An old discussion and a slippery slope. Should "buyer beware" apply to
all merchandise including food & drugs? All services including banking,
insurance, etc? Usually, we are pretty selective about what protections
ittitate us. Seatbelt requirements in a car are a big deal, but no one
revolts regarding seatbelts on airplanes, for example.

The fact is none of us (well, maybe you do, Mark) have time to research
all potentially dangerous items that we ourchase, are reluctant to fully
trust companies who may have more interest in their bottom line than in
reasonably safe products, and we depend on government to apply basic
standards to a huge range of items and services in order to to protect
us. While one may quibble about particular items or protections, the
general principle seems like a good thing to me.

mark wrote:

The bottom line for me is that I would not buy a saw with
this technology installed, and, I really think it is a bad idea
to get the government involved in forcing me to buy one.
Regards
Dave Mundt


I agree. It's a dangerous tool, and you have to be careful using it. But
then again, I feel the same way about other legislation that gets in my
life, like helmet laws and seatbelt laws. You can't save people from their
own stupidity. I would wear a helmet if I rode a motorcycle, and I wear a
seatbelt in the car, and I would probably buy a saw with this feature if it
were a free or reasonably price option, only because accidents do happen.
But I resent the fact that I'm told that it's mandatory by a bunch of
lawyers and politicians that want to make it look like they're doing
something for their money.