Just Wondering wrote:
On 1/20/2012 3:54 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
Just once i'd like to see a demonstration of that damn hot dog being
run into that $aw $top blade at the same rate that your finger or
hand might if you were to slip.

Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiF8a5gacKs

that guy should never be allowed to demo any product again - for the rest of
his life. He flat out sucks. That said - he did move the hot dog through
the blade at as fast a rate as anyone here could expect to see. But... he
sucked as a demo dolly...

--

-Mike-

wrote:

Remember, they are attempting to make an IDIOT PROOF table saw.

A true idiot proof table saw would have:

- no electrical connection
- no blade
- no room for the idiot to stand behind the saw

--

-Mike-

I am sure many of us thought about giving her the wiener personally.

--------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Nope - I didn't see no damned table saw.

--------
Steve Barker wrote:
there was a table saw in that video??

I still want to see one whipped into the carbide from the side of the blade
where it doesn't pull away from the contact angle.

Yeah, very bad demo guy.


---------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

that guy should never be allowed to demo any product again - for the rest of
his life. He flat out sucks. That said - he did move the hot dog through
the blade at as fast a rate as anyone here could expect to see. But... he
sucked as a demo dolly...

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:1ac0c$4f2751b0
:

wrote:

Remember, they are attempting to make an IDIOT PROOF table saw.

A true idiot proof table saw would have:

- no electrical connection
- no blade
- no room for the idiot to stand behind the saw


Here's an idea... You lay out the lines on the piece of wood (using a
regular pencil) and the saw detects the lines and cuts the wood. The
wood is enclosed 100% in a sealed environment (add a couple thousand for
HEPA seal) and the user can't get anywhere near the blade when cutting is
in operation.

In other words, crossing a line-following robot with a CNC style saw.

It would tend to take the interesting bits out of it, cutting the wood,
planing it and seeing how it reacts, etc, but it would be 100% safe.
That is, until someone gets cut on a splinter or sharp edge. Doh!

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

On 31 Jan 2012 09:24:57 GMT, Puckdropper
Here's an idea... You lay out the lines on the piece of wood (using a
regular pencil) and the saw detects the lines and cuts the wood. The
wood is enclosed 100% in a sealed environment (add a couple thousand for
HEPA seal) and the user can't get anywhere near the blade when cutting is
in operation.

Sure, but what about the idiot who when walking up to the wood, trips,
falls on his pencil and stabs himself with it? So, you've left out the
step of adding a pencil safestop in your calculations.

On 1/30/2012 5:50 PM, Jack wrote:
On 1/30/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:

I can touch my desk lamp with my wooden push stick but until I touch it
with my finger it stays on or off. That was a $5 upgrade at the lamp
store.

I had a lamp like that once. It was great for a week, then, for two more
weeks it went on every time you walked past it. Next, it went on and off
by itself, no need to even walk past it.

I tossed it but am happy it didn't cost me $180 and a days work every
time it misfired:-)


I bought mine in 1986 and still use it. How would you loose a days work?

On 1/30/2012 6:55 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 1/20/2012 3:54 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
Just once i'd like to see a demonstration of that damn hot dog being run
into that $aw $top blade at the same rate that your finger or hand might
if you were to slip.

Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiF8a5gacKs


Never mind the hot dog, did you see how fast he cut through that
plywood? LOL

Seriously that guy was ill prepared, must have been his first or second
program. I could have given a better presentation.

On 1/30/2012 8:19 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
On 1/20/2012 3:54 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
Just once i'd like to see a demonstration of that damn hot dog being
run into that $aw $top blade at the same rate that your finger or
hand might if you were to slip.

Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiF8a5gacKs

that guy should never be allowed to demo any product again - for the rest of
his life. He flat out sucks. That said - he did move the hot dog through
the blade at as fast a rate as anyone here could expect to see. But... he
sucked as a demo dolly...


He did suck!. I wounder how bad it would have been with out his little
tablet telling him every other word to use.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:20:29 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 1/30/2012 6:47 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 1/20/2012 3:54 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
Just once i'd like to see a demonstration of that damn hot dog being run
into that $aw $top blade at the same rate that your finger or hand might
if you were to slip.

Best Sawstop demo yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t036YiYdI0


there was a table saw in that video??

I love the lining on that modified ToolKing shirt, don't you?
Maybe that lovely lining can learn to read naturally soon.
She's a cutie, fer sher.

--
Life is like one big Mardi Gras. But instead of showing your boobs,
show people your brain, and if they like what they see, you'll have
more beads than you know what to do with.
-- Ellen DeGeneres, Tulane Commencement Speech, 2009

On 1/31/2012 7:04 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:20:29 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 1/30/2012 6:47 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 1/20/2012 3:54 PM, Steve Barker wrote:
Just once i'd like to see a demonstration of that damn hot dog being run
into that $aw $top blade at the same rate that your finger or hand might
if you were to slip.

