Robert Green wrote: (snip)

"In the United States, approximately 9400 children younger than 18 years
receive emergency treatment annually for lawn mower-related injuries. More
than 7% of these children require hospitalization, and power mowers cause a
large proportion of the amputations during childhood. Prevention of lawn
mower-related injuries can be achieved by design changes of lawn mowers,
guidelines for mower operation, and education of parents, child caregivers,
and children. . . . Power lawn mowers caused 22% of the amputation injuries
among children admitted to one regional level 1 trauma center"

source:
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...ics;107/6/e106

All I can say is that if parents don't properly train their kids to operate
powertools (and it's clear they don't - I learned OTJ, like most of you!),
then someone has to step in, in loco parentis, to compensate. Often, that's
the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I'm a cheap SOB but I am not enough
of a skinflint that I'd wish a kid, especially doing chores or trying to
start a backyard business, the loss of their fingers or their toes, to save
$5 or $10 off a lawnmower.

Not a matter of saving the $5 or $10- it is a matter of badly-designed
dead-man switches and skirts making the mower less usable for somebody
who knows what they are doing, who wears hard shoes when mowing, and
just wants to get the job done. Little kids (under 15 or so) probably
should NOT operate power equipment. They don't have enough life
experience to pay attention while the engine is running. No kids here,
so I am not putting anyone but me at risk. When I sell the mower, I'll
take the magnets off the deadman switch handle, and cut the zip-tie
holding the skirt up, and all the nanny features will be back in
operation. Next owner can make their own decision.

--
aem sends...

Robert Green wrote:

I am the first to say that it is impossible to outlaw stupidity with
legislation, but the SawStop is simply better technology. The price
premium will come down, and so will the cost of used saws without the
brake. Everybody wins.

You would think, with more than 30,000 injuries and 3,500 amputations
per year due to table saws, that a new invention to prevent such
accidents would be welcomed. I wonder if it's just a Luddite
mentality, an anti-Big Government mentality or just plain foolishness
not to want to have a safer tool available. My friend just bought
one and the greatest advantage is that his wife doesn't go around
with a knot in her stomach anymore when she hears him fire up the
blade. His opinion is that $2K is peanuts compared to what a serious
saw accident costs.

Of course, if you're a Perfect Pete who's never made a mistake or had
an accident in his life, then I guess it's a waste of money . . .

Using that logic - cost be damned - your friend should have an ejection seat
fitted on his car.

On Aug 13, 4:51*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote

Some can. *Some are so basic and broad that they cannot. *This one is in
the
latter category.

Your opinion.

My INFORMED opinion, as opposed to your pull-it-out-your-ass wishful
claptrap. I know how to read patents.

No courts keep people from doing what they please. *If you don't think
SawStop
is going to defend its patents to the death, you're nuts. *They have a
lock on
this one.

Of course they will defend it, just as the example I gave. *Years later, the
"infringers" are doing business as usual, the patent holder is paying lawyer
fees and has recovered nothing, stopped nothing. *Only winner so far is the
lawyers.

Look at the market (for table saws) before you make an even bigger
fool of yourself.

*As I said, we'll talk again in a few years to see the status.

You're simply clueless.

Your small minded opinion. *The future is not over yet. Lets talk later..

You're being the wishful virgin dreaming about her knight.
"Technology" will not solve all of you're imagined problems just
because of your wants.

On Aug 12, 12:23*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Steve Barker" wrote



the way i understand it, the 'brake' mechanism is about $100 plus the
price of the blade it ruined. *Then there's the labor and down time on the
saw. *It's a worthless item, no one who uses their saw every day would
have one.

Lee Valley has replaced saws in every store and shop with Saw Stop. * Some
cabinet shops have done the same, as have some schools. *If you think there
is a lot of downtime to replace a cartridge, check the downtime after a
serious accident.

Take a peek here. *I was shocked at the number of accidents. *Give the
average age, I'd say these were people
with experience too.http://tablesawaccidents.com/
In 2003 the Consumer Product Safety Commission estimated that *"93,880
saw-related injuries were treated in U.S. hospital emergency rooms". Of
these 52,000 (55%) involved stationary saws (table saw 38,000 (73%), miter
saw 7,640 (15%), band saw 4060 (8%), and radial arm saw 2,300 (4%). (Data
summarized from: Injuries Associated with Stationary Power Saws, May 2003,
Propit Adler, Directorate for Epidemiology, Division of Hazard Analysis,
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission)

The average age of injured party was 51 years old. The average size of the
work piece was 2 ft long x 6 in wide by 1 inch depth. The vast majority of
accidents occur while ripping. *There does not seem to be a correlation on
the type of blade being used at the time the accident occurred.

Oh, don't forget our friends, the lawyershttp://www.cushinglaw.net/Table-Saw-Injuries/table-saw-injuries.html
Every 9 minutes a person in the United States is injured using a table saw.
Ten people everyday suffer amputations. *The impact of the injury begins
immediately and last forever.

Nice photos for the family album toohttp://www.doctormahoney.com/photo_gallery/gallery/table_saw.htm

The article said:

"The average age of injured party was 51 years old."

Which appears to have made you assume:

"Given the average age, I'd say these were people with experience
too."

I'd say that that is an assumption that cannot be made. Of course, it
also has to be based on your definition of "experience". If someone
uses a table saw *once*, do they have "experience"? Technically, by
definition, yes. However, in terms of this discussion, no.

I don't think that the average age can be that easily associated with
"experience".

They give stats about age and they give stats about board size but
they don't give stats about professionals vs. experienced amateurs vs.
weekend warriors.

I'm above the given average age and I use a table saw for DIY
projects. I'd put myself somewhere between "experienced amateur" and
"weekend warrior".

If I was the next one to get hurt I would raise the average age
slightly. However, as far as experience, I'm sure that I have less
hours on the TS than many 20-something contractors do - those that rip
hundreds of board-feet a week.

My only point is that I don't think you can conclude that the average
age of 51 means that those with experience are the ones being injured.
It *may* actually be true, but I don't think that the limited
information given justifies that conclusion..

On Aug 11, 7:49*am, Red Green wrote:
Caught a show called Time Warp on Discovery last night.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/time-warp/time-warp.html

Had never seen the show before. Couple of guys do extremely high speed
video of all kinds of things. 1000fps 10,000fps range.

They had the guy with the Hot Dog Saw. He actually very slowly touched the
tip of one of his fingers to the blade for the show. No cuts or blood. He
was extremely reserved on his approach to say the least.

What keeps the censer from getting dirty & not be able to read?From
what I under stand it works on moisture,if its covered with a layer of
dust how does it read.
Learn your tools & use your head, but not for a stop block,

On 2010-08-13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Your small minded opinion. The future is not over yet. Lets talk later.

Some patents are rock solid. Bonney tools invented the flank drive
box wrench and had a lock on it for the patent's entirety. The patent
has since expired and now everybody and their dog makes some version
of it. When the patent was valid, Bonney had such a lock on it, most
ppl didn't even know flank drive existed.

nb

On Aug 13, 10:37*am, notbob wrote:
On 2010-08-13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Your small minded opinion. *The future is not over yet. Lets talk later.

Some patents are rock solid. *Bonney tools invented the flank drive
box wrench and had a lock on it for the patent's entirety. *The patent
has since expired and now everybody and their dog makes some version
of it. *When the patent was valid, Bonney had such a lock on it, most
ppl didn't even know flank drive existed.

