I know this is elementary, but;
If I am cutting a 1/4 inch radius (round over) on an oak board, using a
router table and the router bit has a bearing, is there any reason to set up
and use the fence?
Pros and cons appreciated.

Ivan Vegvary

Hello Ivan,
My router experience is minmal but I've never used a fence when I'm
taking advantage of the router bit's bearing. If I decide to not use
the full cut allowed by the bearing then I will use a fence.
Marc

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
I know this is elementary, but;
If I am cutting a 1/4 inch radius (round over) on an oak board, using a
router table and the router bit has a bearing, is there any reason to set
up
and use the fence?
Pros and cons appreciated.

IME, with larger bits with bearings you can often get a smoother cut against
a fence, and you can also use a backer board to keep any tearout on the ends
of the cut to a minnimum, but with that small a roundover you can do it
easily without a fence. Basically whatever is more convenient/comfortable
for you.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05

Ivan Vegvary wrote:
I know this is elementary, but;
If I am cutting a 1/4 inch radius (round over) on an oak board, using a
router table and the router bit has a bearing, is there any reason to set up
and use the fence?

I find it easier to line up the fence with the bearing. Without the
fence you need to feed the piece in to the bearing. With the fence it's
a bit easier to just slide it along the fence.

Chris

"Chris Friesen" wrote in message
...
Ivan Vegvary wrote:
I know this is elementary, but;
If I am cutting a 1/4 inch radius (round over) on an oak board, using a
router table and the router bit has a bearing, is there any reason to set
up and use the fence?

I find it easier to line up the fence with the bearing. Without the fence
you need to feed the piece in to the bearing. With the fence it's a bit
easier to just slide it along the fence.

Chris

This is exactly what I do.

I think if you don't use your fence with a bearing bit you SHOULD use a
starter pin and ease the wood into the bit.

--
Stoutman
http://www.garagewoodworks.com
(Featuring a NEW look)

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
news:qKxFf.7249$Gg1.4749@trnddc03...
I know this is elementary, but;
If I am cutting a 1/4 inch radius (round over) on an oak board, using a
router table and the router bit has a bearing, is there any reason to set
up and use the fence?
Pros and cons appreciated.

Ivan Vegvary

It is not unusual for a pilot or pilot bearing to leave an impression in the
wood. The fence helps guard against this. Also when cutting across the
grain it is easier IMHO to back cut the corner with the aid of a fence. AND
as some bearings age they tend to allow the cutter to cut a bit slight bit
deeper than the bearing surface. Again, the fence helps prevent this.

"Ivan Vegvary" wrote in message
news:qKxFf.7249$Gg1.4749@trnddc03...
I know this is elementary, but;
If I am cutting a 1/4 inch radius (round over) on an oak board, using a
router table and the router bit has a bearing, is there any reason to set
up and use the fence?
Pros and cons appreciated.

My fence has a port for dust collecting. Even if I use the bearing I keep
the fence close to have the chips sucked away.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/

If bearing would be guiding on location of minor knot-hole, fence keeps
cutter from cutting out-of-line. Not to mention the safety and
chip-suction reasons. Simple enough to set up.

J

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 02:00:32 +0000, wrote:

I tried to surf your website but apparently you used a bunch of Flash for
navigation ... there are only three working links on the index page. I'm
pretty ceratin that there is a way to make all of your links visible
to people who do not care to use Flash too.

Your choice, of course. My default browser for newsgroups is Konqueror on
Mandrake Linux. It's fast and simple ... and plenty good for viewing
standards-based websites.

The Stickley bed looks nice, though.

Bill

W Canaday wrote:

I'm pretty ceratin that there is a way to make all of
your links visible to people who do not care to use Flash too.

There is, but why not just use Flash plugin? If it's not installed
already, it doesn't take long to install and it's so widespread and so
much content is Flash-based it doesn't make a lot of sense to me not
to use it. What am I missing?

Joe Barta

P.S. A note to webmasters... it's probably a good idea to provide
traditional links somehow and somewhere so the seach engines can find
all your pages. I'm almost certain that search engine indexing spiders
cannot follow flash links.

Joe Barta wrote:

There is, but why not just use Flash plugin? If it's not installed
already, it doesn't take long to install and it's so widespread and so
much content is Flash-based it doesn't make a lot of sense to me not
to use it. What am I missing?

Because (I posted this the other day in response to the same website,
which I'd like very much to enjoy!) Macromedia (oops, adobe!) has an
onerous usage license.

er
--
email not valid

Enoch Root wrote:

Because... Macromedia (oops,
adobe!) has an onerous usage license.

To save me the trouble of hunting down the license, reading through it
and trying to determine what exactly bothers you, might you just tell
me what you mean by "onerous usage license" and what exactly your
worries are?