Best Sawstop demo yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t036YiYdI0


there was a table saw in that video??

I love the lining on that modified ToolKing shirt, don't you?

Even a SawStop can't protect you from distractions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOsmhRkLw_4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gz2dcPrJpH4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbVKS6NX9t8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL7xA...1196210A7135AE

Something to keep in mind when discussing ideas that do not conflict with
the Gass patents: It has been common for some years now for the Patent
Office to approve patents no matter how ridiculously obvious, over reaching,
plainly derivative, etc. If someone comes up with a different idea, even
if it DOES conflict with one of Gass's patents, the patent office is likely
to approve it anyway. I suppose if that happens Gass and the newcomer can
duke it out in court. As usual, the lawyers will win, though in this case,
Gass, the lawyer, would also be one of the litigants. It would be worth
seeing for that aspect alone IMHO!


--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

Larry W wrote:
Something to keep in mind when discussing ideas that do not conflict
with the Gass patents: It has been common for some years now for the
Patent Office to approve patents no matter how ridiculously obvious,
over reaching, plainly derivative, etc. If someone comes up with a
different idea, even
if it DOES conflict with one of Gass's patents, the patent office is
likely to approve it anyway. I suppose if that happens Gass and the
newcomer can duke it out in court. As usual, the lawyers will win,
though in this case, Gass, the lawyer, would also be one of the
litigants. It would be worth seeing for that aspect alone IMHO!

Yeahbut, he's a patent lawyer if I recall correctly, which means he knows
how to file patents. That's a lot different from a litigation lawyer. My
guess is he'd retain an attorney.

--

-Mike-

On 1/31/2012 6:37 PM, Larry W wrote:
Something to keep in mind when discussing ideas that do not conflict with
the Gass patents: It has been common for some years now for the Patent
Office to approve patents no matter how ridiculously obvious, over reaching,
plainly derivative, etc. If someone comes up with a different idea, even
if it DOES conflict with one of Gass's patents, the patent office is likely
to approve it anyway. I suppose if that happens Gass and the newcomer can
duke it out in court. As usual, the lawyers will win, though in this case,
Gass, the lawyer, would also be one of the litigants. It would be worth
seeing for that aspect alone IMHO!

You said a mouthful ... I can't believe the software patents that are
being awarded these days, they defy reason, logic, and any sense of
_shame_ whatsoever.

I was co-founder of the very first web based, third party DNS provider
on the Internet in the early nineties. _If_ we could have patented our
method back then, and we tried, my shop would currently be 5,000 sf
instead of 300sf.

That same method of bits and byte manipulation is now highly patentable
in the current patent environment.

Basically, unless you can buy off a politician, you're screwed in the
age of crony capitalism.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 01/31/2012 06:57 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/31/2012 6:37 PM, Larry W wrote:
Something to keep in mind when discussing ideas that do not conflict with
the Gass patents: It has been common for some years now for the Patent
Office to approve patents no matter how ridiculously obvious, over
reaching,
plainly derivative, etc. If someone comes up with a different idea, even
if it DOES conflict with one of Gass's patents, the patent office is
likely
to approve it anyway. I suppose if that happens Gass and the newcomer can
duke it out in court. As usual, the lawyers will win, though in this
case,
Gass, the lawyer, would also be one of the litigants. It would be worth
seeing for that aspect alone IMHO!

You said a mouthful ... I can't believe the software patents that are
being awarded these days, they defy reason, logic, and any sense of
_shame_ whatsoever.

I was co-founder of the very first web based, third party DNS provider
on the Internet in the early nineties. _If_ we could have patented our
method back then, and we tried, my shop would currently be 5,000 sf
instead of 300sf.

I use these guys: http://www.opendns.com/

Free for home use and do a great job. Configfor DNS in your router and
Bob's your uncle.

Far as I know, they aren't patent vultures.


That same method of bits and byte manipulation is now highly patentable
in the current patent environment.

Basically, unless you can buy off a politician, you're screwed in the
age of crony capitalism.





--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:57:38 -0600, Swingman wrote:
You said a mouthful ... I can't believe the software patents that are
being awarded these days, they defy reason, logic, and any sense of
_shame_ whatsoever.

As previously discussed, it sounds exactly like the police charging a
driver in a traffic accident even though they weren't there to witness
it. They just collect the evidence and let the courts analyze where
the charge was valid or not. I'd guess the patent department just
issues the patents on what they believe them to be and then lets the
courts determine whether they're valid or not.

Aren't there any practicing lawyers here? Maybe they're hiding for
fear of being attacked.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:57:38 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 1/31/2012 6:37 PM, Larry W wrote:
Something to keep in mind when discussing ideas that do not conflict with
the Gass patents: It has been common for some years now for the Patent
Office to approve patents no matter how ridiculously obvious, over reaching,
plainly derivative, etc. If someone comes up with a different idea, even
if it DOES conflict with one of Gass's patents, the patent office is likely
to approve it anyway. I suppose if that happens Gass and the newcomer can
duke it out in court. As usual, the lawyers will win, though in this case,
Gass, the lawyer, would also be one of the litigants. It would be worth
seeing for that aspect alone IMHO!

