^ 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).
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.
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.
^ 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:
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" -
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:
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.
^ 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
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 -
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 -
Luckily, though, more and more of these groups are popping up.
RE: LIDAR tester -
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
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 -
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.