What is the deal with every website on the face of the earth putting their craptastic watermark on every photo they publish? Fine, if you style yourself a photographer and actually took the photo, I get it. But if the photo came from a public source, or a vendor, or actually belongs to someone else, I have to say, “wtf?”. I’ve even seen multiple watermarks on the same photos.
Its starting to encroach on the tactical industry. What do you guys think? Has watermarking gone too far?
Riddle me this…why would someone enter a contest for a free holster and then have vapor lock when asked which make and model gun they have? It’s probably best to not enter a holster giveaway if you don’t actually own one. Tactical Mama relates that “the black is going to start leaking out of (her)” if email exchanges continue to go on like this.
TM to winner…”You know, make and model of pistol…for the ummm, holster you won? Sure, we can make sure it matches your armor vest, but which model gun is it for? Oh…you think that model will look better with your loadout? Fine, but once again, which gun do you need it for?”
And…finally, No, Tactical Mama doesn’t want to talk to you on the phone at 11 PM. Actually, she doesn’t want to talk to you on the phone at all if it can be handled via email. Please understand, she’s busy right now wrangling prize winners (well over 100, many of whom haven’t answered her emails) and planning my trips to SHOT, OR, and a military mountaineering conference. However, she will stop and take a photo with you at SHOT Show if you ask her nicely.
And yes, this was meant to be read tongue in cheek, or was it?
Hey, what is up with all of the bullshit from the folks who have been chosen to receive prizes from the 12 Days of Tactical Christmas? I have never seen so much drama from people who are getting some shit for free. If you are chosen and want the prize stop giving my assistant a bunch of crap. Send her your address and size if applicable and be happy you won.
I’m going to briefly discuss this whole Dakota Meyer lawsuit with BAE that is all over the internet. I guess I have to say something since I received a slew of emails from readers with links to the story. I have read the news articles and I have to say that I will probably be a dissenting opinion because I’m not going to be vilifying anyone here. These are just the facts as I see them and facts, we all are short of.
First off, I need you to do something for me. This issue isn’t about Dakota Meyer, Medal Of Honor recipient. This is about Dakota Meyer, the guy. And once you take the MoH out of the equation, this isn’t even news. He didn’t work for BAE when he was a MoH Recipient so it isn’t even an issue. He didn’t even receive the award until September. All of this went down prior to his award.
I willingly admit that I know Bobby McReight and while we aren’t BFFs he has always been a straight shooter and a level headed guy to me. I haven’t seen any actual statements by Mr McReight yet, just hearsay. Dakota Meyer, I don’t know. I hear he is a great guy, from a lot of people. Not sure if any of them actually know him tho.
The issue is actually with OASYS, a business unit of BAE. They manufacture Thermal Sights and we have written several times about them. The US military has purchased thousands of these scopes for use in identifying IEDs. This isn’t any special new high-tech here that our troops don’t have. It’s hard for me to get upset with OASYS for having the audacity to build a better mousetrap. The current standard issue thermal sight, the PAS-13, dates from the mid-90s. It’s big, eats batteries, and is heavy. On the other hand, the OASYS SkeetIR and UTM are a fraction of the weight, size and cost. But at 15 years on, they should be.
I’m not even going to bother with the ethical issue of demonstrating these thermal sights to Pakistan. Despite things you are reading on the internet, all BAE did was ask for a marketing license to temporarily export (ie take into and bring out of Pakistan) the sights. They haven’t sold anything yet. In fact, selling anything to a foreign government is a long arduous process and usually the sale never even happens.
I am a little perplexed by the content of one of the emails used in the lawsuit. According to CNN.com, Meyer wrote to his supervisor, “I think that one of the most disturbing facts to the whole thing is that we are still going forth with the PAS-13 optic and issuing these outdated sub-par optics to our own U.S. troops when we have better optics we can put in their hands right now, but we are willing to sell it to Pakistan.” While we don’t have the entire email to put this statement into context, it seems as if Meyer doesn’t realize that the PAS-13 is built by BAE’s competitor Raytheon or that the US has already fielded OASYS systems.
Additionally, the (non)hiring story we are hearing in the news makes ZERO sense. According to a Foxnews report, Meyer left Ausgar to go to work for OASYS. When his relationship with OASYS (BAE) soured he tried to go to work back at Ausgar but they wouldn’t hire him because of statements by BAE.
