Has anyone seen this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...shows-knife-expert-penetrating-stab-vest.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...shows-knife-expert-penetrating-stab-vest.html
Vile seven-minute video showing ‘knife expert’ penetrating a stab vest
- Thread starter Gizmo
- Start date
Kaitain
Active Member
I hadn't before, and now I have. On the article linked, as it's the Daily Fail, overuse of adjectives and under-use of grey matter are evident in the report, consistent with editorial policy. As is their rather tasteless effort to link a video posted six months before to a much more recent tragedy. It sells papers.
On the wider question of "should videos like this be made?"...
All it highlights is that a man of reasonable strength and significant weight, when given a specially designed blade and in idealised circumstances, puncture a vest of the "Concealable Stab-Protective Body Armour" variety. He does not show that the CSPBA protects front and back, but inadequately defends the wearer's flanks, nor does it cover neck, armpit, groin or any of the half-dozen other areas a man could be cut that would cause rapid death. He does not show how to defeat an officer trained in armed and unarmed combat to get into the position to attack one of those areas.
It is, in effect, a proof of concept - much like the proof of concept viruses published for critical equipment, failure of which could kill its owner or operator, and where publishing prompts the manufacturer to fix the problem. Perhaps safety vest standards need to be reviewed.
Yes, terrorists of all stripes might study these videos and make a better shank, or homebrew gun, or similar. They might also follow a fairly simple Instructables for how to make a rail gun. They could manufacture dimethyl-mercury from household chemicals (don't do this - while it's easy, you will likely die in the process). Every now and again you get some berk dying while trying to ferment castor seeds in the bath. Most of this list could be learned about from information available in any high school library. You just need a brain to be able to make the most of the information.
We should be grateful that the overwhelming five-nines majority of people with brains are not in the business of murdering in the name of their favoured sky-fairy*. We cannot protect ourselves against individual nutters with access to a weapon and the desire to use it. Plenty of non-terrorist mass murders prove that.
There is a certain segment of our collective society that rejoices every time we surrender our freedoms, rights and liberties. They wish to change our way of life to fit their twisted worldview, and will use everything from misinformation and brainwashing through to acts of violence to achieve it. Every time we voluntarily ban a whole class of videos, restrict information, restrict freedoms of movement, of association, of belief they win.
That description would apply equally well to both the Islamists, and to government.
So on the question of whether such videos should be made... what would it cost us if they were banned?
* Although that would leave about 70k brainy people prepared to kill for $deity. Statistically, that would mean 22k of them are Christians, 16k Muslims, 10k Hindus and there's probably even a Pastafarian in there somewhere.
On the wider question of "should videos like this be made?"...
All it highlights is that a man of reasonable strength and significant weight, when given a specially designed blade and in idealised circumstances, puncture a vest of the "Concealable Stab-Protective Body Armour" variety. He does not show that the CSPBA protects front and back, but inadequately defends the wearer's flanks, nor does it cover neck, armpit, groin or any of the half-dozen other areas a man could be cut that would cause rapid death. He does not show how to defeat an officer trained in armed and unarmed combat to get into the position to attack one of those areas.
It is, in effect, a proof of concept - much like the proof of concept viruses published for critical equipment, failure of which could kill its owner or operator, and where publishing prompts the manufacturer to fix the problem. Perhaps safety vest standards need to be reviewed.
Yes, terrorists of all stripes might study these videos and make a better shank, or homebrew gun, or similar. They might also follow a fairly simple Instructables for how to make a rail gun. They could manufacture dimethyl-mercury from household chemicals (don't do this - while it's easy, you will likely die in the process). Every now and again you get some berk dying while trying to ferment castor seeds in the bath. Most of this list could be learned about from information available in any high school library. You just need a brain to be able to make the most of the information.
We should be grateful that the overwhelming five-nines majority of people with brains are not in the business of murdering in the name of their favoured sky-fairy*. We cannot protect ourselves against individual nutters with access to a weapon and the desire to use it. Plenty of non-terrorist mass murders prove that.
There is a certain segment of our collective society that rejoices every time we surrender our freedoms, rights and liberties. They wish to change our way of life to fit their twisted worldview, and will use everything from misinformation and brainwashing through to acts of violence to achieve it. Every time we voluntarily ban a whole class of videos, restrict information, restrict freedoms of movement, of association, of belief they win.
That description would apply equally well to both the Islamists, and to government.
So on the question of whether such videos should be made... what would it cost us if they were banned?
* Although that would leave about 70k brainy people prepared to kill for $deity. Statistically, that would mean 22k of them are Christians, 16k Muslims, 10k Hindus and there's probably even a Pastafarian in there somewhere.
What I find particularly worrisome is how quickly people jumped on this guy, based on nothing more than the article.