You said a mouthful ... I can't believe the software patents that are
being awarded these days, they defy reason, logic, and any sense of
_shame_ whatsoever.

I was co-founder of the very first web based, third party DNS provider
on the Internet in the early nineties. _If_ we could have patented our
method back then, and we tried, my shop would currently be 5,000 sf
instead of 300sf.

That same method of bits and byte manipulation is now highly patentable
in the current patent environment.

Basically, unless you can buy off a politician, you're screwed in the
age of crony capitalism.

I've never been there, but if you look at a lot of the things being
patented now its complete BS. Maybe they need some way of doing 18
-48 month patents as things change so quick and the wide sweeping
patents stifle developement, If your shop is only 300 sf I'm
impressed. I started at 560 sf, added 120 sf and just added 360 sf
and haven't the projects to justify the investment over what you've
done.

Mike M

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:07:16 -0700, Just Wondering wrote:

On 1/29/2012 10:57 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:40:37 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 19:37:28 -0800, wrote:



wrote in message news
On 30 Jan 2012 02:05:16 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

z wrote in
:


A computer with a video camera could watch you as you make the cut.
It would "know" what the saw looked like and a piece of wood, but
anything too close to the blade would set it off.

What does "set it off" do? It's in there.

It's another method, but not something I think would really work.
There's just too much information to process to prevent false trips
and ensure real ones. Anyone ever played with the Xbox Kinect?

Puckdropper


It activates the mechanism to stop the blade.

Puckdropper
Both the sensor and the stop mechanism are covered by SS extensive
patent protection.

================================================== ====
Inductrive proximity sensors have been around for ever. Good luck defending
that pattent.
It is NOT an inductive proximity sensor though - it is a CONTACT
sensor. You need to TOUCH the blade to drip it - which is half the
solution. Stopping the blade within 1 tooth of rotation a milisecond
or so after contact - quickly enough to avoid flesh damage - is
PERHAPS the mosre critical technology.

It doesn't matter whether it is a proximity or contact sensor. The fact that
it is a sensor detecting flesh (capacitance/inductance or proximity/contact
make no difference) causing something to happen to "safe" the blade, is what
is claimed in the patent. Capacitance sensors have been around for eons but
safeing a table saw blade hasn't. They are irrelevant to these patents.

What if you developed a technology that was true "proximately", by
having the operator wear a latex-thin glove that would cause the blade
to drop an instant BEFORE contact was made?

It *still* infringes on the SawStop patent(s). The fact that you're safing
the blade is enough. Gass is an ass, but he's no dummy.

On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 00:37:07 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

Something to keep in mind when discussing ideas that do not conflict with
the Gass patents: It has been common for some years now for the Patent
Office to approve patents no matter how ridiculously obvious, over reaching,
plainly derivative, etc. If someone comes up with a different idea, even
if it DOES conflict with one of Gass's patents, the patent office is likely
to approve it anyway. I suppose if that happens Gass and the newcomer can
duke it out in court. As usual, the lawyers will win, though in this case,
Gass, the lawyer, would also be one of the litigants. It would be worth
seeing for that aspect alone IMHO!

That's all true, but the fact remains that the patent is assumed to be valid.
Your job, should you accept, is to prove otherwise. It's a bet-your-company
proposition and won't be easy for the challenger. The crap with the Ryobi
suit should tell you something.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:17:25 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 19:57:38 -0600, Swingman wrote:
You said a mouthful ... I can't believe the software patents that are
being awarded these days, they defy reason, logic, and any sense of
_shame_ whatsoever.

As previously discussed, it sounds exactly like the police charging a
driver in a traffic accident even though they weren't there to witness
it. They just collect the evidence and let the courts analyze where
the charge was valid or not. I'd guess the patent department just
issues the patents on what they believe them to be and then lets the
courts determine whether they're valid or not.

Except that the courts assume the patent is valid because the USPTO says it
is.

Aren't there any practicing lawyers here? Maybe they're hiding for
fear of being attacked.

On 30 Jan 2012 07:07:13 GMT, Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:05:16 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:


It activates the mechanism to stop the blade.

Sorry, that's covered by Gass' patent.


Then you do it some other way. Grab the blade by a couple of steel
blocks that tighten down like brake calipers.

Have you seen the SS mechanism? It's in there.

Put explosive bolts in the
arbor mounting setup to force the blade down. Who cares if the blade
stops if it disappears fast enough?

"Disappears". It's in there.

Put a small container of compressed gas near an oak rust container, and
fire the gas when the saw detects a "hand foul". The blade will
disintegrate within just a few seconds of contact. Might not be as fast,
but getting going again is as simple as taking the arbor nut off and
installing a new blade. *g*

;-). Where does the "remains" of the blade go? There's still a lot of energy
there that has to be dissipated.