Joe Barta

Joe Barta wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:

Because... Macromedia (oops,
adobe!) has an onerous usage license.

To save me the trouble of hunting down the license, reading through it
and trying to determine what exactly bothers you, might you just tell
me what you mean by "onerous usage license" and what exactly your
worries are?

I'm forbidden from using it on a laptop/pda/tablet, and I must submit to
an audit (ask Ernie Ball about that one!) for which I must pay all
expenses for if I'm they find me to be in violation of their EULA.

Mind you, they used to require that you allow them to load any program
they want onto your computer...

But it's still too much, and too hard not to be in violation.

Finding the EULA is easy enough... just google "flash" and "EULA".

There is some precedent for (albeit, some against) giving these "I
agree" clicky thingies the legal force of a contract.

er
--
email not valid

W Canaday wrote:
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 02:00:32 +0000, wrote:

I tried to surf your website but apparently you used a bunch of Flash for
navigation ... there are only three working links on the index page. I'm
pretty ceratin that there is a way to make all of your links visible
to people who do not care to use Flash too.

Your choice, of course. My default browser for newsgroups is Konqueror on
Mandrake Linux. It's fast and simple ... and plenty good for viewing
standards-based websites.

Hey, I just found this... haven't tried it yet, though:

http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/

er
--
email not valid

Enoch Root wrote:

Joe Barta wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:

Because... Macromedia (oops,
adobe!) has an onerous usage license.

To save me the trouble of hunting down the license, reading
through it and trying to determine what exactly bothers you,
might you just tell me what you mean by "onerous usage license"
and what exactly your worries are?

I'm forbidden from using it on a laptop/pda/tablet, and I must
submit to an audit (ask Ernie Ball about that one!) for which I
must pay all expenses for if I'm they find me to be in violation
of their EULA.

Mind you, they used to require that you allow them to load any
program they want onto your computer...

But it's still too much, and too hard not to be in violation.

Finding the EULA is easy enough... just google "flash" and "EULA".

There is some precedent for (albeit, some against) giving these "I
agree" clicky thingies the legal force of a contract.

Very interesting, but I think I'll continue to live dangerously and
keep the Flash player. If I read all the fine print that comes with
everything I've ever used or bought I think I'd be afraid to get up in
the morning. I'm fool enough to leave my head buried in the sand and
realistic enough not to let it bother me too much.

Joe Barta

Why the hell is it that so many people believe that if a software company
says something, it is law? Bull****.

"Enoch Root" wrote in message
...
Joe Barta wrote:
Enoch Root wrote:

Because... Macromedia (oops,
adobe!) has an onerous usage license.

To save me the trouble of hunting down the license, reading through it
and trying to determine what exactly bothers you, might you just tell
me what you mean by "onerous usage license" and what exactly your
worries are?

I'm forbidden from using it on a laptop/pda/tablet, and I must submit to
an audit (ask Ernie Ball about that one!) for which I must pay all
expenses for if I'm they find me to be in violation of their EULA.

Mind you, they used to require that you allow them to load any program
they want onto your computer...

But it's still too much, and too hard not to be in violation.

Finding the EULA is easy enough... just google "flash" and "EULA".

There is some precedent for (albeit, some against) giving these "I
agree" clicky thingies the legal force of a contract.

er
--
email not valid

Joe, you have the right attitude.
"Joe Barta" wrote in message
.. .

Very interesting, but I think I'll continue to live dangerously and
keep the Flash player. If I read all the fine print that comes with
everything I've ever used or bought I think I'd be afraid to get up in
the morning. I'm fool enough to leave my head buried in the sand and
realistic enough not to let it bother me too much.

Joe Barta

CW wrote:
Why the hell is it that so many people believe that if a software company
says something, it is law? Bull****.

It is a question of law, laws are being passed which 1) make these
binding contracts and b) are ambiguous enough to pose a convenient
threat to someone without the resources to fight a legal battle.

There are now laws that make it a criminal offense to violate copyright
(previously the realm of the civil courts) while at the same time
extending the rights of the holder to include restricting *how* you may
view their published work. There are sinister and real threats because
of this.

When you say "bull****" do you mean what I'm saying is bull**** or are
you expressing your disgust at what software (or whatever) companies are
doing with the law?

"Enoch Root" wrote in message
...

Joe Barta wrote:

Enoch Root wrote:

Because... Macromedia (oops,
adobe!) has an onerous usage license.

To save me the trouble of hunting down the license, reading through it
and trying to determine what exactly bothers you, might you just tell
me what you mean by "onerous usage license" and what exactly your
worries are?

I'm forbidden from using it on a laptop/pda/tablet, and I must submit to
an audit (ask Ernie Ball about that one!) for which I must pay all
expenses for if I'm they find me to be in violation of their EULA.