While I gather that the Daily Mail is regarded as a questionable source of information in the UK by a lot of people, it still has a circulation that makes it THE 2nd LARGEST publication in the UK (behind only The Sun). This gives the publication the ability to influence a significant segment of the population, apparently including MPs.
It's easy for someone to argue that this could have been resolved if ANYONE had taken the time to look at the videos, but there's a reason we have newspapers; we trust that the research has already been done. Realistically, none of us have the TIME to do all of the research.
Daniel once commented that he spends upwards of 5 hours/day consuming news. That's great, and I'm glad he has the time to do that. <I> don't, nor do most people. Further, just because you spend 5 hours consuming news doesn't mean you are consuming ACCURATE news. Even worse, with the incestuous nature of the news business, it's increasingly difficult to cross-reference.
What I mean by this is that, it used to the be case that if you saw a news item in 5 different sources, you could be reasonably certain of getting some original content out of each of those sources. You could cross-reference them to get a more complete picture, and even develop a feel for which sources were likely accurate and which were questionable.
Today, we have literally hundreds of publications and shows on television purveying the news. In the vast majority of cases, those 'sources' are actually doing nothing more than regurgitating what's been produced by typically only one major source.
I'm not going to be so crass as to suggest that the major sources are intentionally getting the news wrong, but it seems to be the case that more and more frequently, "news" is getting published that is just plain wrong. This, coupled with the increasing polarization of our society, means that things can (and often do) spiral out of all reasonable bounds very quickly. In addition, we have the rise of 'Fake News', which IS INTENTIONALLY misleading, but is couched as if it is legitimate. Finally, we have the apparent reluctance of news sources to publicly VISIBLY own up to inaccurate stories (e.g. the original story is published on page 1, but the retraction or correction is published on 34, or in the case of digital media, just silently corrected many days later).
Much of this (at least in the case of major organizations) can be traced to the pressure to publish first, which is greatly intensified by the 'instant news' nature of both the web and cable. This leads organizations to make questionable decisions regarding accuracy in order to 'get the scoop'.
I don't know what to do about this, but I do know that a functioning democracy REQUIRES the ability of its citizens to be ACCURATELY informed. We can't hold our elected representatives accountable if we can't even readily get correct information to work from.
While I gather that the Daily Mail is regarded as a questionable source of information in the UK by a lot of people, it still has a circulation that makes it THE 2nd LARGEST publication in the UK (behind only The Sun). This gives the publication the ability to influence a significant segment of the population, apparently including MPs.
It's easy for someone to argue that this could have been resolved if ANYONE had taken the time to look at the videos, but there's a reason we have newspapers; we trust that the research has already been done. Realistically, none of us have the TIME to do all of the research.
Daniel once commented that he spends upwards of 5 hours/day consuming news. That's great, and I'm glad he has the time to do that. <I> don't, nor do most people. Further, just because you spend 5 hours consuming news doesn't mean you are consuming ACCURATE news. Even worse, with the incestuous nature of the news business, it's increasingly difficult to cross-reference.
What I mean by this is that, it used to the be case that if you saw a news item in 5 different sources, you could be reasonably certain of getting some original content out of each of those sources. You could cross-reference them to get a more complete picture, and even develop a feel for which sources were likely accurate and which were questionable.
Today, we have literally hundreds of publications and shows on television purveying the news. In the vast majority of cases, those 'sources' are actually doing nothing more than regurgitating what's been produced by typically only one major source.
I'm not going to be so crass as to suggest that the major sources are intentionally getting the news wrong, but it seems to be the case that more and more frequently, "news" is getting published that is just plain wrong. This, coupled with the increasing polarization of our society, means that things can (and often do) spiral out of all reasonable bounds very quickly. In addition, we have the rise of 'Fake News', which IS INTENTIONALLY misleading, but is couched as if it is legitimate. Finally, we have the apparent reluctance of news sources to publicly VISIBLY own up to inaccurate stories (e.g. the original story is published on page 1, but the retraction or correction is published on 34, or in the case of digital media, just silently corrected many days later).
Much of this (at least in the case of major organizations) can be traced to the pressure to publish first, which is greatly intensified by the 'instant news' nature of both the web and cable. This leads organizations to make questionable decisions regarding accuracy in order to 'get the scoop'.
I don't know what to do about this, but I do know that a functioning democracy REQUIRES the ability of its citizens to be ACCURATELY informed. We can't hold our elected representatives accountable if we can't even readily get correct information to work from.
"The Superior man gathers information in order to learn, he sifts it in order to under stand."
Not recommending, just offing this so you can see where I'm coming from.
I watch MSNBC,Ajaseeria, Reuters, ABC, NBC. and HBO's Vice Pretty much every day.
Except for a few things I find annoying, like continuing to insist that Pot is a drug, which it is not, it is an herb.