On 1/31/2012 8:08 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:

On 01/31/2012 06:57 PM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/31/2012 6:37 PM, Larry W wrote:
Something to keep in mind when discussing ideas that do not conflict
with
the Gass patents: It has been common for some years now for the Patent
Office to approve patents no matter how ridiculously obvious, over
reaching,
plainly derivative, etc. If someone comes up with a different idea, even
if it DOES conflict with one of Gass's patents, the patent office is
likely
to approve it anyway. I suppose if that happens Gass and the newcomer
can
duke it out in court. As usual, the lawyers will win, though in this
case,
Gass, the lawyer, would also be one of the litigants. It would be worth
seeing for that aspect alone IMHO!

You said a mouthful ... I can't believe the software patents that are
being awarded these days, they defy reason, logic, and any sense of
_shame_ whatsoever.

I was co-founder of the very first web based, third party DNS provider
on the Internet in the early nineties. _If_ we could have patented our
method back then, and we tried, my shop would currently be 5,000 sf
instead of 300sf.

I use these guys: http://www.opendns.com/

Free for home use and do a great job. Configfor DNS in your router and
Bob's your uncle.


Everything to do with third party DNS that came after 1995 was based on
our our previous work, including Network Solutions getting into the
business and giving it away for free, which was the beginning of the end
for our small company. This was in the wild west days of the internet,
before venture capital and sillycon valley was fully into the game, and
their was almost no way to protect your intellectual property from being
blatantly copied.

By 2000 the internet had changed drastically, and before the dotcom
bubble burst, things were becoming increasingly ad based for revenue
stream, instead of subscription based ... and we, basically having been
copied to death, chose not to go in that direction.

We'd already shut down by the time Ulevitch stated up his venture
capital financed, ad based, DNS service, in 2006 .

Ten years is a lifetime on the Internet. The below, compliments of
webarchive.org and the "Wayback Machine":

Ten years before OpenDNS was started, in 1996:

http://web.archive.org/web/199612230...ww.dnswiz.com/

(the links are still clickable after 16 years, as the pages are cached)

(I designed and wrote every single word of that entire web site, which
was pretty sophisticated and got fairly large, both in UI, and under the
hood, for the times ... even if I do say so myself. )

And their DynDNS for dynamic ip addresses ... we were the first with
that, and pioneered the concept 6 years before OpenDNS copied it with
their API in 2007:

http://web.archive.org/web/200102232...iz.com/client/

It was online about 1998, but apparently those pages were never crawled
until 2001.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 1/31/2012 7:57 AM, Leon wrote:
On 1/30/2012 5:50 PM, Jack wrote:
On 1/30/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:

I can touch my desk lamp with my wooden push stick but until I touch it
with my finger it stays on or off. That was a $5 upgrade at the lamp
store.

I had a lamp like that once. It was great for a week, then, for two more
weeks it went on every time you walked past it. Next, it went on and off
by itself, no need to even walk past it.

I tossed it but am happy it didn't cost me $180 and a days work every
time it misfired:-)


I bought mine in 1986 and still use it. How would you loose a days work?

I'd have to stop what I'm doing, go out and buy a new blade and a saw
stop mechanism, then install it. Have no idea whats involved removing
the destroyed mechanism, and installing the new one, but it would not
take many false fires to not want to use one, just on the time and expense.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 1/31/2012 7:37 PM, Larry W wrote:
Something to keep in mind when discussing ideas that do not conflict with
the Gass patents: It has been common for some years now for the Patent
Office to approve patents no matter how ridiculously obvious, over reaching,
plainly derivative, etc.

Predator Cues drills a hole in the first 6 inches of their pool cue
shafts to reduce the weight of the tip of the cue. They have a patent
on the hole. Lots of cue makers are afraid of drilling a hole in the
tip of the cue because of this, and lots of debate over whether the
patent would hold up in court. It would take forever and a ton of money
to go to court, and my guess is a hole in a stick is a hard patent to
sustain.

.. I suppose if that happens Gass and the newcomer can
duke it out in court. As usual, the lawyers will win, though in this case,
Gass, the lawyer, would also be one of the litigants. It would be worth
seeing for that aspect alone IMHO!

OB1, another cue maker, now makes a cue with a hole all the way through
the shaft. Don't know if they have a patent on that hole or not.
Personally, I would hope neither could sustain a patent like this, but
when government is involved, really stupid things can/will happen.

I guess you can sue anyone for anything, but can you win? You can get a
patent on about anything, but until it is sustained in court, it's just
paper and money talks.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 2/1/2012 10:36 AM, Jack wrote:
On 1/31/2012 7:57 AM, Leon wrote:
On 1/30/2012 5:50 PM, Jack wrote:
On 1/30/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:

I can touch my desk lamp with my wooden push stick but until I touch it
with my finger it stays on or off. That was a $5 upgrade at the lamp
store.