Fein Multi-Master.

On Aug 13, 9:51*am, Moneeca Stuteville
wrote:
On Aug 11, 7:49*am, Red Green wrote:

Caught a show called Time Warp on Discovery last night.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/time-warp/time-warp.html

Had never seen the show before. Couple of guys do extremely high speed
video of all kinds of things. 1000fps 10,000fps range.

They had the guy with the Hot Dog Saw. He actually very slowly touched the
tip of one of his fingers to the blade for the show. No cuts or blood. He
was extremely reserved on his approach to say the least.

What keeps the censer from getting dirty & not be able to read?From
what I under stand it works on moisture,if its covered with a layer of
dust how does it read.
Learn your tools & use your head, but not for a stop block,

It senses the capacitance of your finger, much like a cap-sense lamp.

As much I do know WHAT EVER MAY HAVE MAYBE DOING
AS LONG YOU ARE STATING THAT YOUR PATENT IS
UPGRADE OR MODIFICATION OF PARTICULAR ITEM
YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO! no one can stop you or sue you.

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"keith" wrote

You *obviously* don't understand patents. He has this one locked up
tight. It has nothing to do with "technology", rather "function". A
better brake wouldn't get around the patent, nor would a better
detection device. It has nothing to do with "attitude". Sorry, but
that's the way it is.

I understand enough to know that patents can be gotten around. I know
that patents don't stop others from doing as they please. I know a
company that filed suit against about a dozen companies for infringing on
his patent. After 6 years, all he has to show so far is a big stack of
lawyer bills.

Just because you are not clever enough to get around it does not mean that
some smart guy working in his basement will not. Sorry, but that's the
way it is. As I said, we'll talk again in a few years to see the status.

"keith" wrote
My INFORMED opinion, as opposed to your pull-it-out-your-ass wishful
claptrap. I know how to read patents.


Yes, do you read patents because you don't know how to design a better
mousetrap? People say they will never put a man on the moon either, but
my guess is, some day it will happen. Oh, wait . . . . .




Look at the market (for table saws) before you make an even bigger
fool of yourself.

What does the market for table saws have to do with you calling people
names? Shows your thinking ability.



You're being the wishful virgin dreaming about her knight.
"Technology" will not solve all of you're imagined problems just
because of your wants.

Remains to be seen. People thought Galileo was nuts too. And Copernicus.
And many others. Careful in that boat, you don't want to fall off the edge
of the earth.

"DerbyDad03" wrote
The article said:

"The average age of injured party was 51 years old."

Which appears to have made you assume:

"Given the average age, I'd say these were people with experience
too."

I'd say that that is an assumption that cannot be made. Of course, it
also has to be based on your definition of "experience". If someone
uses a table saw *once*, do they have "experience"? Technically, by
definition, yes. However, in terms of this discussion, no.


Re read what I said. "I'd say" is an opinion. My opinion is based on the
people that I know that use table saws both a professional and as hobby
woodworkers and builders. All the older people that I know happen to have
many more years of exposure and use of most power tools than those younger.
I don't keep records though.


I don't think that the average age can be that easily associated with
"experience".

Fine, that is your opinion.




My only point is that I don't think you can conclude that the average
age of 51 means that those with experience are the ones being injured.
It *may* actually be true, but I don't think that the limited
information given justifies that conclusion..

OK, you expressed your opinion, I've expressed mine. Unless someone comes
up with actual statistics, that is all either of them is. But do take a
look at the guys in most skilled manufacturing jobs today and see if you
might change your opinion. Stop by a Woodcraft or Rockler store and look at
the customers. Talk to the guys that post on rec.woodworking.

"notbob" wrote in message
...
On 2010-08-13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Your small minded opinion. The future is not over yet. Lets talk later.

Some patents are rock solid. Bonney tools invented the flank drive
box wrench and had a lock on it for the patent's entirety. The patent
has since expired and now everybody and their dog makes some version
of it. When the patent was valid, Bonney had such a lock on it, most
ppl didn't even know flank drive existed.

nb

OK one out of how many? Sure some survive, as they should, but others often
are out foxed at some point. Do you have statistics on how many are never
challenged. I know a guy that have five rock solid patents too. He's never
made a single item, neither has anyone else. But he has the patent.

On 2010-08-13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

OK one out of how many?

Haven't a clue.

Sure some survive, as they should, but others often
are out foxed at some point. Do you have statistics on how many are never
challenged.

Nary a one, and couldn't care less.

I know a guy that have five rock solid patents too. He's never made
a single item, neither has anyone else. But he has the patent.

I've seen those. Had an acquaintance who patented the dumbest travel
grill ever conceived, a collapsable 5 sided "portable" grill made with
1/4" steel plate!! We tried to warn him off, to no avail. I think
the patent cost him close to $5K and never a one was made. It was
hilarious cuz the damn thing was too stupid for anyone to even use,
let alone copy.

nb

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 05:56:22 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Aug 11, 12:55 pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Aug 11, 12:28 pm, RicodJour wrote:

Trot on over to rec.woodworking and ask how many people over there
have been bitten by a saw.

Then ask them if they have replaced the saw that bit them with a SawStop.

You're missing my point, DD. The price premium is high - now. It'll
come down. The price is immaterial to the fact that it is a user-
selectable safety system that actually works, doesn't get in the way
of cuts, and is invisible in use. It's better technology.

A better question to ask over at the wreck would be, if you had a
choice of paying $2000 now and getting the tip of your finger back,
would you?

False choice. Hindsight isn't a logical argument.

Tip of your finger if you're incredibly lucky! Anyone unlucky enough to see
how fast a radial arm saw can "walk" across a piece of lumber (usually from
starting the motor with the blade already jammed against the stock) knows
how fast it could drag your whole arm into the blade with devastating
results. A modern power saw cuts human flesh and bone like butter since
it's designed to tear through tough oak.

Umm, SawStop doesn't have a radial arm saw. I haven't used my RAS in years
and really bought a table saw because I don't like the RAS. It has done some
things that weren't expected.

I often wonder why people have such a "stuck in the craw" attitude about
improvements in safety engineering? You see it all the time here. Is it a
macho thing? Is it oldsters railing at the changes in the modern world that
they feel they have no control over? Is it the massive ego of believing
they are so smart and so lucky that they are immune from accidents? Well,
no one is immune. You can only hope to reduce accidents but you can't
control when you have a stroke or a heart attack and when that safety
interlock is the only thing standing between a bad event and probably a
lethal one.

Why can't people understand cost-benefit trade-offs? Why does everything have
to be an absolute? Why can't people just spend twice as much on everything
because it's "safer"? Do you have a fire truck and ambulance standing by in
your garage?

Anyone who thinks it can't happen to them should read:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/21/mos...ols_slide.html

Safety engineers have saved the lives and limbs of countless people. It
wasn't too long ago that a poor little girl name Peggy Swan two
neighborhoods over from me gored herself to death riding her bicycle into
the back of a 60's era Cadillac with huge (senseless, decorative only) tail
fins that got the whole ball rolling on modern safety issues. There are
stupid people and there are stupid designers. Both need education.

Yes, accidents happen. So what? Not everyone will do something that dumb.


snipped the rest of the clueless rant

On Aug 13, 6:41*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 05:56:22 -0400, "Robert Green" wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message
On Aug 11, 12:55 pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Aug 11, 12:28 pm, RicodJour wrote:

Trot on over to rec.woodworking and ask how many people over there
have been bitten by a saw.