Mind you, they used to require that you allow them to load any program
they want onto your computer...

But it's still too much, and too hard not to be in violation.

Finding the EULA is easy enough... just google "flash" and "EULA".

There is some precedent for (albeit, some against) giving these "I
agree" clicky thingies the legal force of a contract.

er
--
email not valid

CW wrote:
Why the hell is it that so many people believe that if a software company
says something, it is law? Bull****.

Tell that to Ernie Ball:

URL:http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
URL:http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/11/27/021127hnerniball.html?s=IDGNS
URL:http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2003-02-26-desktop_x.htm

That's what you're letting yourself in for.

er
--
email not valid

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:27:05 +0000, Joe Barta wrote:
I'm pretty ceratin that there is a way to make all of your links visible
to people who do not care to use Flash too.

There is, but why not just use Flash plugin? If it's not installed
already, it doesn't take long to install and it's so widespread and so
much content is Flash-based it doesn't make a lot of sense to me not to
use it. What am I missing?

It may be widespread, but you really have to do your own stats analysis to
see how many people are missing out on your content because of it.

I did a quick article on it back in 2002 in response to a discussion with
a designer at my old company. I found that for a general site that had a
Flash item on the page, only 71% of people had Flash installed.

Times may well have changed now (hence I'd say look at your own stats) but
to miss out on over a quarter of your visitors is very ill-advised.

http://www.andyjeffries.co.uk/docume...enetration.php

Cheers,


Andy


--
Andy Jeffries | gPHPEdit Lead Developer
http://www.gphpedit.org | PHP editor for Gnome 2
http://www.andyjeffries.co.uk | Personal site and photos

Andy Jeffries wrote:

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 22:27:05 +0000, Joe Barta wrote:
I'm pretty ceratin that there is a way to make all of your links
visible to people who do not care to use Flash too.

There is, but why not just use Flash plugin? If it's not
installed already, it doesn't take long to install and it's so
widespread and so much content is Flash-based it doesn't make a
lot of sense to me not to use it. What am I missing?

It may be widespread, but you really have to do your own stats
analysis to see how many people are missing out on your content
because of it.

I did a quick article on it back in 2002 in response to a
discussion with a designer at my old company. I found that for a
general site that had a Flash item on the page, only 71% of people
had Flash installed.

Times may well have changed now (hence I'd say look at your own
stats) but to miss out on over a quarter of your visitors is very
ill-advised.

http://www.andyjeffries.co.uk/docume...enetration.php


I should clarify... when I said it makes sense to "use Flash", I meant
as a web surfer browsing the internet, it made sense to use a Flash
enabled browser.

I wasn't suggesting that it made sense to use Flash content on a web
site. Although, even though I wasn't suggesting it, that doesn't mean
I *wouldn't* suggest it. I think a little Flash on a web site can be a
wonderful thing... as long as the webmaster understands the potential
pitfalls and designs accordingly.

One potential pitfall is using Flash for vitals elements (such as
navigation) without providing a regular html backup for non-Flash-
enabled visitors.

Other pitfalls are more subjective... such as a really cheesy 3Mb
Flash intro page with kewl robotic sounds for no other reason than to
show the world you just learned how to make a Flash movie.

On a smaller scale, adding cheesy Flash trinkets to your site for no
other reason than to add cheesy Flash trinkets to your site can also
look a little silly. Be judicious in your use of Flash.

Note, this thread possibly started in reference to a woodworking
site... so yes, it's most definitely on topic ;-)

Joe Barta

Andy Jeffries wrote:

It may be widespread, but you really have to do your own stats analysis to
see how many people are missing out on your content because of it.

I did a quick article on it back in 2002 in response to a discussion with
a designer at my old company. I found that for a general site that had a
Flash item on the page, only 71% of people had Flash installed.

Times may well have changed now (hence I'd say look at your own stats) but
to miss out on over a quarter of your visitors is very ill-advised.

One man's opinion here, although I am a web developer by day.

I have Flash loaded on my machine, but I NEVER browse with it on. Two
reasons:

1. Flash is an ActiveX control. ActiveX is a security nightmare for
the user. 1 + 1 =...
2. If you enable Flash, you have to put up with eight thousand
spinning, flashing, moving, screeling, loud, annyoying ads. If you
keep it disabled, you get STILL web pages that don't annoy the living
dog**** out of you while you're trying to read them.
3. I ****ing hate Flash.

Only when I hit a site which I __have__ to use do I take the time to
enable the Flash player.

My guess is that I'm in the minority, and a fairly small one. But the
fact that we're having this discussion tells me it's an issue for
others, too.



3.

wrote:

My guess is that I'm in the minority, and a fairly small one.

