I would never handle an alpha particle emitter without gloves. Imagine if a small piece came off on your skin and you scratched yourself or rubbed your eye or something.

We had a squirrel behave a bit like this in our yard a few years ago. It kept trying and failing to climb a tree, couldn't get more than a foot off the ground without falling off backwards. We happened to know someone who volunteers at a local wildlife rescue center, so I put on some thick gloves and grabbed it in a nice soft towel, then put it in a cat carrier. A few days later we heard back that it had made a full recovery, and they suspected it was drunk. Turns out that when doing some home renovation my father in law had moved our compost bin slightly, but not all of the compost that it was covering. We assume the squirrel got into some old fruit that had fermented and got good and tore up.

Yes, I understand they are taught to shoot to kill, I just think it's wrong to do so.
If it was an unavoidable situation of a single officer against a single offender, I would agree. Since there were 3, one of them could have safely moved to trying non-lethal force, with a double helping of deadly force instantly backing him up if it doesn't work. If not taser, bean bags, sticky foam, flash bang, etc. They have many means of non-lethal force that work almost every time. That should be the normal, daily way of doing it. That's why they call for backup. If they're just going to all shoot to kill anyway, why not just save time and money and do it alone? If they're only going to try lethal force, can we stop paying for all that non-lethal equipment we give them?
Shooting rapid fire and randomly in the direction of a 'perp' puts the public at risk. The first 5+ shots all missed him and flew down the street, I'm curious if anyone was hit.
If they don't even attempt non-lethal means of halting the criminal, there WAS a much better alternative. If lethal force is acceptable in any unknown situation, it's become a war of 'us vs them' where any police stop may end in one or both parties being killed because the cop wasn't sure he was safe, that's not a good outcome. When there are multiple officers, at least one should always TRY non-lethal force. If it's appropriate to have multiple guns drawn and pointed at a human's head, it's appropriate to try to taser them or bean bag them before shooting a full clip of live rounds.

If 'potential threat' is the only metric needed to justify homicide, every cop on the beat could be legally shot. They are all armed, and known to shoot to kill at the slightest provocation. Killing them would be self defense in every case if that was the only thing needed to make it acceptable, as they are all not just 'potential threats', but actual deadly threats known to be armed and homicidal.
That's why that theory doesn't work in my eyes. It leads to more killings, which leads to more fear, which leads to more killings, which leads to more fear.... Cops are trained and armed and given bullet proof vests, cut proof gloves/sleeves, and have massive backup. If they intentionally put themselves in a position where they are alone against an unknown threat, then kill out of fear of the situation they put themselves in, how is that not inappropriate? I really don't get it.
(I do get that sometimes (rarely) it's unavoidable, but most times a little patience and a little less 'contempt of cop- punishable by death' would diffuse situations that police instead often escalate into homicide because of a complete lack of patience or empathy, or out of anger because they were 'disrespected' by not having their commands followed instantly)

It's not really using the power glove, though, is it? I was expecting him to use the motion sensors somehow.

This is basically just a wireless keypad strapped to his arm.

But then he did the fistbump thing and I found I just had to upvote that!

You almost never hear of an NHL player being upset (in a litigation sort of way) about injuries they got that resulted from fighting (drop the gloves and throw punches).

In general, the one major incident I am aware of that resulted in legal action being taken against a player was when Todd Bertuzzi checked Steve Moore down the the ice from behind and then drove his head/neck into the ice with his stick in some heavy followup hits. This is mentioned in the wikipedia article @eric3579 posted, and hinted at in the article @RedSky posted from the Economist.

In that incident, Steve Moore (a lower-level player on the Colorado Avalanche) had hit Marcus Naslund (a star level player of the Vancouver Canucks) in a previous game. That hit was a fairly normal hockey hit -- Naslund had the puck, Moore intentionally hit him to try to separate him from the puck, but arguably led with his elbow to Naslund's head. It was a dangerous play, that should have be penalized (it wasn't) -- although I don't think Moore intended to cause injury. It is a fast game, sometimes you can't react quick enough to avoid a dangerous collision like that. Still, I think that kind of play should be penalized to make it clear to players that they need to avoid dangerous plays if possible. Steve Moore didn't have a history of dirty or dangerous play, but still.