On the whole I find most, almost all the news from these sources creditable and accurate.
In addition to daily news Several, MSNBC, Aljaseeria,and Vice have a large back log of in depth reporting on a wide verity of subjects. As Gizmo says time is the great censor! We can only learn what we have the time to learn. And Most often we must take our sources on face value.
But over time one comes to know who to trust and how far. All of these source make mistakes. MSNBC and Aljaseeria are the most fastidious in accuracy and in making any needed corrections.
Rachale Maddow drives me nuts with her redundancy, repetition and lame humor But her research team is second to none. She gets it right and she get it before the rest. Her back ground on stories can be an education. So I endure her with affection for all that she has taught me.
Aljazeera is like nobody else. One would expect excellence in Near East coverage, but man they cover the Globe. On a daily bases. What's different about there coverage is that they do their reporting on the ground.
You don't just hear it from a reporter whose like real pretty. Their reporters dress wounds. While they ask their questions. Figuratively and literately. It's a judgment call, but I feel they report what is happening to people rather than to institutions.
If I could only watch for an hour or less Aljaseeria and the Rachale Maddow show on MSNBC would give me at lest 90 percent of what I get by covering more sources. It's a rare day when one source has a REAL exclusive.
But R.M covers things that REALLY need covering that no one else does.
Reuters, is different!
They offer you your news in 10, 15, and 30 minute choices, national and international. Aljazeeria also offers national and international, if you want only one and are short on time.
If you want to know how the impeachment is coming along, how many Russian agents were/are in Trumps top picks R.M. is your Girl. She has I think a better grasp of how incredibly extensive Russian penetration into our election than any pne in news.
What I find stunning is how much is already known and uncontested without ANYONE calling for Impeachment of Trump and all of his appointments.
All things come in time.":O}
Not recommending, just offing this so you can see where I'm coming from.
I watch MSNBC,Ajaseeria, Reuters, ABC, NBC. and HBO's Vice Pretty much every day.
Except for a few things I find annoying, like continuing to insist that Pot is a drug, which it is not, it is an herb.
On the whole I find most, almost all the news from these sources creditable and accurate.
In addition to daily news Several, MSNBC, Aljaseeria,and Vice have a large back log of in depth reporting on a wide verity of subjects. As Gizmo says time is the great censor! We can only learn what we have the time to learn. And Most often we must take our sources on face value.
But over time one comes to know who to trust and how far. All of these source make mistakes. MSNBC and Aljaseeria are the most fastidious in accuracy and in making any needed corrections.
Rachale Maddow drives me nuts with her redundancy, repetition and lame humor But her research team is second to none. She gets it right and she get it before the rest. Her back ground on stories can be an education. So I endure her with affection for all that she has taught me.
Aljazeera is like nobody else. One would expect excellence in Near East coverage, but man they cover the Globe. On a daily bases. What's different about there coverage is that they do their reporting on the ground.
You don't just hear it from a reporter whose like real pretty. Their reporters dress wounds. While they ask their questions. Figuratively and literately. It's a judgment call, but I feel they report what is happening to people rather than to institutions.
If I could only watch for an hour or less Aljaseeria and the Rachale Maddow show on MSNBC would give me at lest 90 percent of what I get by covering more sources. It's a rare day when one source has a REAL exclusive.
But R.M covers things that REALLY need covering that no one else does.
Reuters, is different!
They offer you your news in 10, 15, and 30 minute choices, national and international. Aljazeeria also offers national and international, if you want only one and are short on time.
If you want to know how the impeachment is coming along, how many Russian agents were/are in Trumps top picks R.M. is your Girl. She has I think a better grasp of how incredibly extensive Russian penetration into our election than any pne in news.
What I find stunning is how much is already known and uncontested without ANYONE calling for Impeachment of Trump and all of his appointments.
All things come in time.":O}
The Daily Mail is a really crap newspaper, but I think we all know that already.
That guy is a bit of an odd-ball, no doubt encouraged by the views he gets.
But, really that vest was just garbage, cost 60 euros to buy, and probably about 10 euros to manufacture. Most likely it would rip and fall apart before seeing any real action!
Real vests are much more expensive.
What I find unfortunate, here in the UK, is that they seem to position armed police officers on guard, often on their own. That is a seriously bad way to go about it. They need to be in pairs, at least, if not in groups. So, that they have each other's back, and are at least able to to deter these lone-wolf types.
That guy is a bit of an odd-ball, no doubt encouraged by the views he gets.
But, really that vest was just garbage, cost 60 euros to buy, and probably about 10 euros to manufacture. Most likely it would rip and fall apart before seeing any real action!
Real vests are much more expensive.
What I find unfortunate, here in the UK, is that they seem to position armed police officers on guard, often on their own. That is a seriously bad way to go about it. They need to be in pairs, at least, if not in groups. So, that they have each other's back, and are at least able to to deter these lone-wolf types.
