On 12/8/2012 8:47 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

At her age I think the prospect of future offspring was a moot point
regardless. As someone once said of Australia, "it's down there, but
nobody cares".


There is always cloning. ^_^


Isn't there a law against cloning old clowns?


Dammit! It's Saturday. Quit cloning around and get out in the shop and
make some damn sawdust!

On Dec 8, 10:03*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ocal,
*"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do. The jury knows the story.
And that story, in sum, is not that the woman refused to accept
responsibility for her actions, but that McD's refused to accept
responsibility for theirs.

Now, you want to throw out the jury system, you're gonna have to go
bigger than usenet.

I agree with you on this one. I think a lot of the people just
jump to the conclusion with very little of the facts. I looked
into it a bit and here are some of the facts:

McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its
coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and
whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result
in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim
for many months, and in some cases, years;

She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body,
necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for
debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for
more than two years.

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-
mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on
burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the
specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was
brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to
no avail;

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many
receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs,
and buttocks;

McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for
consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or
drunk;

Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the
worst scald burns he had ever seen.
McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area,
and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees
cooler.


In my world, the jury decision was fully justified and the right one.
Arguing that it was her fault because she spilled it on herself
doesn't
absolve McDonalds. McDonalds knows perfectly well what customers
who purchase their products at a drive-through do with them. A
large percentage of the customers will be opening the container
in a car, shortly after receiving it. They knew other people had
been burned. It would have been very easy for
them to simply serve the coffee at a lower temperature. Even if
you buy the argument that the woman bears responsibility, at most
it's just some of the responsibility. Maybe 20% her fault, I could
see that kind of verdict too. But not one that absolves McD for
most of what happened.

On 12/8/2012 8:47 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

At her age I think the prospect of future offspring was a moot point
regardless. As someone once said of Australia, "it's down there, but
nobody cares".


There is always cloning. ^_^


Isn't there a law against cloning old clowns?


I wouldn't mind seeing Red Skelton again. When I was a kid, the family
would gather around the giant 23" B&W console TV and watch The Red
Skelton show. He was funny without being lascivious, something that
doesn't seem possible these days. O_o

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:

On 12/8/2012 8:47 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

The Daring Dufas wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:

At her age I think the prospect of future offspring was a moot point
regardless. As someone once said of Australia, "it's down there, but
nobody cares".


There is always cloning. ^_^


Isn't there a law against cloning old clowns?


I wouldn't mind seeing Red Skelton again. When I was a kid, the family
would gather around the giant 23" B&W console TV and watch The Red
Skelton show. He was funny without being lascivious, something that
doesn't seem possible these days. O_o


http://archive.org/search.php?query=red%20skelton%20AND%20mediatype%3 Amovies

" wrote:

On Dec 8, 10:03 am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do. The jury knows the story.
And that story, in sum, is not that the woman refused to accept
responsibility for her actions, but that McD's refused to accept
responsibility for theirs.

Now, you want to throw out the jury system, you're gonna have to go
bigger than usenet.

I agree with you on this one. I think a lot of the people just
jump to the conclusion with very little of the facts. I looked
into it a bit and here are some of the facts:

McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its
coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and
whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result
in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim
for many months, and in some cases, years;

She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body,
necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for
debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for
more than two years.

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-
mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on
burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the
specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was
brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to
no avail;

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many
receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs,
and buttocks;

McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for
consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or
drunk;

Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the
worst scald burns he had ever seen.
McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area,
and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees
cooler.

In my world, the jury decision was fully justified and the right one.
Arguing that it was her fault because she spilled it on herself
doesn't
absolve McDonalds. McDonalds knows perfectly well what customers
who purchase their products at a drive-through do with them. A
large percentage of the customers will be opening the container
in a car, shortly after receiving it. They knew other people had
been burned. It would have been very easy for
them to simply serve the coffee at a lower temperature. Even if
you buy the argument that the woman bears responsibility, at most
it's just some of the responsibility. Maybe 20% her fault, I could
see that kind of verdict too. But not one that absolves McD for
most of what happened.


Even though the money awarded was reduced, and the case was appealed.

wrote
.... I don't buy that all you have to do is disconnect power,
-short the leads and the saw stops very quickly. That may
-have some effect, but I'd bet to stop it in even a few rotations
-requires some external power source.

-If anyone has an spec sheets or examples of saws, motors,
-etc with that feature I'd be interested in seeing them.

I just went down to the shop, turned on my grinder, then pulled the
plug and jammed the prongs against the metal outlet plate. There was
no spark or effect on the slowly decelerating wheel.
jsw

In article ,
"Jim Wilkins" wrote:

wrote
.... I don't buy that all you have to do is disconnect power,
-short the leads and the saw stops very quickly. That may
-have some effect, but I'd bet to stop it in even a few rotations
-requires some external power source.

-If anyone has an spec sheets or examples of saws, motors,
-etc with that feature I'd be interested in seeing them.

I just went down to the shop, turned on my grinder, then pulled the
plug and jammed the prongs against the metal outlet plate. There was
no spark or effect on the slowly decelerating wheel.
jsw

The open time was probably too long - humans are just not fast enough.