I had a lamp like that once. It was great for a week, then, for two more
weeks it went on every time you walked past it. Next, it went on and off
by itself, no need to even walk past it.

I tossed it but am happy it didn't cost me $180 and a days work every
time it misfired:-)


I bought mine in 1986 and still use it. How would you loose a days work?

I'd have to stop what I'm doing, go out and buy a new blade and a saw
stop mechanism, then install it. Have no idea whats involved removing
the destroyed mechanism, and installing the new one, but it would not
take many false fires to not want to use one, just on the time and expense.


EXACTLY!! I can tell you how many false fires it would take. LESS THAN
ONE! And one false trip, and they are gonna be turned off in most cases.
So best not to have it in the first place.

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

On 2/1/2012 10:36 AM, Jack wrote:
On 1/31/2012 7:57 AM, Leon wrote:
On 1/30/2012 5:50 PM, Jack wrote:
On 1/30/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:

I can touch my desk lamp with my wooden push stick but until I touch it
with my finger it stays on or off. That was a $5 upgrade at the lamp
store.

I had a lamp like that once. It was great for a week, then, for two more
weeks it went on every time you walked past it. Next, it went on and off
by itself, no need to even walk past it.

I tossed it but am happy it didn't cost me $180 and a days work every
time it misfired:-)


I bought mine in 1986 and still use it. How would you loose a days work?

I'd have to stop what I'm doing, go out and buy a new blade and a saw
stop mechanism, then install it. Have no idea whats involved removing
the destroyed mechanism, and installing the new one, but it would not
take many false fires to not want to use one, just on the time and expense.


The "only" people complaining about any of the things you mentioned
above are the people with absolutely no first hand knowledge of the
product. Those tens of thousands that have purchased the saws
apparently don't see a problem, at least not so much to bad mouth the
product. Basically you are an apparent expert in what you don't know.

On 2/1/2012 11:01 AM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/1/2012 10:36 AM, Jack wrote:
On 1/31/2012 7:57 AM, Leon wrote:
On 1/30/2012 5:50 PM, Jack wrote:
On 1/30/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:

I can touch my desk lamp with my wooden push stick but until I
touch it
with my finger it stays on or off. That was a $5 upgrade at the lamp
store.

I had a lamp like that once. It was great for a week, then, for two
more
weeks it went on every time you walked past it. Next, it went on and
off
by itself, no need to even walk past it.

I tossed it but am happy it didn't cost me $180 and a days work every
time it misfired:-)


I bought mine in 1986 and still use it. How would you loose a days work?

I'd have to stop what I'm doing, go out and buy a new blade and a saw
stop mechanism, then install it. Have no idea whats involved removing
the destroyed mechanism, and installing the new one, but it would not
take many false fires to not want to use one, just on the time and
expense.


EXACTLY!! I can tell you how many false fires it would take. LESS THAN
ONE! And one false trip, and they are gonna be turned off in most cases.
So best not to have it in the first place.


Steve, of the tens of thousands that have bought the saw, how many have
you read about that have regretted buying the saw?

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:47:25 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/1/2012 11:01 AM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/1/2012 10:36 AM, Jack wrote:
On 1/31/2012 7:57 AM, Leon wrote:
On 1/30/2012 5:50 PM, Jack wrote:
On 1/30/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:

I can touch my desk lamp with my wooden push stick but until I
touch it
with my finger it stays on or off. That was a $5 upgrade at the lamp
store.

I had a lamp like that once. It was great for a week, then, for two
more
weeks it went on every time you walked past it. Next, it went on and
off
by itself, no need to even walk past it.

I tossed it but am happy it didn't cost me $180 and a days work every
time it misfired:-)


I bought mine in 1986 and still use it. How would you loose a days work?

I'd have to stop what I'm doing, go out and buy a new blade and a saw
stop mechanism, then install it. Have no idea whats involved removing
the destroyed mechanism, and installing the new one, but it would not
take many false fires to not want to use one, just on the time and
expense.


EXACTLY!! I can tell you how many false fires it would take. LESS THAN
ONE! And one false trip, and they are gonna be turned off in most cases.
So best not to have it in the first place.


Steve, of the tens of thousands that have bought the saw, how many have
you read about that have regretted buying the saw?

Leon, of the 555 CONgresscritters in D.C., how many have admitted to
illegal, immoral, or unethical conduct? (Let's not get into how few
have regretted any of this...) Admitting to their regrettable actions
usually isn't something people do readily -or- publicly.

--
Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself.
-- Thomas Jefferson

On 2/1/2012 12:25 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:47:25 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/1/2012 11:01 AM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/1/2012 10:36 AM, Jack wrote:
On 1/31/2012 7:57 AM, Leon wrote:
On 1/30/2012 5:50 PM, Jack wrote:
On 1/30/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:

I can touch my desk lamp with my wooden push stick but until I
touch it
with my finger it stays on or off. That was a $5 upgrade at the lamp
store.