Anyway, all of that dovetails in pretty nicely with my previous post, specifically about what leads to a "spontaneous fight". Moore, a 3-4th line guy (lower ranks of skill/ability on the team) hit star player Naslund. In almost ANY hockey game where that kind of thing happens, you can expect that somebody from the star's team is going to go over to the offending player and push them around, probably with the intent to fight them. Usually it happens right at the time of the incident, but here it was delayed to a following game between the two teams.

In the next game between Colorado and Vancouver, Moore got challenged by a Vancouver player early in the first period and fought him. But I guess that the lag time and injury to Naslund (he ended up missing 3 games) had brewed up more bad blood than that so many Vancouver players hadn't gotten it fully out of their systems. Later in the game, Todd Bertuzzi skated up behind Moore when he didn't have the puck, grabbed him and tailed him for several seconds trying to get him into a second fight, and when he didn't respond just hauled back and punched him in the back of the head.

Moore fell to the ice, where Bertuzzi piled on him and drove his head into the ice. A big scrum/dogpile ensued, with Moore on the bottom. As a result of that, Moore fractured 3 vertebrae in his neck, stretched or tore some neck ligaments, got his face pretty cut up, etc. Pretty severe injuries.

So, in comparison:
Moore (lesser skill) hit Naslund (high skill) resulting in a minor(ish) injury, that could have ended up being much worse. But, it was a legitimate hockey play that just happened to occur at a time when Naslund was vulnerable -- arguably no intent to harm/injure.
Bertuzzi hit Moore in a following game, after he had already "answered" for his hit on Naslund by fighting a Vancouver player. Bertuzzi punched him from behind and followed up with further violence, driving his head into the ice and piling on him, initiating a dogpile. Not even close to a legitimate hockey play, well away from the puck, and with pretty clear intent to harm (maybe not to injure, but to harm).


Moore sued Bertuzzi, his team (the Canucks), and the NHL. Bertuzzi claimed that his coach had put a "bounty" on Moore, and that he hadn't intended to injure him -- just to get back at him for his hit on Naslund. Bertuzzi was suspended for a fairly long span of time, and his team was fined $250,000. The lawsuit was kind of on pause for a long time to gauge the long-term effects on Moore, but was eventually settled out of court (confidential terms).

All of this stuff is or course related to violence in hockey, but only loosely tied to fighting in hockey. Some would argue (with some merit in my opinion) that if the refs had called a penalty on Moore's hit on Naslund, and allowed a Vancouver player to challenge him to a fight at that time instead of the following game, it probably wouldn't have escalated to the level it did.

So, at least in my opinion, the league (NHL) needs to be careful, consistent, and fairly harsh in handing out penalties/suspensions to players who commit dangerous plays that can or do result in injuries -- especially repeat offenders. BUT, I think that allowing fighting can actually help mitigate that kind of stuff also -- as long as the league keeps it from getting out of hand and the enforcer type players continue to follow their "code".

Oh, fistfights are definitely treated differently than stick violence. Mild stick-related stuff (taking a short chop at someone with the stick is called a slash, tripping is self explanatory, leading a check/hit with the stick can be charging or a cross check, etc.) is usually given a 2 minute minor penalty. But if you go nuts and just try to lumberjack somebody with your stick (extremely rare, but happens every once in a while), it is treated very harshly with a likely LONG suspension. All that seems pretty well-handled to me -- if your slash or cross check or whatever is is a risky situation that can or does result in injury, those scale up from minor penalties into majors, game misconducts, or possible suspensions.

