doctorow — 2013-10-31T19:28:08-04:00 — #1
rindan — 2013-10-31T19:32:45-04:00 — #2
I wonder if that hard mask actually serves a protective purpose. It seems like it would be exceptionally stupid to wear something that restricts your vision so badly just to conceal your identity.
jardine — 2013-10-31T19:42:22-04:00 — #3
It looks a lot like an old-school goalie mask. Might as well go full helmet at that point though.
glitch — 2013-10-31T19:43:38-04:00 — #4
Mr. Doctorow calls these men the "Taiwanese Special Forces", but then refers to them as "hypermilitarized coppers". This doesn't make much sense, as the term "Special Forces" denotes Soldiers and the Military, not Police.
Furthermore, clicking through to view the entire image gallery, it seems clear that these are in fact soldiers - they're being transported in military trucks, and their uniforms clearly show military insignia and patches.
So where do Police enter into the equation? Is it merely the fact that the uniforms are black, and thus evocative of SWAT and other "tactical" non-military units and such? Have I missed some vital bit of clarifying information somewhere?
punchcard — 2013-10-31T19:46:31-04:00 — #5
Reports I have seen indicate that it is in fact armor plate.
nagurski — 2013-10-31T19:47:05-04:00 — #6
Schedule the protest for one of those scorching hot, 95% humidity Taipei afternoons, and watch them melt.
glitch — 2013-10-31T19:49:02-04:00 — #7
Facial armor has been around for some years now, it just hasn't been officially adopted by any major militaries yet. That's pretty typical with new developments in tech and gear, though, as any good military does it's research and waits to see how effective - and especially cost effective - a new item might be before phasing it into use.
It is, in fact, ballistic grade armor, and it will indeed stop many types of rounds, particularly those used in most handguns and submachine guns. It'll also severely impede the progress of larger and nastier rounds, which can result in far less severe trauma compared to a complete lack of protection. All other factors being the same, I'd certainly want one if I was facing a rifle round to the cheek.
randywalters — 2013-10-31T19:49:55-04:00 — #8
So much for Officer Friendly.
glitch — 2013-10-31T19:52:58-04:00 — #9
Somehow, purposefully trying to make heavily armed and armoured soldiers uncomfortable sounds like a recipe for violence, and subsequent rationalizing of the violence. "The recent outbreak of violence just proves that these so-called "protestors" are a threat to the safety of the nation! You see now why we need this armor?"
Or at the very least, forcing them to endure the heat be an excuse for them to turn on the fire hoses.
hardcheese — 2013-10-31T19:56:43-04:00 — #10
Seems idiotic - why have something that protects the face but no protection for the eyes from blast, debris, irritant agents and the like? I'd take a good pair of googles and helmet over the face mask.
slybevel — 2013-10-31T19:58:25-04:00 — #11
It's amazing that a military that wants to look futuristic would still use a MAC-11. They were introduced in 1972. They're probably still using it because it's full auto.
Probable ditto for the M16 as well.
bwv812 — 2013-10-31T20:00:16-04:00 — #12
The trend seems to be that Cory prefers rhetorical bluster over factual accuracy (unless he's linking to an article about how bad science journalism is, in which case you get a different impression).
slybevel — 2013-10-31T20:04:09-04:00 — #13
The trend seems to be lots of trolling on Boing lately. If you don't like what you see, go somewhere else.
sargemisfit — 2013-10-31T20:09:31-04:00 — #14
Law & Order: Friday the 13th - Jason Goes Straight
galaxies — 2013-10-31T20:16:53-04:00 — #15
working on their group cosplay as combine civil patrol....
bwv812 — 2013-10-31T20:17:57-04:00 — #16
Is that also a valid response to BoingBoing criticism of Fox News or The Daily Mail? That if they don't like what they publish they should simply consume other media?
Do you think that any community is well served when everyone sticks to the party line and agrees with each other?
scratcheee — 2013-10-31T20:18:46-04:00 — #17
I suppose the same could be said for your reaction to the comments.
slybevel — 2013-10-31T20:18:50-04:00 — #18
phasmafelis — 2013-10-31T20:31:07-04:00 — #19
In a battlefield environment, being able to bounce bullets off your face is less important than being able to (a) see and (b) breathe, and it doesn't look like you could do either unimpeded in this ridiculous Halloween jobby.
peregrinus_bis — 2013-10-31T20:31:21-04:00 — #20
next page →