I had a lamp like that once. It was great for a week, then, for two
more
weeks it went on every time you walked past it. Next, it went on and
off
by itself, no need to even walk past it.

I tossed it but am happy it didn't cost me $180 and a days work every
time it misfired:-)


I bought mine in 1986 and still use it. How would you loose a days work?

I'd have to stop what I'm doing, go out and buy a new blade and a saw
stop mechanism, then install it. Have no idea whats involved removing
the destroyed mechanism, and installing the new one, but it would not
take many false fires to not want to use one, just on the time and
expense.


EXACTLY!! I can tell you how many false fires it would take. LESS THAN
ONE! And one false trip, and they are gonna be turned off in most cases.
So best not to have it in the first place.


Steve, of the tens of thousands that have bought the saw, how many have
you read about that have regretted buying the saw?

Leon, of the 555 CONgresscritters in D.C., how many have admitted to
illegal, immoral, or unethical conduct? (Let's not get into how few
have regretted any of this...) Admitting to their regrettable actions
usually isn't something people do readily -or- publicly.

But buying the saw would at worst be a mistake, not illegal, immoral, or
unethical. Surely with all the ones that do not own or operate the SS
and have decided to dislike the saw for what ever reason their yammering
on would draw the attention of someone, anyone, that actually has owned
or used one on a regular basis and would like to agree.

I have so far not heard of any one with any first hand knowledge
regretting the purchase.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:45:42 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
product. Those tens of thousands that have purchased the saws
apparently don't see a problem, at least not so much to bad mouth the
product. Basically you are an apparent expert in what you don't know.

I finally came to understand what Jack rails about. It's not the
SawStop itself, it's the fact that he refuses to be forced into doing
anything. Realistically, Jack doesn't give a rat's ass about owning a
SawStop, he just doesn't like the fact that Gass has somehow
masterminded what could be the forcing of people to use a SawStop as a
safety device.

I imagine all those years ago when seatbelts became mandatory, Jack
was just as incensed. Only difference now is that there's a forum
available with many viewers that Jack can shout in.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:47:25 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
Steve, of the tens of thousands that have bought the saw, how many have
you read about that have regretted buying the saw?

That's not going to happen. The spawn of the devil, Gass, will see to
it that all those people are silenced. (according to the Steves and
the Jacks of the world).

On 2/1/2012 5:35 PM, Dave wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:45:42 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
product. Those tens of thousands that have purchased the saws
apparently don't see a problem, at least not so much to bad mouth the
product. Basically you are an apparent expert in what you don't know.

I finally came to understand what Jack rails about. It's not the
SawStop itself, it's the fact that he refuses to be forced into doing
anything. Realistically, Jack doesn't give a rat's ass about owning a
SawStop, he just doesn't like the fact that Gass has somehow
masterminded what could be the forcing of people to use a SawStop as a
safety device.

I imagine all those years ago when seatbelts became mandatory, Jack
was just as incensed. Only difference now is that there's a forum
available with many viewers that Jack can shout in.

The coercion is of course the main thing. I too hate government forcing
me to do something, even if some goody-two-shoes thinks it's for my own
good. Given the choice, I think having a SS-equipped saw would be a good
thing, but I'd prefer to make that decision on its merits, not because
some federal bureaucracy makes me do it.

The coercion is the main sticking point, but cost is also a factor.
Forcing you to pay for seatbelts raises the price of a car by maybe 3%,
tops. But adding SS could raise the price of a table saw by 100%.
Raising the price of a table saw from $500 to $530 (the seatbelt
example) would be not so big of a deal as raising the price from $500 to
$1,000. Plus, you don't have to shell out another couple of hundred
bucks to replace your seatbelt every time you hit the brakes.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:10:27 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/1/2012 12:25 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:47:25 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/1/2012 11:01 AM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/1/2012 10:36 AM, Jack wrote:
On 1/31/2012 7:57 AM, Leon wrote:
On 1/30/2012 5:50 PM, Jack wrote:
On 1/30/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:

I can touch my desk lamp with my wooden push stick but until I
touch it
with my finger it stays on or off. That was a $5 upgrade at the lamp
store.

I had a lamp like that once. It was great for a week, then, for two
more
weeks it went on every time you walked past it. Next, it went on and
off
by itself, no need to even walk past it.

I tossed it but am happy it didn't cost me $180 and a days work every
time it misfired:-)


I bought mine in 1986 and still use it. How would you loose a days work?

I'd have to stop what I'm doing, go out and buy a new blade and a saw
stop mechanism, then install it. Have no idea whats involved removing
the destroyed mechanism, and installing the new one, but it would not
take many false fires to not want to use one, just on the time and
expense.