I'm with ya'!

I do the same.

wrote:

I have Flash loaded on my machine, but I NEVER browse with it on.
Two reasons:

1. Flash is an ActiveX control. ActiveX is a security nightmare
for the user. 1 + 1 =...

I'll acknowledge that after hearing from very knowlegable people on
the matter, it does seem as if ActiveX controls in general can be a
*potential* problem depending on how they are written. At the same
time though, it could be said that automobiles can be a *potential*
problem as well.

That said (someone mentioned the phrase "proof by anecdote"), never
(as far as I'm aware) have I had a single "security nightmare" due to
the Flash plugin. I'll also say the same for Java, JavaScript and
browser cookies.

It *IS* important to note that, as you surf the web, most of the
requests you get to install ActiveX controls are for stupid toolbars,
etc that are are best avoided because they often contain malware
(malicious ware). Those most likely WILL give you grief. But those are
not Flash.

2. If you enable Flash, you have to put up with eight thousand
spinning, flashing, moving, screeling, loud, annyoying ads.

Call me a freak, but the advertising never bothered me all that much.
Some forms do annoy me a little of course... popups (I do use a popup
blocker), the kind that move to the middle of the screen and you have
to find and click the X to close them, and the worst ones... the ones
that expand when you accidently move your mouse over them.

I welcome advertising because it makes generating useful content
PROFITABLE... which means even more and even more useful content ;-)

If
you keep it disabled, you get STILL web pages that don't annoy the
living dog**** out of you while you're trying to read them.

Well, you'll probably still get plenty of ads... possibly the animated
GIF variety which is probably just as annoying to you.

3. I ****ing hate Flash.

It would seem... but that makes *3* reasons ;-)

Only when I hit a site which I __have__ to use do I take the time
to enable the Flash player.

Sounds reasonable to me.

My guess is that I'm in the minority, and a fairly small one.

Probably not. I think most people would agree with you. Now whether
they follow that up with any action is an entirely different story.

But
the fact that we're having this discussion tells me it's an issue
for others, too.

I'm sure it is... one is never alone.

Joe Barta

Joe Barta wrote:
I'll acknowledge that after hearing from very knowlegable people on
the matter, it does seem as if ActiveX controls in general can be a
*potential* problem depending on how they are written. At the same
time though, it could be said that automobiles can be a *potential*
problem as well.


I agree with you on pretty much all your points, Joe, particularly the
above.

The one issue I would raise is that, if the user keeps ActiveX enabled
on their browsers, they don't get to pick and choose which ActiveX
controls get downloaded to their machine, unless they set a warning,
which generally gets old pretty quickly. So although _your_ control
might be a legitimate and useful control, others might not be, and the
user won't know until it's too late.

About the only thing I run with is JavaScript. Pretty much nothing
works without it. But I keep Java, ActiveX, and .Net disabled. I
trust Microsoft like I trust Harbor Freight.

Let me add this too...I haven't seen Stoutman's site, and I don't want
him to see my posts in this thread as an indictment of him or his web
skills. Hell...he's gone to the trouble to provide content, and I
obviously haven't. I try not to grouse about that kind of thing.

Just offering one man's opinion.

wrote:

The one issue I would raise is that, if the user keeps ActiveX
enabled on their browsers, they don't get to pick and choose which
ActiveX controls get downloaded to their machine,

Absolutely they do. Unless the user has deliberately altered his
default security settings, he is asked if he would like to download
and install a particular ActiveX control.

unless they set a warning,

That warning is the default security setting for ActiveX controls
found on the Internet. Unless the user has changed the default setting
or otherwise agreed to download and install ALL ActiveX controls (or
at least all from that particular site) then he will be prompted.

which generally gets old pretty quickly.

I'll agree that unknowing users have a tendency to just click on
anything and everything. After one or two times cleaning all the crud
off their system, they tend to be a little more aware and a little
more careful.

So although
_your_ control might be a legitimate and useful control, others
might not be,

Add to that, my control may be legitimate, but possibly be written in
such a way that evil people may exploit it's vulnerabilities.
Supposedly having a control "signed" is a way to prevent this, but
from my reading, the jury is still out on that one.

But all this originated from a question about Flash. I still stand by
my belief that running your browser with Flash enabled is almost
certainly NOT going to give you any grief greater than a few flashing
advertisements.

Joe Barta

wrote:

About the only thing I run with is JavaScript. Pretty much nothing
works without it. But I keep Java, ActiveX, and .Net disabled. I
trust Microsoft like I trust Harbor Freight.

The Firefox browser has an extension available called "No Script" that
lets you pick and choose which sites are allowed to run Javascript on
your browser.

There's other stuff to limit which sites can do popups, etc.

er
--
email not valid