Then ask them if they have replaced the saw that bit them with a SawStop.

You're missing my point, DD. *The price premium is high - now. *It'll
come down. *The price is immaterial to the fact that it is a user-
selectable safety system that actually works, doesn't get in the way
of cuts, and is invisible in use. *It's better technology.

A better question to ask over at the wreck would be, if you had a
choice of paying $2000 now and getting the tip of your finger back,
would you?

False choice. *Hindsight isn't a logical argument.

Learning from the mistakes of others is. In fact, it is pretty much
the supreme logical argument unless you're living in some ivory tower.

I'm not trying to convince you to do anything with your money. You
earn it, you spend it. You are free to spend as much or as little on
a tool as you see fit. I was merely addressing some inane remarks
that the SawStop is worthless and bad technology. It's anything but.

You are now free to resume your normal programming.

R

Red Green wrote:
Caught a show called Time Warp on Discovery last night.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/time-warp/time-warp.html

Had never seen the show before. Couple of guys do extremely high speed
video of all kinds of things. 1000fps 10,000fps range.

They had the guy with the Hot Dog Saw. He actually very slowly
touched the tip of one of his fingers to the blade for the show. No
cuts or blood. He was extremely reserved on his approach to say the
least.

Come to think on it, this gizmo wouldn't work on a meat saw, would it?

notbob wrote:
On 2010-08-13, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

OK one out of how many?

Haven't a clue.

Sure some survive, as they should, but others often
are out foxed at some point. Do you have statistics on how many are
never challenged.

Nary a one, and couldn't care less.

I know a guy that have five rock solid patents too. He's never made
a single item, neither has anyone else. But he has the patent.

I've seen those. Had an acquaintance who patented the dumbest travel
grill ever conceived, a collapsable 5 sided "portable" grill made with
1/4" steel plate!! We tried to warn him off, to no avail. I think
the patent cost him close to $5K and never a one was made. It was
hilarious cuz the damn thing was too stupid for anyone to even use,
let alone copy.


On the other hand, some good ideas DON'T get patented.

On the other hand, I once took a program I'd written to the VP of
Development (a program for resolving miss-ties in gravity surveys). He said
"This is too good to patent. We'll have to treat it as a trade secret."

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:20:09 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Aug 13, 6:41*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 05:56:22 -0400, "Robert Green" wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message
On Aug 11, 12:55 pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Aug 11, 12:28 pm, RicodJour wrote:

Trot on over to rec.woodworking and ask how many people over there
have been bitten by a saw.

Then ask them if they have replaced the saw that bit them with a SawStop.

You're missing my point, DD. *The price premium is high - now. *It'll
come down. *The price is immaterial to the fact that it is a user-
selectable safety system that actually works, doesn't get in the way
of cuts, and is invisible in use. *It's better technology.

A better question to ask over at the wreck would be, if you had a
choice of paying $2000 now and getting the tip of your finger back,
would you?

False choice. *Hindsight isn't a logical argument.

Learning from the mistakes of others is. In fact, it is pretty much
the supreme logical argument unless you're living in some ivory tower.

No, because there is no guaranty that any individual will have an accident.
The argument was worded as a decision made in hindsight. "If you knew you
were going to die today, why don't you stay in bed.".

I'm not trying to convince you to do anything with your money. You
earn it, you spend it. You are free to spend as much or as little on
a tool as you see fit. I was merely addressing some inane remarks
that the SawStop is worthless and bad technology. It's anything but.

It's not worthless at all. It's *WAY* too expensive. If it was perhaps $500
instead of $2000, I would likely have come to a different decision. It was
*not* worth twice the money.

You are now free to resume your normal programming.

This is normal, here.

On Aug 13, 7:29*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 , RicodJour wrote:
On Aug 13, 6:41*pm, " wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

A better question to ask over at the wreck would be, if you had a
choice of paying $2000 now and getting the tip of your finger back,
would you?

False choice. *Hindsight isn't a logical argument.

Learning from the mistakes of others is. *In fact, it is pretty much
the supreme logical argument unless you're living in some ivory tower.

No, because there is no guaranty that any individual will have an accident.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:00:59 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Aug 13, 7:29*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 , RicodJour wrote:
On Aug 13, 6:41*pm, " wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

A better question to ask over at the wreck would be, if you had a
choice of paying $2000 now and getting the tip of your finger back,
would you?

False choice. *Hindsight isn't a logical argument.

Learning from the mistakes of others is. *In fact, it is pretty much
the supreme logical argument unless you're living in some ivory tower.

No, because there is no guaranty that any individual will have an accident.
The argument was worded as a decision made in hindsight. *"If you knew you
were going to die today, why don't you stay in bed.".

I'm not trying to convince you to do anything with your money. *You
earn it, you spend it. *You are free to spend as much or as little on
a tool as you see fit. *I was merely addressing some inane remarks
that the SawStop is worthless and bad technology. *It's anything but.

It's not worthless at all. *It's *WAY* too expensive. *If it was perhaps $500
instead of $2000, I would likely have come to a different decision. *It was
*not* worth twice the money.

$500...? For a table saw? Huh?

Yes, I *might* have gone $2000, instead of the $1600 I paid for the Unisaw,
but there was no way I was going to shell out $3500 for the SawStop. A nice
Grizzly cabinet saw was about $1300.

For $500 you get a DeWalt job site
saw. Hardly comparable to a cabinet saw. The SawStop is also more
than just the brake. In all of the reviews they mention it's well
thought out design and nice features. You are comparing two different
animals, saying they're the same, and then basing your opinion solely
on money. Where's the logic in that?

No, $500 for the SawStop *FEATURE* (it should be closer to $200). I might
have gone for perhaps a 30% premium, but *not* twice. This isn't an academic
exercise for me. I've been there.

It's your opinion that is *WAY* too expensive. Opinions vary, and
there's a niche for every tool. It's no skin off of your teeth, is
it? So what's your beef? Do you get all bent out of shape because a
Mercedes is twice the price of a Toyota? Fine, don't buy it. But to
picket in front of the store, which is kind of what you seem to be
doing here, seems odd.

Exactly! Do you propose that *everyone* drive a Mercedes because they may be
safer than a Toyota? ...even though they cost twice as much? After all,
you're far more likely to get killed driving than you are working on a table
saw.

You are now free to resume your normal programming.

This is normal, here.

True.

On Aug 13, 8:31*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:00:59 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:



On Aug 13, 7:29*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 , RicodJour wrote:
On Aug 13, 6:41*pm, " wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

A better question to ask over at the wreck would be, if you had a
choice of paying $2000 now and getting the tip of your finger back,
would you?

False choice. *Hindsight isn't a logical argument.

Learning from the mistakes of others is. *In fact, it is pretty much
the supreme logical argument unless you're living in some ivory tower..

No, because there is no guaranty that any individual will have an accident.
The argument was worded as a decision made in hindsight. *"If you knew you
were going to die today, why don't you stay in bed.".

I'm not trying to convince you to do anything with your money. *You
earn it, you spend it. *You are free to spend as much or as little on
a tool as you see fit. *I was merely addressing some inane remarks
that the SawStop is worthless and bad technology. *It's anything but.

