"xrongor" writes:

im not trying to compare anything. J Clarke claims its vaporware
and doesnt work. i'd like to see his evidence and offered up a
suggestion as to what credible evidence might be.

Sounds like someone trying to prove a negative assuption.
Compare this to

X claims that the Tooth Fairy its vaporware and doesnt exist.
i'd like to see his evidence.

Can't be done.
It's hard to prove a negative assertion. That's why people are arguing
the opposite.

Assertion: Sawstop is a real product.
Proof: Find one case where someone bought it and owns it.

If it's been 4 years, and one has not been sold, then there is some
design issue that has not been solved. Heck, they could buy a COTS
saw, add the device, and re-sell it. Where is it?

I suspect one of the issues is making sure the legal claims are accurate.
Lawyers tend to be pessimistic about things like that.


Let's see - false positive - it stops when you don't want it to.
False negative - it doesn't stop, and amputates a finger/hand. At
least one of these is causing a problem. Or as someone suggested, each
"stop" costs money to replace something. The FAQ says the arbor is
disengaged. This doesn't sound like a "single-use" mechanism. I'd love
to learn more about this...




--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.