worse trash problem, and which has the better atmosphere to learn in
^ I agree, but this Forum, currently, is very, very small.

I can literally count, on one hand, the number of active participants.

With greater population of users comes a higher - and more difficult to maintain - noise floor. It's simply an effect of "the least common denominator," and I've seen it happen virtually *everywhere* that there's a user-population increase.

No, a Forum doesn't have to be like that, the Admin/Moderators could exercise a tighter reign, as VEIL Guy/STH has, here.

But in terms of using a resource that is already corrupt?

All that one can do is to sort through the trash for the gems, and my, are there true gems.

RE: "pre-release" items tested -
Quote:
No it couldn't. You're not comparing apples with apples. LI's pre-production unit was tested by GOL and used to give their product favorable ratings. The Blinder pre-release thread was just that, a discussion about the new upcoming product. GOL did NOT test the pre-production Blinder, nor to my knowledge did Blinder at any time even give a pre-production unit to GOL for any testing while testing was being conducted. Yes they were both pre-production units, but how they were utilized is worlds apart.
The GOL doesn't sell any products.

Similarly, RadarBusters was never stocked with LIs.

That Blinder has allowed an early-peek of the Mx7 is just the same - only that this ability was given to a different group of hobbyists (BTW, I seriously doubt that the GOL will *EVER* test a pre-production unit, ever again - they've been burned by this way too many times in their past).

And let's not forget steagall1000's improper use of the Blinder Mx7 video, which was censured by appropriate parties on EVERY legitimate countermeasures hobbyist Forum as being "shill"-worthy.

Testing of a pre-production product is simply testing of a pre-production product.

I don't see any wrong in it, as long as that fact is made known to all involved - which WAS the case with the LI/GOL, and which is also the case with the Blinder Mx7.

Besides, if you're so focused on CURRENT history, why even bother bringing up the old issue of the pre-production LI and GOL 2007 - which is now two years past?

Why don't we focus on the CURRENT history of the LI, as-tested by not only the GOL (who, given the presence of LI representatives at the 2008 testing, I do feel that fact needs to be noted), but also CFL, NE-regional, MI, TX, GA, and NJ groups, as well as many other independent hobbyists?

RE: group/individual testing -
Quote:
Yes I feel that people shouldn't rely on any 'groups' testing results, but instead test the unit right in front of them that's installed on their car themselves. That is however, against human nature, which is why I feel the community needs more people with radar/lidar guns helping others to test what's on their car. This is currently the hole in the countermeasures donut.
Agreed.

Luckily, though, more and more of these groups are popping up.

RE: LIDAR tester -
Quote:
I won't make any predictions but I am confident that you will see such things soon, but you probably wont see them advertised on rd.net So much for your "missing the forefront of current developments" by-not-being-at-other-forums theory
So here's what I don't get....

You say you don't want to go to RD.net -

Yet you keep bringing up old issues that were explained on RD.net to rehash?

You claim no knowledge of many past issues, yet, the more you write above, the more it is clear that you *DO* have specific knowledge of past concerns....

And now you hint at a development on RD.net that will happen in the future? and furthermore, by downplaying my stating that you're not on the other Forum, seems to suggest that you *are* on the other Forum....

Why, exactly, are you playing both hands here?

Who are you, exactly? Bob/VEIL Guy/SpeedTrapHunter has cited that you are involved in the industry:

Northeast Laser Jammer test results for June '09

Why not come out and tell us who you are, and EXACTLY what your knowledge-base happens to be, and where your personal inclinations lie, instead of playing us like fools?

RE: new methods of testing -
Quote:
No I wouldn't say that the community hasn't found them yet because they are stupid, far from it. The collective knowledge of the community is incredible. Penicillin was discovered by accident. Sometimes you just need to be in the right place at the right time
That "dumb" was a tongue-in-cheek comment. Everyone who has read any of my past posts know how highly I think of my fellow hobbyists and enthusiasts.

Just because we haven't come up with it, yet, doesn't mean that we won't, ever - or even come upon it accidentally.


TSi+WRX's Sig:- Allen/Usual Suspect "DumboRAT"/One of the Three Stooges

LI Rev.2.8, Ver.7.03 - quad 8.0A-f w/ 8.5 Slim-r
LPP v8.3h(CAN/AU)/10.1s, 2xF/1xR
9500i, Red (4307) w/ZR3
VEIL G4
CR8APL8s, w/LaserShield(F)
Cheetah GPS-Mirror

[ Wifey's FXT -> Bue 8500x50 (Rev.5); LI Rev.2.9, Ver.7.08 - dual 8.5 ]

Me: '05 Legacy 2.5GT Ltd., mildly modified
Wifey: '09 Forester XT, barely modded
Baby-Anna: too short to reach any pedals!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:20.


©2019 SpeedTrapHunter