On Aug 13, 4:56*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

...
On Aug 11, 12:55 pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Aug 11, 12:28 pm, RicodJour wrote:

Trot on over to rec.woodworking and ask how many people over there
have been bitten by a saw.

Then ask them if they have replaced the saw that bit them with a SawStop.

You're missing my point, DD. *The price premium is high - now. *It'll
come down. *The price is immaterial to the fact that it is a user-
selectable safety system that actually works, doesn't get in the way
of cuts, and is invisible in use. *It's better technology.

A better question to ask over at the wreck would be, if you had a
choice of paying $2000 now and getting the tip of your finger back,
would you?

Tip of your finger if you're incredibly lucky! *Anyone unlucky enough to see
how fast a radial arm saw can "walk" across a piece of lumber (usually from
starting the motor with the blade already jammed against the stock) knows
how fast it could drag your whole arm into the blade with devastating
results. *A modern power saw cuts human flesh and bone like butter since
it's designed to tear through tough oak.

I often wonder why people have such a "stuck in the craw" attitude about
improvements in safety engineering? *You see it all the time here. *Is it a
macho thing? *Is it oldsters railing at the changes in the modern world that
they feel they have no control over? *Is it the massive ego of believing
they are so smart and so lucky that they are immune from accidents? *Well,
no one is immune. *You can only hope to reduce accidents but you can't
control when you have a stroke or a heart attack and when that safety
interlock is the only thing standing between a bad event and probably a
lethal one.

Anyone who thinks it can't happen to them should read:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/21/mos...usiness-health...

Safety engineers have saved the lives and limbs of countless people. *It
wasn't too long ago that a poor little girl name Peggy Swan two
neighborhoods over from me gored herself to death riding her bicycle into
the back of a 60's era Cadillac with huge (senseless, decorative only) tail
fins that got the whole ball rolling on modern safety issues. *There are
stupid people and there are stupid designers. *Both need education.

This is a no-brainer like consumer protection on predatory lending. *Yes,
Angelo Mozillo and all the other mortgageers only ripped off the dumb
people, but tell me - are only the dumb people suffering? *No, we all are.
It turned out that consumer protection equals protection of the entire
economy. *Same for the guy who saws off his hand. *We all pay for that.

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:58:55 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:

On Aug 13, 8:31*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:00:59 -0700 (PDT), RicodJour
wrote:



On Aug 13, 7:29*pm, "
wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 , RicodJour wrote:
On Aug 13, 6:41*pm, " wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

A better question to ask over at the wreck would be, if you had a
choice of paying $2000 now and getting the tip of your finger back,
would you?

False choice. *Hindsight isn't a logical argument.

Learning from the mistakes of others is. *In fact, it is pretty much
the supreme logical argument unless you're living in some ivory tower.

No, because there is no guaranty that any individual will have an accident.
The argument was worded as a decision made in hindsight. *"If you knew you
were going to die today, why don't you stay in bed.".

I'm not trying to convince you to do anything with your money. *You
earn it, you spend it. *You are free to spend as much or as little on
a tool as you see fit. *I was merely addressing some inane remarks
that the SawStop is worthless and bad technology. *It's anything but.

It's not worthless at all. *It's *WAY* too expensive. *If it was perhaps $500
instead of $2000, I would likely have come to a different decision. *It was
*not* worth twice the money.

$500...? *For a table saw? *Huh?

Yes, I *might* have gone $2000, instead of the $1600 I paid for the Unisaw,
but there was no way I was going to shell out $3500 for the SawStop. *A nice
Grizzly cabinet saw was about $1300. *

For $500 you get a DeWalt job site
saw. *Hardly comparable to a cabinet saw. *The SawStop is also more
than just the brake. *In all of the reviews they mention it's well
thought out design and nice features. *You are comparing two different
animals, saying they're the same, and then basing your opinion solely
on money. *Where's the logic in that?

No, $500 for the SawStop *FEATURE* (it should be closer to $200). *I might
have gone for perhaps a 30% premium, but *not* twice. *This isn't an academic
exercise for me. *I've been there. *

It's your opinion that is **WAY* too expensive. *Opinions vary, and
there's a niche for every tool. *It's no skin off of your teeth, is
it? *So what's your beef? *Do you get all bent out of shape because a
Mercedes is twice the price of a Toyota? *Fine, don't buy it. *But to
picket in front of the store, which is kind of what you seem to be
doing here, seems odd.

Exactly! *Do you propose that *everyone* drive a Mercedes because they may be
safer than a Toyota? *...even though they cost twice as much? *After all,
you're far more likely to get killed driving than you are working on a table
saw.

I don't think a Mercedes is twice as safe as a Toyota, but no, it's
like I said, anyone is free to buy whatever they want. I was just
addressing the SawStop disinformation.

Pick your poison then. You would have everyone spend twice as much?

BTW, I've recently started making the switch over to Festool stuff.

I have a couple, likely won't buy any more, though. Too expensive and I'm
happy with the other tools I have.

Their smaller circular track saw lists for ~$500.

Have one (TS-55). I may pick up another (shorter) piece of track next week.

Their jigsaw close to $400.

No use for it. Perhaps if I didn't already have a Bosch.

The vacuum I got, with all of the accessories, lists for
over $1600 before tax.

Didn't want yet another dust collector. I have enough of 'em. Their bags are
ridiculous.

There are no Festool discounts available anywhere.

They (TS-55, TS-75, track, and dust collectors) were just on sale for 10% off.
Not much, but it *was* a discount.

I picked up the tools at a garage sale, and on eBay and
Craigslist. I paid roughly $900 for the three. Including the other
Festool stuff I've picked up, I'm all in for about two grand, and I'm
not done. I am now selling the tools I've replaced and expect to get
at least six or eight hundred. I'm trading up.

....and a OH1400 (router).

I can buy this stuff partially because I chose not to spend $3500 on a table
saw. My Unisaw works just fine.

Is the stuff worth it to me? Hell yeah. I wish I had gotten into it
earlier. Life is too short to work with 'acceptable' tools that
inconvenience me. All of their tools are part of a system, and you
can use the tracks with their routers, jigsaws, and circular saws.

Yeah, I know all about FesteringTools. Your point?

The dust collection with their vacuum is almost perfect, and it's a
variable speed _quiet_ vacuum. It makes the work much more enjoyable
and I don't spend nearly as much time cleaning up. Time's money,
whether you're getting paid for it or not, right?

Sure.

I can't just look at a tool and say that just because it's X dollars
more that it doesn't make sense. I have to factor in the other
things, and those other things can easily tip the scales one way or
the other. I don't have especially deep pockets, but I'll find a way
to afford something if I think it warrants it. I've never used the
SawStop, and I'm not trying to sell it to anyone, but if I were in the
market for a table saw I'd certainly take a hike down to a dealer and
put it through its paces before I shelled out any cash.

Your point? Why don't you have a SawStop. OMG! You're going to DIE!

On Aug 11, 9:46*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Aug 11, 10:23*pm, Steve Barker wrote:

On 8/11/2010 3:00 PM, RicodJour wrote:

http://www.consumersearch.com/table-saw-reviews
That's a review aggregation site and they don't make an opinion, they
just report what others' have written. *Silly publications like Fine
Woodworking, American Woodworker, etc., etc. seem to like the SawStop
just fine. *I'm sure they'd appreciate you posting your opinion on why
the saw is a POS and how you arrived at that conclusion. *Everyone
needs a laugh now and again. *Thanks.