EXACTLY!! I can tell you how many false fires it would take. LESS THAN
ONE! And one false trip, and they are gonna be turned off in most cases.
So best not to have it in the first place.


Steve, of the tens of thousands that have bought the saw, how many have
you read about that have regretted buying the saw?

Leon, of the 555 CONgresscritters in D.C., how many have admitted to
illegal, immoral, or unethical conduct? (Let's not get into how few
have regretted any of this...) Admitting to their regrettable actions
usually isn't something people do readily -or- publicly.

But buying the saw would at worst be a mistake, not illegal, immoral, or
unethical. Surely with all the ones that do not own or operate the SS
and have decided to dislike the saw for what ever reason their yammering
on would draw the attention of someone, anyone, that actually has owned
or used one on a regular basis and would like to agree.

Would you buy clothes from a known drug dealer in town? That's about
the the same level of contempt I hold for people who do what I feel
that Gass tried to do to us: force the gov't into making us buy his
product at an additional 160% markup. I have never dissed the saw
itself other than lamenting its destruction of the saw blade when it
acts. I have merely voiced my negative feelings about the actions and
apparent disregard of the public by the inventor.


I have so far not heard of any one with any first hand knowledge
regretting the purchase.

Right. My point is that people who did regret it wouldn't be vocal
about it because it was they who were suckered into paying double the
price for the saw. (my price basis is the Griz 1023, one of the most
popular saws of our time. It costs $1,349 delivered now vs. the $3,500
Gass gets for his saws.

--
Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself.
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:56:28 -0700, Just Wondering
Raising the price of a table saw from $500 to $530 (the seatbelt
example) would be not so big of a deal as raising the price from $500 to
$1,000. Plus, you don't have to shell out another couple of hundred
bucks to replace your seatbelt every time you hit the brakes.

There's a considerable difference in the two technologies though. A
seatbelt is pretty simple. A new SawStop mechanism? As well, a
seatbelt can function many, many times. The SawStop functions once and
it's dead, a completely new one is needed. Big difference there when
you add up the costs.

Some seem to think that SawStop (Gass) has kept news of it
malfunctioning quiet. I have to question that assumption on every
level possible. The amount of SawStop owners in the US makes me ask
how would he keep it quiet with everybody? There's always those
individuals that want to and do shout their anger out to the world. No
way possible is Gass silencing all SawStop users that have valid
complaints. So that leads me to ask. Where are they? All we hear are
the Steves and Jacks of the world railing against being coerced to do
something. (Or in this case, the possibility of being coerced)

On 2/1/2012 12:45 PM, Leon wrote:
On 2/1/2012 10:36 AM, Jack wrote:
On 1/31/2012 7:57 AM, Leon wrote:
On 1/30/2012 5:50 PM, Jack wrote:
On 1/30/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:

I can touch my desk lamp with my wooden push stick but until I
touch it
with my finger it stays on or off. That was a $5 upgrade at the lamp
store.

I had a lamp like that once. It was great for a week, then, for two
more
weeks it went on every time you walked past it. Next, it went on and
off
by itself, no need to even walk past it.

I tossed it but am happy it didn't cost me $180 and a days work every
time it misfired:-)


I bought mine in 1986 and still use it. How would you loose a days work?

I'd have to stop what I'm doing, go out and buy a new blade and a saw
stop mechanism, then install it. Have no idea whats involved removing
the destroyed mechanism, and installing the new one, but it would not
take many false fires to not want to use one, just on the time and
expense.

The "only" people complaining about any of the things you mentioned
above are the people with absolutely no first hand knowledge of the
product. Those tens of thousands that have purchased the saws apparently
don't see a problem, at least not so much to bad mouth the product.
Basically you are an apparent expert in what you don't know

I never "bad mouthed" the product. You were rambling about your touch
lamp and how it worked, I simply pointed out I had one that didn't work,
and if I had a saw stop that worked like that lamp I wouldn't want it.

Saw stop is a great product, but I'm not about to run out and buy one,
nor am I about to don a NASCAR approved crash helmet every time I jump
in a car, nor do I want the ****ing gov't to force me to do either.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 19:35:46 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:45:42 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
product. Those tens of thousands that have purchased the saws
apparently don't see a problem, at least not so much to bad mouth the
product. Basically you are an apparent expert in what you don't know.

I finally came to understand what Jack rails about. It's not the
SawStop itself, it's the fact that he refuses to be forced into doing
anything. Realistically, Jack doesn't give a rat's ass about owning a
SawStop, he just doesn't like the fact that Gass has somehow
masterminded what could be the forcing of people to use a SawStop as a
safety device.

I imagine all those years ago when seatbelts became mandatory, Jack
was just as incensed. Only difference now is that there's a forum
available with many viewers that Jack can shout in.
A real Yankee's Yankee.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:09:28 -0800, Larry Jaques
Right. My point is that people who did regret it wouldn't be vocal
about it because it was they who were suckered into paying double the
price for the saw. (my price basis is the Griz 1023, one of the most
popular saws of our time. It costs $1,349 delivered now vs. the $3,500
Gass gets for his saws.