One classic way to rapidly stop an induction motor is to pass DC through
the windings. The DC establishes a field, causing large currents to be
induced in the squirrel cage. The DC source must be able to handle the
AC generated by the squirrel. About 10% of the nameplate AC voltage is
typical. This has the advantage of being insensitive to open time.

Joe Gwinn

bye
Lew

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
news:joegwinn-
I just went down to the shop, turned on my grinder, then pulled the
plug and jammed the prongs against the metal outlet plate. There
was
no spark or effect on the slowly decelerating wheel.
jsw

The open time was probably too long - humans are just not fast
enough.

Joe Gwinn

It's a bench grinder with plenty of wheel inertia to keep it spinning.
I can hear the pitch of the bearing(?) noise slowly decrease until the
start switch closes after 32 seconds, then it slows more rapidly.
jsw

wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 7:37 pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 7, 3:14 pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:



wrote in message

...
On Dec 7, 1:21 pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

wrote in message

...
On Dec 7, 11:59 am, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in
message

.. .

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I then simply
posed the question about conservatives. Virtually all of them
extole the virtues of self reliance, taking personal
responsibility.
So, none of them have table saw accidents, right?

Everyone has accidents, but not purchasing medical and disability
insurance is a choice. Why should a successful business be
punished
by
having to cover the deadbeats?

Because according to the idiots, that would make you bad person

Frankly I don't have a problem with people donating to private
charity
to
help the needy
But when the government starts picking your pocket to do it, I have
a
problem
One only has to look at how UNsuccessfull government is about
solving
the
problem
All their "welfare" programs are spiraling out of control BECAUSE of
ALL
the
leaches that are hanging on to the tit.
And these idiots want to attract even more leeches

#
# Still waiting for you answer to a simple question.

Asked and asnwered
Since you didn't like the first answer, you'll be waiting a long time
for
one you like
Enjoy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

#
# I figured as much. You're just intellectually dishonest. You
# claim to have some valid alternative to either the current
# system where we all wind up paying for healthcare for those
# that cannot, or for requiring everyone have mandatory
# minimum healthcare coverage.

You're not only stupid, bu t a liar too
I never made ANY claim about "having some valid alternative "
That's just you pulling ignorant **** out of your ass again
(Did you ever consider cleaning off your head after your pull it out of
your ass ?
That way you won't spread it on Usenet)

# Yet, when asked to explain how it would work,
# starting from the scene of a car crash,
# you just run away.

Don't have to explain something YOU INVENTED whole cloth
Your strawman - you feed it

#
# I didn't invent it, it's a common, everyday, real world
# occurance. You just refuse to address it because,
# well, you can't. You stand on your soap box and claim
# to have simple solutions for real world problems. Yet,
# obviously you don't.

yawn
Do you by being an asshole naturally or did you train for the job ?
Let's referesh the MORON's pea-sized brain

Your strawman was
I quote (you)
You claim to have some valid alternative to either
the current system where... "


I made NO such claim
#
# Excuse me, but YOU are the one bitching that we should not
# require everyone to have healthcare so that they are covered
# in the event of an accident or illness that puts them in the
# hospital.
#

yawn
More ignorant spin and projection
But thank you for demonstrating how you did the projection



Rest of stupid **** and repetition ignored

wrote in message
...
On Dec 8, 6:49 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...







"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I then simply
posed the question about conservatives. Virtually all of them
extole the virtues of self reliance, taking personal responsibility.
So, none of them have table saw accidents, right?

Everyone has accidents, but not purchasing medical and disability
insurance is a choice. Why should a successful business be punished by
having to cover the deadbeats?

Because according to the idiots, that would make you bad person

Frankly I don't have a problem with people donating to private charity
to
help the needy
But when the government starts picking your pocket to do it, I have a
problem
One only has to look at how UNsuccessfull government is about solving
the
problem
All their "welfare" programs are spiraling out of control BECAUSE of ALL
the
leaches that are hanging on to the tit.
And these idiots want to attract even more leeches

The problem with Welfare isn't the people recieving Welfare. The
"leeches" are the ever expanding legions of government bureaucrats who
are there to try to keep anybody from cheating the system.

In its first few years Welfare had a real effect. In the 40 or so years
since the budget has increased radically but the number of people being
helped and the degree to which they are being helped has remained
substantially unchanged.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
#
# Oh what a pile of total BS. Show us any evidence that
# this is true. That the overwhelming percentage of welfare
# money is not actually going to recipients. As for the bureaucrats
# checking up for fraud, there should be more of them.
# When is the last time you saw anyone prosecuted for
# welfare fraud?

sigh
Another fine demonstration of absence of logic
A bunch of bureaucrats pushing paper to "insure lack of fraud" does NOT
necessarily and automatically lead to prosecution for welfare fraud.
It just guarantees more bureaucrats to push more paper, as has been the case

Meanwhile we have undeniable evidence of the unraveling of the social fabric
of inner city residents who also happen to be the least employed and most
welfare dependent
Just look at the increase of single parent families, women never married
with multiple fathers for their brood of kids, crime and gang issues, to
name a few.