Of course those publications like the saw. *They got paid to put the
article there.

Sigh. *So, since there were a number of different manufacturers' saws,
they all paid? *Whoever paid the most won top honors? *And they did
that for however many magazines? *Are there any other nefarious
woodworking conspiracies you'd care to share?

By your logic, any magazine that accepted advertising would be barred
from reviewing any of that manufacturer's products. *That's a good
business model. *Start a magazine and let me know how it works out.

R

Isn't that the concept behind Consumer Reports?

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
Robert Green wrote: (snip)

"In the United States, approximately 9400 children younger than 18 years
receive emergency treatment annually for lawn mower-related injuries.
More
than 7% of these children require hospitalization, and power mowers
cause a
large proportion of the amputations during childhood. Prevention of lawn
mower-related injuries can be achieved by design changes of lawn mowers,
guidelines for mower operation, and education of parents, child
caregivers,
and children. . . . Power lawn mowers caused 22% of the amputation
injuries
among children admitted to one regional level 1 trauma center"

source:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...ics;107/6/e106

All I can say is that if parents don't properly train their kids to
operate
powertools (and it's clear they don't - I learned OTJ, like most of
you!),
then someone has to step in, in loco parentis, to compensate. Often,
that's
the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I'm a cheap SOB but I am not
enough
of a skinflint that I'd wish a kid, especially doing chores or trying to
start a backyard business, the loss of their fingers or their toes, to
save
$5 or $10 off a lawnmower.

Not a matter of saving the $5 or $10- it is a matter of badly-designed
dead-man switches and skirts making the mower less usable for somebody
who knows what they are doing, who wears hard shoes when mowing, and
just wants to get the job done. Little kids (under 15 or so) probably
should NOT operate power equipment. They don't have enough life
experience to pay attention while the engine is running. No kids here,
so I am not putting anyone but me at risk. When I sell the mower, I'll
take the magnets off the deadman switch handle, and cut the zip-tie
holding the skirt up, and all the nanny features will be back in
operation. Next owner can make their own decision.

It seems that's a reasonable option - they could make the safety interlocks
much, much hard to defeat but they don't and that is a realization that
they're a pain to "smart" people. So, if you know what you're doing, you
disable them, and if you don't, you can't. The problem is that all this
stuff gets sold without a lot of instruction so the safety interlocks become
the last line of defense. No one wins when a kid loses fingers or toes in a
lawnmower and a kid mowing a lawn is something to encourage - it means
they're not huffing glue, vandalizing cars or stealing bicycles. (-: Like
I said, I neither mind paying for nor having to defeat the safety features
if a few more kids get to keep their digits.

--
Bobby G.

On 8/13/2010 6:23 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Red Green wrote:
Caught a show called Time Warp on Discovery last night.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/time-warp/time-warp.html

Had never seen the show before. Couple of guys do extremely high speed
video of all kinds of things. 1000fps 10,000fps range.

They had the guy with the Hot Dog Saw. He actually very slowly
touched the tip of one of his fingers to the blade for the show. No
cuts or blood. He was extremely reserved on his approach to say the
least.

Come to think on it, this gizmo wouldn't work on a meat saw, would it?



And it can't work on green lumber either.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 8/13/2010 11:56 PM, wrote:
On Aug 11, 9:46 pm, wrote:
On Aug 11, 10:23 pm, Steve wrote:

On 8/11/2010 3:00 PM, RicodJour wrote:

http://www.consumersearch.com/table-saw-reviews
That's a review aggregation site and they don't make an opinion, they
just report what others' have written. Silly publications like Fine
Woodworking, American Woodworker, etc., etc. seem to like the SawStop
just fine. I'm sure they'd appreciate you posting your opinion on why
the saw is a POS and how you arrived at that conclusion. Everyone
needs a laugh now and again. Thanks.

Of course those publications like the saw. They got paid to put the
article there.

Sigh. So, since there were a number of different manufacturers' saws,
they all paid? Whoever paid the most won top honors? And they did
that for however many magazines? Are there any other nefarious
woodworking conspiracies you'd care to share?

By your logic, any magazine that accepted advertising would be barred
from reviewing any of that manufacturer's products. That's a good
business model. Start a magazine and let me know how it works out.

R

Isn't that the concept behind Consumer Reports?

Yes, and then people just flat assed accuse them of taking payoffs also
when they don't agree with the unbiased assessment of an item.

steve

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 20:55:39 -0500, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 8/13/2010 6:23 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Red Green wrote:
Caught a show called Time Warp on Discovery last night.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/time-warp/time-warp.html

Had never seen the show before. Couple of guys do extremely high speed
video of all kinds of things. 1000fps 10,000fps range.

They had the guy with the Hot Dog Saw. He actually very slowly
touched the tip of one of his fingers to the blade for the show. No
cuts or blood. He was extremely reserved on his approach to say the
least.

Come to think on it, this gizmo wouldn't work on a meat saw, would it?



And it can't work on green lumber either.

Wrong. If it's running, under-water wet, perhaps not. Green isn't a problem.

wrote in message
...
On Aug 13, 4:56 am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

...
On Aug 11, 12:55 pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

On Aug 11, 12:28 pm, RicodJour wrote:

Trot on over to rec.woodworking and ask how many people over there
have been bitten by a saw.

Then ask them if they have replaced the saw that bit them with a
SawStop.

You're missing my point, DD. The price premium is high - now. It'll
come down. The price is immaterial to the fact that it is a user-
selectable safety system that actually works, doesn't get in the way
of cuts, and is invisible in use. It's better technology.

A better question to ask over at the wreck would be, if you had a
choice of paying $2000 now and getting the tip of your finger back,
would you?

Tip of your finger if you're incredibly lucky! Anyone unlucky enough to
see
how fast a radial arm saw can "walk" across a piece of lumber (usually
from
starting the motor with the blade already jammed against the stock) knows
how fast it could drag your whole arm into the blade with devastating
results. A modern power saw cuts human flesh and bone like butter since
it's designed to tear through tough oak.

I often wonder why people have such a "stuck in the craw" attitude about
improvements in safety engineering? You see it all the time here. Is it a
macho thing? Is it oldsters railing at the changes in the modern world
that
they feel they have no control over? Is it the massive ego of believing
they are so smart and so lucky that they are immune from accidents? Well,
no one is immune. You can only hope to reduce accidents but you can't
control when you have a stroke or a heart attack and when that safety
interlock is the only thing standing between a bad event and probably a
lethal one.

Anyone who thinks it can't happen to them should read:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/21/mos...usiness-health...

Safety engineers have saved the lives and limbs of countless people. It
wasn't too long ago that a poor little girl name Peggy Swan two
neighborhoods over from me gored herself to death riding her bicycle into
the back of a 60's era Cadillac with huge (senseless, decorative only)
tail
fins that got the whole ball rolling on modern safety issues. There are
stupid people and there are stupid designers. Both need education.

This is a no-brainer like consumer protection on predatory lending. Yes,
Angelo Mozillo and all the other mortgageers only ripped off the dumb
people, but tell me - are only the dumb people suffering? No, we all are.
It turned out that consumer protection equals protection of the entire
economy. Same for the guy who saws off his hand. We all pay for that.
Higher insurance rates, taxes for disability payments, workmen's comp,
etc.
It seems like common sense to lower expenses, especially needless ones.
Deadman switches don't appear because one man died or almost did. It's
because decision makers have seen dozens of deaths and maimings, year
after
year and feel compelled to limit those occurrences. That's why so many
Federal safety agencies are called "tombstone agencies" because they only
get into the game when the death rate from something climbs past the
ignorable point.

