On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:57:07 -0600, tzipple wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:52:10 -0600, tzipple wrote:

Again, so what if they use government to impose the adoption of someting
that the free market did not want... if the imposition is a good thing.
Your suggestions seemed to be that such an approach was categorically
wrong. Am I misunderstanding?

Yes, _and_ you're still top-posting.

And you are still evading anything that looks like an actual response
to my post. No surprise that you clip my post as well as a part of the
dodge. Sneaky!

That's called "trimming unneeded context". As you have yet to say anything
of actual content, your null-statements can safely be expunged.
On to what you may be asking...you wrongly assume my objection to making
Sawstop mandatory is because it's something "that the free market did not
want". You are wrong. My objection to them trying to force it on us is
that it _doesn't ****ing work_. If it worked, they'd be shipping product.
They are not shipping product, so either they have a bad design, or
bad makers of their product. At some point, maybe they'll work all that
out and show that it's manufacturable in quantity. _THEN_ they can
start making noises about forcing everyone to use it, if it shows a
real benefit.

An equivalent in the air-bags world would have been for Joe Smith to
patent airbags. Great, got a patent. Even a couple demo units.
Got some problems, though, the sensors are tricky, there are build
quality issues, and they might go off when you don't want 'em to. Ah
well, good enough, I got my patent, let's put 'em on all the cars.

Would you accept a piece of safety equipment that hasn't been proven,
being forced on you? I do not. Maybe Sawstop can be made to work.
Maybe it's a wonderful thing and I'll buy one. But right now, I can't
buy one if I wanted to, and trying to mandate something that isn't
available is blisteringly obviously stupid.

Dave Hinz