Anyone else who’s ever held a job in the commercial sector see any red flags here? Seriously? They didn’t hire him because the company that he just left said something bad about him? And then, they told Meyer what they said about him and that it was their reason for not rehiring him? And on top of that, they included it in an email? It’s an unwritten ethical rule that you NEVER share comments about a prospective employee made during background checks. Way to go Ausgar for violating trust. Not only that, but don’t you take another company’s comments with a grain of salt? Sounds like Meyer’s issue is with Ausgar and not BAE. They made the decision not to rehire him. Whether or not the decision was made based on bad info, the decision was theirs which begs the question. Is there some other reason they didn’t rehire him?
We’re only hearing Dakota Meyer’s side of this story. Remember, this is a lawsuit. No one has presented BAE’s side of it and it’s really hard to determine the truth with a single point of view. Although I don’t believe Dakota Meyer brought this issue to the national stage, someone did. Someone who has an agenda. You’ve got to figure out what that agenda is. And, I’ll have to say, since this is a lawsuit, at this point, Dakota Meyer is certainly benefiting from all of the press. BAE? Not so much.
And one final issue. Dakota Meyer the MoH recipient is having zero trouble finding employment. In fact, we’ve even featured him on these very pages. He ain’t starving, so whatever went down, it hasn’t wrecked his life. I certainly hope that those things weren’t said about him if they aren’t true and I hope he deals with whatever happened, but it’s hard from me to feel any sympathy here considering the facts we have seen so far.
I think this is a great place for me to stop and let you guys discuss this amongst yourselves. I don’t have a stake in it one way or the other, so have at it. Just please, don’t make stuff up. Links to external sites with facts are great.
My friend Brandon Webb at KitUp! discuss the Stolen Valor issue and Retired SEAL and Tidewater local Don Shipley’s efforts to uncover the fakers. Unfortunately, this issue goes even deeper than these extreme cases. Somewhere between the guys who never served a day in their life, yet wears the trappings of a hero and the guy at the VFW who did serve but wants to embellish how many Viet Cong he killed barehanded lies an entirely different breed of predator who uses innuendo to imply that they are something more than the truth. Sure, they served, but they bilk the unknowing using some well placed comments and ingratiate themselves with the real deal in order to establish bonafides by association. Fortunately, the more they play their game, the easier it becomes to unmask them for what they truly are. In this day and age it’s hard to hide a fake for long.
Read about some of the most blatant here – kitup.military.com/2011/11/stolen-valor-exposed
We get LOTS of spam email but for once, one might actually be worth something, to someone. That is, if that someone has “any smaller handheld gas propulsion magnetic grappling hook.”
If you have this product, let us know so we can feature it here on SSD and you can get paid!
Yesterday, I was surprised that the Army PAO released yet another story on their Tyr Tactical MICO knockoff now dubbed the “Ironmanan” by the Army after a rebranding effort to sex it up. But, this time they make it sound like the Iowa Army National Guard developed the product instead of Natick. It was somehow missed by the main stream media last time but this time it hit big. Let’s spread the word and let everyone know that the Army spent money building something that already existed.
Is there some fat that needs to be cut in the defense budget? Definitely. After reading this story, I’d say we can come up with a few nominees. So let’s do that. In the comments section, tell us about Fraud Waste & Abuse. This story was originally broken by Military.Com’s KitUp! in July.
The Army developed he “new” High-Capacity Ammunition Carriage System in 45 days for use by troops in Operation Enduring Freedom. As soon as I saw it I raised an eyebrow. Unfortunately, it already existed in the form of the MICO from Tyr Tactical. The MICO was developed on Tyr’s own dime and debuted about a year ago. If time was of the essence, it sounds like the Army wasted 45 days to redevelop a commercial product that already existed.
Since we haven’t actually seen the High-Capacity Ammunition Carriage System, it might work entirely differently from the MICO. For instance the MICO uses a dedicated frame while the Government model attaches to a Down East frame. However, conceptually, they work the same way. Granted, it’s been done before to varying degrees of success, but something had to inspire the idea. We have been at war for nine years and no one asked for this until now? Was there at the very least some outside inspiration? Take a look at both versions and you be the judge.
But then again, maybe they were just inspired by Hollywood.
Naw…I’m not buying it either. If anyone in Government ever questions why Industry has animosity toward them, this might just be a good place to start.
Good on Kit Up! for breaking this story.
Researchers at University of Dallas in Texas have figured out how to use transparent carbon nanotubes to create photothermal deflection, or as it is more commonly known, a Mirage. In their paper, “Mirage effect from thermally modulated transparent carbon nanotube sheet” they lay out the science. It seems to look pretty good in water but I’m not too sure how it would look for all aspects of observation. Additionally, I’m not too sure how it would be done on land or if it would be as effective. But, for certain underwater applications, it might be just the ticket. Like hiding the entrance to a secret underwater lair for instance.
Via Wired’s Danger Room.