"In the United States, approximately 9400 children younger than 18 years
receive emergency treatment annually for lawn mower-related injuries. More
than 7% of these children require hospitalization, and power mowers cause
a
large proportion of the amputations during childhood. Prevention of lawn
mower-related injuries can be achieved by design changes of lawn mowers,
guidelines for mower operation, and education of parents, child
caregivers,
and children. . . . Power lawn mowers caused 22% of the amputation
injuries
among children admitted to one regional level 1 trauma center"


source:http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...ediatrics;107/
....

All I can say is that if parents don't properly train their kids to
operate
powertools (and it's clear they don't - I learned OTJ, like most of you!),
then someone has to step in, in loco parentis, to compensate. Often,
that's
the Consumer Product Safety Commission. I'm a cheap SOB but I am not
enough
of a skinflint that I'd wish a kid, especially doing chores or trying to
start a backyard business, the loss of their fingers or their toes, to
save
$5 or $10 off a lawnmower.

--
Bobby G.

The "predatory lending" portion of your post could have been left out,
since it wasn't really relevant to the discussion, but since you
brought it up...

"Predatory lending" came about as a result of laws interfering with
banks doing business. No one in their right mind lends money to
someone who can't pay it back unless they are given sufficient reason
to do so.

Well, pardon me, but that's Rush Limbaugh bunk - no, wait, sorry - too rude.
I apologize. Bankers were falling all over each other to place exactly those
loans that brought down the system for three reasons. They were of the
belief that:

a) the market was always rising and would never crash
b) if they had to repo the house, they could sell it again for more money in
the ever-rising market they mistakenly believed couldn't fall.
c) they had offloaded the risk of all these bad mortgages by rolling them up
into CDOs (sealing them from individual legal separation) and selling them
to your pension fund managers with the blessing of the bond rating orgs.

The flaw in the plan was that they placed SO many bad nodoc mortgages with
SO many people that when it came time to foreclose and flip that house to a
new victim, there were too many houses in foreclosure to flip! Houses that
had a book value of $400K dropped to $200 and below. Ask yourself what the
biggest recent change was. The Feds have always pushed home ownership -
Bush, Clinton, Obama, etc. What changed was that banks could sell these
crappy mortgages all rolled together to conceal their crappiness via the
CDO. That's what was new, and that's what did the most damage. Improperly
transferring the risk to investors whom Moody assured were buying AAA stuff
that was mostly scheiss.

The house prices had been run up to the point that first time buyers were
shut out and the glut of unsold spec houses starting piling up at
unrealistically high "driven up" by the bubble prices. Then the market
crashed and the banks that placed those predatory loans found themselves the
victims of their own greed and lack of proper risk assessment. To me, the
idea that po' wittle powerless banks were forced at Federal gunpoint to give
money away is just short of tinfoil hat crazy. Look at how MMS worked
"promote and regulate." That's like saying lets roll compliance and
marketing into one division. Banks did what they wanted to do and dictated
rules to the Feds. Examiners were far too cozy with the banks they
reviewed, allowing them to continue to place nodoc loans.

If you look back to my previous posts, I've run the numbers and looked at
the maximum possible effect low income and minority lending could have.
It's not enough to be meaningful. The number of properties affected by
those loans was too small a percentage to cause a crash like this. Everyone
wanted in. It's the Gold Rush syndrome. It's a feature of the free market
that's too important to do without, I'm afraid: Speculation. This time it
was helped along by AIG selling insurance on those bad bundles of mortgages
without proper reserves. New York State had them under legal assault over
four years before the crash, but couldn't stop them. AIG's very bad
financial modeling didn't look at what was bound to happen in a bad enough
crash - a domino effect as debt rating clauses kicked in that required more
and more collateral.

I would nominate AIG as one of the real causes of the crash. They were able
to bet on credit. In Joisey, someone comes and breaks your legs for doing
that if you can't pay. AIG just went to the taxpayers to cover its gambling
debts. We, the taxpayers, then paid enormous bonuses to the very people who
had brought down the world's economy. Those AIG workers promised to pay
back the bonuses but reneged, FWIW. And both Bush and Obama signed off on
it. That's how much power Wall St. has over the government. They got
emergency cash from both parties - FAST!. That's why I believe it's just
not credible that "forced federal lending" occurred at anything but a noise
level - 10% or less of the total real estate activity.

The banks did want they wanted to do, because they all wanted in on the big
housing bubble thinking it would never burst. The problems are really not
first-time home owners as much as the speculators that grabbed up five or
ten houses because the banks were handing out nodoc loans like candy,
feeling they could not lose in such an up market. I strongly believe that it
was the FDIC that kept the whole economy together, because we've had enough
bank failures to know that they would have become a serious bank run
trigger, truly causing economic chain reaction collapse.

Laws, and regulatory agencies who go after banks for
discrepancies in loan approvals provided that reason. In order to
stay in business making loans to people who *could* pay them back,
lending institutions began making loans based upon social factors
rather than business factors. To do otherwise would cost too much in
the form of defense against litigation for "redlining".

Pardon me for getting so worked up about this, but these supposed
constraints on the banks left no paper trail that I could find and I looked
hard. The reason there's no evidence for these "community loans" being made
by force is that they never really happened. No bank felt seriously
constrained in the least, especially at the time. Now they are trying to
weave this back story to shift the blame, but it's just not true. The worst
case I could find is that one bank was not allowed to merge with another
because they were drawing money out of the community but lending it in other
areas. That was the extent of this alleged Federal strong arming. Think
about it. Were any other regulatory agencies exercising the kind of clout by
fear that the banks were allegedly under? These food recalls, the BP spill,
the Madoff affair all point to a total lack of clout, perceived or
otherwise.

If it weren't for the serious constraints that banks gladly accept to be
able to advertise FDIC protection (like sufficient loan reserves) we'd be in
the midst of the Greatest Depression. So it's hard for me to believe that
all regulations are bad. They saved our bacon and prevented a run on banks
that would have broken the economy in two.

Could it really have been FEAR that something MIGHT happen from the feds
that made these 100's of banks violate all sorts of good sense and good
business rules? The proof that it's not true is that those same banks
strongarmed billions in TARP funds from the feared Feds. They were so
unafraid of Federal intervention, in reality, that banks like WAMU made
wholesale violations of the laws concerning how much capitalization they
needed to make those bad loans. Blaming community banking laws for the big
meltdown doesn't pass the smell test, not even at the lowest levels. It's
an attempt to put political blame on a business process we've seen a
thousand times before, just like the first tulip "boom and bust" in Holland
in 1780:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

"Tulip mania or tulipomania (Dutch names include: tulpenmanie, tulpomanie,
tulpenwoede, tulpengekte and bollengekte) was a period in the Dutch Golden
Age during which contract prices for bulbs of the recently introduced tulip
reached extraordinarily high levels and then suddenly collapsed."

Just like many real estates booms in the past, people fell all over
themselves to get in on the housing boom, and the banks and outfits like
CountryWide were no exception. A run-up like that never has any place to go
but here, where we find ourselves, at the bottom of the well.