It will be interesting to see how this one works out:
https://www.wikitribune.com/
User-created news to some extent, but also employing 10 professionals.
https://www.wikitribune.com/
User-created news to some extent, but also employing 10 professionals.
Then explain how R.M. got the election so incredibly SPECTACULARLY wrong? She understands NOTHING about what people in the 'flyover' states care about, and seems proud of that fact, with a degree of arrogance that is breathtaking from my viewpoint. She called Brexit a 'global disaster', and then later decided that maybe it wouldn't be that bad. She claimed that Wisconsin's middle class was shrinking faster than any other state in the country, when the facts don't support anything CLOSE to that.
She is given to hyperbole in the guise of news. Which is rather my point. To the best of my knowledge, she has never acknowledged any of these errors. Now, you will say "So what? Those are minor things". But she is watched by a LOT of people (including you) and she influences the opinions of a lot of people (including you). How much ruckus do you think she caused for the people who had to deal with the fallout from those statements?
I've heard that Al Jazeera actually do produce credible news, and have to say that what little I've seen seems to support that.
That doesn't stop millions of people from reading it every day. Now, I don't know if that is because the readers are looking for a laugh or if they are actually taking it seriously, but again, there are apparently at least SOME people with influence who pay attention to it (the aforementioned MPs).
Right, and that was his point, I think, although as he admits at the beginning of his video, he made it rather badly.
The online version is the most read newspaper website in the world, with something like 200 million visitors a month.
They are smart when it comes to getting people to read what they write. It's more like a soap opera vaguely based on the news. They know what part of the brain to tap in to.
Interestingly, they seem to publish news online for free, before putting it in their UK paper, usually the following day. But, the stories are reviewed and edited again before going to print. It's as if they use the online version as a testing ground before printing.
Kaitain
Active Member
... nobody give that man a coffee! He's clearly had quite enough already...
Unfortunately all the UK papers are pretty crap these days as, desperate for revenue they chase click-bait instead of stories, and employ illiterates as journalists. At least their continued uselessness keeps Private Eye in business... and litigation
Two things:
1. Why does Kaitain know so much about protective armor?
Kaitain, stay home where all you need is a bath robe to protect your dignity.":O}
2. Though I have never had a need for one, I for some reason I saw this from a consumers angle. If my life were on the line I'd want to know what he was trying to find out, Am I safe!?
OK so it's three things sue somebody rich!
My big take away from martial arts is this.
There is no self defense. There is only escalation.
Avoid conflict at every turn.
If caught up in a conflict at all times be ready to compromise and meet your adversary half way. Even when you are in the right.
To carry on a conflict to the bitter end may win the day. But conflict will arise again and again without end.
Spot on!Nobody should have to walk the streets alone. It has to breed paranoia in our protectors and this we do not want! Alone and no one calls for help.
Alone there's noone to stand protectively over you when you fall.
Alone, when you go down all that needs protecting is made victim.
This has to be an economic decision rather than tactical.
As America knows so well, Alone and your dead meat.
Looks good, but I shy away when Reporters and helpful consumers are seen as equals.
Consumers "Hear something or see something and tell us what they saw.
Reporters Dig! Reporters question. Reporter verify and cross check.
they seek out another source to confirm.
These constitute a reporters skill set. It takes time and effort to become a real reporter.
Finally, a real reporter has to earn a living. Caught just once in a deliberate false report
and a reporter is finished.
But that said...I'd like to see more collaboration between the press and the consumer.
As long as the pros lead the enthusiast. Because they make a product and sell that product
and professional is the standard for news everywhere.
Had I seen this earlier I could have saved myself some typing.
The one objection I have is the assertion that opinion pieces and editorials cheapen the news.
How can they? They aren't news.
Fake news is not a danger!!
It's a fiction that cannot bear scrutiny. What endangers us is always ourselves. WE no longer wish to spend ourselves in discovery of truth. We do not scrutinize.
While true that we cannot hope to track down every story in detail, we can establish for ourselves who is reliable.
Fake news exits because some people didn't like what is true. So they lied. They made up a lie and called it an alternate truth. When it's only an alternative to truth...a lie.
While things like Fox News are not helpful, you have to want to be lied to to spend more than a few days with their coverage. It's not very hard to come to a proper assessment of the worth of what is being said.
In my view even stupid people know Fox is a lie... they just fell in love with a lie that flatters them. and banks the fires of hate.
The professional press seem to regard enthusiasts with disdain. To be fair, they have good reason to, given some of the crap I've seen churned out by enthusiasts. But it would be good for there to be at least SOME cross-pollination, as it could be beneficial for both groups. And you are absolutely right that being a REPORTER is really hard.