No so. Many people who own SawStops admit they do and say the fit and
finish on them is pretty good. I would buy a SawStop on a moment's
notice if one filled my needs. But, they don't meet my requirements,
so when the time comes for me to buy a new table saw, I'll spend a
comparable amount of money on an Access model General 650.

On 2/1/2012 2:10 PM, Leon wrote:

Steve, of the tens of thousands that have bought the saw, how many have
you read about that have regretted buying the saw?

Leon, of the 555 CONgresscritters in D.C., how many have admitted to
illegal, immoral, or unethical conduct? (Let's not get into how few
have regretted any of this...) Admitting to their regrettable actions
usually isn't something people do readily -or- publicly.

But buying the saw would at worst be a mistake, not illegal, immoral, or
unethical. Surely with all the ones that do not own or operate the SS
and have decided to dislike the saw for what ever reason their yammering
on would draw the attention of someone, anyone, that actually has owned
or used one on a regular basis and would like to agree.

The "yammering" is about if our government should force anyone [in the
USA] that buys a [new] saw to also buy SS tech. Personally, if they
want to save people from harming themselves, requiring a NASCAR approved
crash helmet for anyone in a moving vehicle would go a LOT further. I
never heard of anyone dying from a hand cut on table saw.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

I guess you will be removing the air bags, seat belts, windshield
wipers, defrost system, crumpling metal fenders, collapsing steering
wheel column, and all the other safety based equipment in your vehicle
that your government has forced on you too, then?

Your helmet argument is ridiculous and agree with many of your points.


-------------
"Jack" wrote in message ...

I never "bad mouthed" the product. You were rambling about your touch
lamp and how it worked, I simply pointed out I had one that didn't
work,
and if I had a saw stop that worked like that lamp I wouldn't want it.

Saw stop is a great product, but I'm not about to run out and buy one,
nor am I about to don a NASCAR approved crash helmet every time I jump
in a car, nor do I want the ****ing gov't to force me to do either.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:09:28 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:10:27 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/1/2012 12:25 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:47:25 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 2/1/2012 11:01 AM, Steve Barker wrote:
On 2/1/2012 10:36 AM, Jack wrote:
On 1/31/2012 7:57 AM, Leon wrote:
On 1/30/2012 5:50 PM, Jack wrote:
On 1/30/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:

I can touch my desk lamp with my wooden push stick but until I
touch it
with my finger it stays on or off. That was a $5 upgrade at the lamp
store.

I had a lamp like that once. It was great for a week, then, for two
more
weeks it went on every time you walked past it. Next, it went on and
off
by itself, no need to even walk past it.

I tossed it but am happy it didn't cost me $180 and a days work every
time it misfired:-)


I bought mine in 1986 and still use it. How would you loose a days work?

I'd have to stop what I'm doing, go out and buy a new blade and a saw
stop mechanism, then install it. Have no idea whats involved removing
the destroyed mechanism, and installing the new one, but it would not
take many false fires to not want to use one, just on the time and
expense.


EXACTLY!! I can tell you how many false fires it would take. LESS THAN
ONE! And one false trip, and they are gonna be turned off in most cases.
So best not to have it in the first place.


Steve, of the tens of thousands that have bought the saw, how many have
you read about that have regretted buying the saw?

Leon, of the 555 CONgresscritters in D.C., how many have admitted to
illegal, immoral, or unethical conduct? (Let's not get into how few
have regretted any of this...) Admitting to their regrettable actions
usually isn't something people do readily -or- publicly.

But buying the saw would at worst be a mistake, not illegal, immoral, or
unethical. Surely with all the ones that do not own or operate the SS
and have decided to dislike the saw for what ever reason their yammering
on would draw the attention of someone, anyone, that actually has owned
or used one on a regular basis and would like to agree.

Would you buy clothes from a known drug dealer in town? That's about
the the same level of contempt I hold for people who do what I feel
that Gass tried to do to us: force the gov't into making us buy his
product at an additional 160% markup. I have never dissed the saw
itself other than lamenting its destruction of the saw blade when it
acts. I have merely voiced my negative feelings about the actions and
apparent disregard of the public by the inventor.


I have so far not heard of any one with any first hand knowledge
regretting the purchase.

Right. My point is that people who did regret it wouldn't be vocal
about it because it was they who were suckered into paying double the
price for the saw. (my price basis is the Griz 1023, one of the most
popular saws of our time. It costs $1,349 delivered now vs. the $3,500
Gass gets for his saws.

I hear ya'. I paid $1600 for my Unisaur X5 (Amazon w/free delivery). I
looked at the SS but just could not justify 100% more for it. The Griz was my
second choice but, including shipping, it was only something like $150 less
than the Unisaur.