But when you
are reactng to an artificial factor in the market, you lose the
eficiency of the market.

Sorry, but try applying that to pollution laws. Without the government
pushing relentlessly on behalf of the people, business would have no real
incentive to clean up. Anyone remember what LA was like 30 years ago with
smog so thick you couldn't see the city from the hills? Cleaning up car
exhaust (which car companies insisted would ruin them) benefitted everyone,
even the car execs themselves, in reducing productivity losses due to lung
illness. The freemarket model just can't handle effectively things that are
for the good of every citizen. Government has to both regulate and level
the playing field. It's a function that is often not well executed, but
it's a necessary one. There is no true "free market" state nor will there
ever be one.

There came more dead weight than could be
borne by the lending institutions, and here we are. Because of
government interference and then bailouts in that instance. If
businesses are allowed to do things like have limits on what can be
collected by knuckleheads who harm themselves acting foolishly,
insurance premiums would go down as well.

Yes, we agree. Knuckleheads (like the banks) that harm themselves (by
making loans to people who can't pay them back) should be allowed to fail.
Common sense tells us that if they were not shouting bloody murder at the
time, this sudden rush to blame the Feds for forcing them to lend is a cover
story. The problem is, outfits like BOA are too big to fail without
creating a tsunami in the financial sector. Who is more responsible for the
problem? The bank that lends assets incautiously or the borrower whose own
money is not at risk because he has none? I would say that since it's the
banks money, they are the ones that have to perform the "due diligence"
before they give out $300K. I sure as hell know that *I* would!!!! And I
know that if the Feds had truly been "forcing" banks to make bad loans, we
would have heard no end of lobbying to change that law.

As for the Saw Stop device, I like the idea, and I am happy to see an
innovation of its kind making money. I have a tremendous amount of
respect for someone who takes the initiative and risk to invent and
patent a device which many find useful. What I *don't* respect is (if
true as presented earlier in this thread) someone attempting to make
their invention a legal requirement. If that were to become the case,
I would hope that the companies being held to this are able to bypass
his patent with another device.

I guess you're against seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, then, even though
they've put a lot of money in everyone's pocket by saving us from having to
pick up the tab for people horribly disabled in car accidents. That's where
a lot of tax money goes, if you haven't noticed - Medicaid, social services,
etc.

If enough people feel his saw is superior and worth the extra money,
he will succeed. In fact, it appears that he is succeeding. It is
unfortunate that it seems to have taken his failing at the "legal
requirement" shortcut after he was unable to sell the technology to
the companies in existence when he invented the device. But he now
was forced to compete on the open market. He's doing well, and it
shows what being forced to compete can accomplish.

If the SawStop means that schools begin teaching woodworking skills more
widely again, then maybe it's not such a bad thing. It's been lawyers suing
school systems for children injured in shop classes that have reduced
drastically the number of schools offering such programs. I know that kids
today can't nail two pieces of wood together right.

I agree that the reaction to new safety devices of this sort are -
well, reactionary. Some are certainly based upon the new and
different, some are "tough guy" responses, some are people who don't
like the idea of the added expense. I think a good many, though, are
reacting to the feeling of being pushed into safety without their
consent and the ability to weigh the pros and cons for themselves.
They kind of steel their jaws to it because they would prefer to make
determinations of the relative values of safety, convenience, cost,
and a thousand other unseen factors that may play a role in their
decision process.

Well put. The problem is that most people aren't capable of evaluting
safety engineering in the slightest. That's why it's got to be a "top down"
sort of process. Like I've said, if my new mower costs ten bucks more but
keeps the toes on 50 teenagers, I'll bear the cost. SawStop, because it's a
one-off operation, can't reach those economies of scale. For now.

My reaction to the Saw Stop device was "Wow, that's great. I'd like
to have one." Then I saw the price, and thought "Perhaps an
acceptable level of safety can be reached in some other, less costly
way." Bear in mind that the acceptable level of safety for me in part
is accomplished by relatively minimal use of the table saw, but if I
were making my living as a carpenter, the cost-benefit analysis would
change, and I might see the price as more reasonable in relation to my
purposes. But that would be one of the thousands of unseen factors
that I would be in the best position to determine for myself.

Exactly. Which is why I posed my hypothetical: "How much would you have
paid after you've sawed a finger off?" I'll bet at that point, the SawStop
would seem quite a bargain.

The important component to this would be that the cost of my decisions
would be borne by me as well. While I have a vested interest in
keeping all of my digits and avoiding the attendant pain of a
traumatic amputation, when the scenario includes society (or an
insurance collective) sharing the long-term cost of my mistakes, I am
more likely to make those mistakes than if I have to bear the long-
range consequences myself.

But we all pay for the indigent appearing in the ER with less than all ten
fingers. There's been an epidemic of trying to shift costs all over the
world. But often, costs are like bubbles under wall paper. You can push
them around a bit, but they'll still be there. Accidents happen even to
people who take very, very good care. I am not sure I am ready to agree
that just because, for instance, my home is insured that I will now be far
less careful in keeping it safe. Maybe.

Therefore,I think it is in some sense the idea of rugged individualism
which fuels reactionary responses to such safety devices. For my
part, I think the Saw Stop is phenomenal. I wil let the richer among
us vet the product at a higher cost, as they typically do, before I
get one. I bear no ill will toward them, nor do I toward those who
make safety devices of this sort. I will, in fact, join their ranks
when I am able, either as a rich guy (not likely) or as a guy who
waited for the price to come down. I do, however, confess to being
one who reacts quite negatively to the concept of someone else
determining that I must pay for safety in a manner decided by someone
else, applying weight to factors perhaps quite differently than I
might given my own personal circumstances.

That's a very cogent explanation, and I believe it's why we *haven't* (nor
will we) see SawStop manadated on every saw in America. It could be that in
the next 20 years, after the patent expires, that saw makers will find a way
to add it to new saws for a much smaller premium. When it gets to the point
where it might only add $20 or $50 to each saw, then I would be more
inclined to see it become a standard feature.

In short, Bully for the Saw Stop guy, but not for an attempt to do an
end around and essentially require that his product be bought.

Desperate businessmen do funny things. I think he was just exasperated that
his "better mousetrap" wasn't lighting the world on fire and punted. I
don't think he'll succeed, not until it costs much less to implement.
Thanks for taking the time out to explain your position. It's a refreshing
change.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



"Predatory lending" came about as a result of laws interfering with
banks doing business. No one in their right mind lends money to
someone who can't pay it back unless they are given sufficient reason
to do so.

Well, pardon me, but that's Rush Limbaugh bunk - no, wait, sorry - too rude.
I apologize. Bankers were falling all over each other to place exactly those
loans that brought down the system for three reasons. They were of the
belief that:

a) the market was always rising and would never crash
Which, of course, was also felt by the homeowners. Thus even those
not being went and took money out when they refinanced. Actually that is
(a) pretty normal human emotion and (b) much of the definition of a
bubble.

b) if they had to repo the house, they could sell it again for more money in
the ever-rising market they mistakenly believed couldn't fall.
See above.

c) they had offloaded the risk of all these bad mortgages by rolling them up
into CDOs (sealing them from individual legal separation) and selling them
to your pension fund managers with the blessing of the bond rating orgs.