Fights are a 5 minute major penalty, assuming both sides/fighters intentionally got into it. However, both involved players get the same 5 minute penalty, so since they are coincidental it doesn't result in any actual penalty to the team (not down to 4 players instead of 5 like in a normal penalty) other than the player who was in the fight being unavailable for 5 minutes. A pretty high majority of players who get into fights are designated goons who might be on the ice for 1-3 minutes total of a 60 minute game, compared to 15-17 for a skilled forward or 20+ for a skilled defenseman. So, "losing" that player for 5 minutes is usually really no penalty at all.

However, the "code" of those enforcers/goons is actually a pretty real thing. Many fights (especially in the regular season) are actually a pre-planned thing between the enforcers on each team. They ask if the other guy is up for a fight, as a means to engage the crowd and/or their teammates. If both are up for it, the next time they line up for a faceoff or whatever they will probably contrive some offense and drop the gloves. Those fights are pretty silly, but both sides know what they are getting into and agree to it beforehand, so it isn't SO crazy.

Spontaneous fights usually happen when an average or lesser-skilled player makes a dangerous hit or dirty play against a skilled player on the opposing team. If that happens, their toughest teammate currently on the ice will likely rush to their defense, and if it appears like the offending player did it intentionally they will drop the gloves to "teach them a lesson". These fights seem much more purposeful to me, and if you ask great skilled players like Wayne Gretzky they almost all universally say that this system made things safer and opened up the ice for skilled players.

So, it is all pretty complicated and strange to the uninitiated, but there is a sort of method to the madness.

I have a Power Glove and a ROB the Robot on my desk for personal nostalgia. I wouldn't tear them apart, but this certainly has me considering a second purchase for something else that's awesome.

Kudos to this guy for being an extra-special badass.

I've never had a cat, i don't want to be a jerk and i don't want to encourage people to mistreat pets (obviously). So with that said, why is everyone being so harsh to the guy? They played a bit, the cat goes for him and the guy is gentle with it despite the cat trying to hurt him (as he should be).

Are the noises it makes towards the end indicative of long term exposure to stress? I've seen videos with that same noise and no hatred to the owner. I know a lot of people with a lot of pets and many of them have little behaviours together that an outsider could easily think bad of, perhaps they play fight all the time but the cat for some reason hates the glove he bought it to play with. He doesn't look like a regular cat baiter and he isn't dressed like someone who expects slashing attacks to be coming limb-wards. The label is crisp and white and visible, i'm not sherlock holmes but i'd say they bought a new toy, the cat for some reason didn't like it, and they filmed the reaction which they didn't expect to go so badly. Otherwise they filmed and released one particular day in a string of abuse-filled days - and the cat won?

I don't see anything worse than someone using a little fluffy thing on a stick/string to tease a cat into chasing it and attacking it. That's all he did, but with the glove.. a little play fight, and the cat had an unusual reaction to the glove. People seem to think he's a bad guy and deserves savaging though, so could someone explain why? I'm just a bit shocked at the vitriol for him.

@artician - not just for grooming but for clawing at too which is why it looks a bit velcro-ish, so a cat person tells me. I was under the impression he was using it within the limits of its intended use.

It's true that cats can be dicks for no reason, but the guy put the oven glove on as fuckin' armour so he could piss the cat off deliberately? He deserves everything he gets from that cat.

This stuff is pretty damn scary too, IMHO :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylmercury

a few drops will absorb through latex gloves within seconds, but kill you in a very agonizing way (mercury poisoning) several months later. After death of Karen Wetterhahn, it's lab usage is not recommended.

i like how he wears mittens under the gloves!

don't know who copied whom, but i've always laughed with looney. that weird, stressful, boring tom&jerry never made me laugh once, as a child or an adult.

I've love to see a role reversal here: nerdy guy posing suggestively on the table with his dorkish glove while the pretty chick pots balls around him.

What a strange video.

I'm jealous.... Ever since moving to Alaska I like to keep a copy of Tennisons IMPROMPTU SHARK SURGERY in my glove box just in case....