I have thought, in retrospect, that the financial crisis was
inevitable after Greenspan got slapped around for his "irrational
exhubarence" statement. How dare he? The emperor does indeed have
clothes. The housing market was the big one, but the general high debt
ratios across governments, consumers, and businesses certainly added
substantially to the fall and definitely to the stubborness of the
recovery.



The flaw in the plan was that they placed SO many bad nodoc mortgages with
SO many people that when it came time to foreclose and flip that house to a
new victim, there were too many houses in foreclosure to flip! Houses that
had a book value of $400K dropped to $200 and below. Ask yourself what the
biggest recent change was. The Feds have always pushed home ownership -
Bush, Clinton, Obama, etc. What changed was that banks could sell these
crappy mortgages all rolled together to conceal their crappiness via the
CDO. That's what was new, and that's what did the most damage. Improperly
transferring the risk to investors whom Moody assured were buying AAA stuff
that was mostly scheiss.

But much of that is hindsight. The mortgages weren't perceived
to be "crappy" because of the points you made above. They were protected
by the (perceived) certainty that the house would be worth more even if
repossessed. These kinds of decisions are always made in the context of
the market and the market's perceptions. There was little risk since the
underlying houses HAD to go up, it was a dead certainty... until it
wasn't.
The best few word explanation of the whole thing (and especially
the historical context, came from Mr. Greenspan"
"They [financial crises] are all different, but they have one
fundamental source," he said. "That is the unquenchable capability of
human beings when confronted with long periods of prosperity to presume
that it will continue."
I would probably substitute "need" for capability, but other than
that let it stand.


The house prices had been run up to the point that first time buyers were
shut out and the glut of unsold spec houses starting piling up at
unrealistically high "driven up" by the bubble prices. Then the market
crashed and the banks that placed those predatory loans found themselves the
victims of their own greed and lack of proper risk assessment. To me, the
idea that po' wittle powerless banks were forced at Federal gunpoint to give
money away is just short of tinfoil hat crazy. Look at how MMS worked
"promote and regulate." That's like saying lets roll compliance and
marketing into one division. Banks did what they wanted to do and dictated
rules to the Feds. Examiners were far too cozy with the banks they
reviewed, allowing them to continue to place nodoc loans.

You also were running up against the end of the time the Boomers
were moving up and the time when they were starting to downsize. This
further messed up an already tenuous market. Also, one of the major
reasons for the tenacity of the current hooha.


I would nominate AIG as one of the real causes of the crash. They were able
to bet on credit. In Joisey, someone comes and breaks your legs for doing
that if you can't pay. AIG just went to the taxpayers to cover its gambling
debts. We, the taxpayers, then paid enormous bonuses to the very people who
had brought down the world's economy. Those AIG workers promised to pay
back the bonuses but reneged, FWIW. And both Bush and Obama signed off on
it. That's how much power Wall St. has over the government. They got
emergency cash from both parties - FAST!. That's why I believe it's just
not credible that "forced federal lending" occurred at anything but a noise
level - 10% or less of the total real estate activity.

This is one of the things that has been present during every major
banking crisis of my life time. We in the US haven't been able to figure
out how to avoid the privatization of profit and the socializing of
loss. We promised ourselves after the S&L Crisis that won't happen
again. Heck we promised ourselves after the Great Depression.
My concern is that this round seems to be different because we are
socializing the loss of much more than just the financial system. You
see it in GM, you see it in Chrysler and many other places. You are
seeing it in to a certain extent even in state and local governments. It
sorta defeats the purpose of requiring states to balance their budgets
if Uncle Sugar is set to open up the (empty) purse for cops, teachers,
and others.


I guess you're against seatbelts and motorcycle helmets, then, even though
they've put a lot of money in everyone's pocket by saving us from having to
pick up the tab for people horribly disabled in car accidents. That's where
a lot of tax money goes, if you haven't noticed - Medicaid, social services,
etc.
Which sorta asks the wrong question. SHOULD these even be paid for in
the first place? If we are going to argue against the socialization of
losses by financial institutions or other corporate entities for their
indiscretions, why should we then so whole heartedly go ahead and
socialize the losses of idiots who ignore seatbelts and/or motorcycle
helmets?


the companies in existence when he invented the device. But he now
was forced to compete on the open market. He's doing well, and it
shows what being forced to compete can accomplish.

If the SawStop means that schools begin teaching woodworking skills more
widely again, then maybe it's not such a bad thing. It's been lawyers suing
school systems for children injured in shop classes that have reduced
drastically the number of schools offering such programs. I know that kids
today can't nail two pieces of wood together right.

Saw stop or attorney stop?


But we all pay for the indigent appearing in the ER with less than all ten
fingers. There's been an epidemic of trying to shift costs all over the
world. But often, costs are like bubbles under wall paper. You can push
them around a bit, but they'll still be there.
Which is why they call cost "shifting" instead of elimination (g). I
know of no one who is seriously suggesting that those costs go away,
indeed most of the debate is over where they should go.

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Woof! This has been a very articulate and long thread of repetition of
claimed "facts" that has ever been repeated. I did a speed-read of the whole
thread without coming across any new or even lesser known facts which, BTW
were given adnauseum without the faintest hint of verifiability. The time
spent on these large opines is certainly questionable.

On 8/29/2010 7:03 PM, Twayne wrote:
Woof! This has been a very articulate and long thread of repetition of
claimed "facts" that has ever been repeated. I did a speed-read of the whole
thread without coming across any new or even lesser known facts which, BTW
were given adnauseum without the faintest hint of verifiability. The time
spent on these large opines is certainly questionable.



One thing I have learned from all of this discussion, your hot dog is
safe around one of those saws.

TDD

"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Woof! This has been a very articulate and long thread of repetition of
claimed "facts" that has ever been repeated.

Say again? Either English isn't your first language or it was written after
more than your first drink, or, as your "woof" implies "No one on the
internet really knows if you're a dog or not."

I did a speed-read of the whole thread

Very thorough, I am sure, and not missing any items like:

"Power saws may cause severe lacerations and fractures. Nerve, tendon,
vascular injury and amputation are possible as well. Fingertip injuries are
the most common with the thumb being the most commonly injured digit. An
injury sustained from a power saw could quickly and suddenly have
devastating consequences. It has been determined that a circular table saw
can sever a human forearm 6 centimeters in diameter in just 40 - 60
milliseconds depending upon the feeding power of the saw."

http://www.handctr.com/power_saw_injury_of_the_hand.htm "

So you're expecting us to believe you at your word, that you knew JUST how
fast you could get you forearm cut off and which finger gets cut off the
most? Those, among others, were new facts to me, along with the other
citations I posted. Are we expected to believe you knew about the stats
concerning children and power saw injuries at the site below, too?

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...ics;107/6/e106

without coming across any new or even lesser known facts which, BTW
were given adnauseum without the faintest hint of verifiability.

Are you SURE you were reading the thread about the hot dog saw and not some
other newsgroup? We do see some spectacular mis-posts from time to time.
Your post was completely free of any words related to the topic, so I have
to ask . . .

The time spent on these large opines is certainly questionable.

Tell the man who's forcing you to read the thread with a gun to your head
that you'd like to renegotiate your contract.

Who but a troll would post such a message in a newsgroup that exists to
promote discussion of various topics? In addition, it's a) our time to
waste and b) don't your think your post is actually the most guilty of being
a fact-free waste of time? Flanigan's Law: A man will accuse others of
what he is most guilty of himself.

--
Bobby G.