But hey, naturally, according to you, those are not problems. the act that
no one got prosecuted for fraud is far more critical

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
...
In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do. The jury knows the story.
And that story, in sum, is not that the woman refused to accept
responsibility for her actions, but that McD's refused to accept
responsibility for theirs.


LOL
They were responsible for selling her a cup of hot coffee
Apparently selling a cup of hot coffee to an idiot is a crime for which they
were punished


Now, you want to throw out the jury system, you're gonna have to go
bigger than usenet.

There are some aspects of the jury system which are flawed in the US.
In particular the notion that juries, have not demonstrated a "let's stick
it to the corporation since they have money" syndrome.

The Daring Dufas on Sat, 08 Dec
2012 09:40:18 -0600 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 12/8/2012 8:47 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
At her age I think the prospect of future offspring was a moot point
regardless. As someone once said of Australia, "it's down there, but
nobody cares".

There is always cloning. ^_^

Isn't there a law against cloning old clowns?

I wouldn't mind seeing Red Skelton again. When I was a kid, the family
would gather around the giant 23" B&W console TV and watch The Red
Skelton show. He was funny without being lascivious, something that
doesn't seem possible these days. O_o

TDD

Yep. Although it turns out that he knew and told some of the
dirtiest stories - but always backstage, never out front.
My Dad caught one of his shows while he was in the service. Half
way through his act he told the audience "Sorry, I don't have enough
material for two complete shows, so any of you guys who were here for
the first show will have seen this next bit before." I think that is
when Dad became a real fan.

I love his bit about how to drink coffee and donuts. "You must
extend your little finger when you dunk. It's to catch the edge of
the cup, otherwise you could go into the cup up to your elbow."
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

"Michael A. Terrell" on Sat, 08 Dec 2012
11:22:23 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

" wrote:

On Dec 8, 10:03 am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do. The jury knows the story.
And that story, in sum, is not that the woman refused to accept
responsibility for her actions, but that McD's refused to accept
responsibility for theirs.

Now, you want to throw out the jury system, you're gonna have to go
bigger than usenet.

I agree with you on this one. I think a lot of the people just
jump to the conclusion with very little of the facts. I looked
into it a bit and here are some of the facts:

McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its
coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and
whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result
in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim
for many months, and in some cases, years;

She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body,
necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for
debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for
more than two years.

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-
mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on
burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the
specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was
brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to
no avail;

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many
receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs,
and buttocks;

McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for
consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or
drunk;

Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the
worst scald burns he had ever seen.
McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area,
and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees
cooler.

In my world, the jury decision was fully justified and the right one.
Arguing that it was her fault because she spilled it on herself
doesn't
absolve McDonalds. McDonalds knows perfectly well what customers
who purchase their products at a drive-through do with them. A
large percentage of the customers will be opening the container
in a car, shortly after receiving it. They knew other people had
been burned. It would have been very easy for
them to simply serve the coffee at a lower temperature. Even if
you buy the argument that the woman bears responsibility, at most
it's just some of the responsibility. Maybe 20% her fault, I could
see that kind of verdict too. But not one that absolves McD for
most of what happened.


Even though the money awarded was reduced, and the case was appealed.

The problem with suing a company with an in house Legal Firm and
also keeps Legal Firms on retainer. Their pockets are deeper than
yours.


tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 12:50:56 -0500, the renowned "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

wrote
.... I don't buy that all you have to do is disconnect power,
-short the leads and the saw stops very quickly. That may
-have some effect, but I'd bet to stop it in even a few rotations
-requires some external power source.

-If anyone has an spec sheets or examples of saws, motors,
-etc with that feature I'd be interested in seeing them.

I just went down to the shop, turned on my grinder, then pulled the
plug and jammed the prongs against the metal outlet plate. There was
no spark or effect on the slowly decelerating wheel.
jsw


My 8" grinder keeps the light illuminated for a some seconds after it
is turned off. Clearly it would slow down faster into a dead short.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 07:48:05 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Dec 5, 8:57*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 09:46:12 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Dec 5, 10:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Leon wrote:

10+ years ago before the SawStop was in production I questioned Gass
about this. My TS accident happened after I finished a cut and had
turned the saw off. The blade was coasting down to a stop when I was
cut. I wanted to know back then it those bases were covered also.

A modification can be made to table saws with induction or split
phase motors. You change the power switch from SPST to SPDT, add a
diode & electrolytic capacitor that charges when the motor is running.
When you switch the motor off, the capacitor discharges through the
motor, causing a rapid braking effect. This can't be done with
universal motors, since they will run on DC.

Even if this could work, it would have to be one hell
of a huge cap to hold enough energy to stop a spinning motor
and saw blade in the time to prevent injury. *The cap might
be bigger than the saw. * And I have my
doubts about it working at all, ie simply feeding DC into an
AC motor that has lost power being effective at braking.

It does work. *You're not trying to turn the rotor backwards, just
stop it. * The DC source isn't even needed, just short the thing. This
is how dynamic braking is done in diesel-electric trains, and such,
though hey use resistor banks to change the braking characteristics.

Sure. It's done in motors that are designed to do it.
Now show us a typical table saw motor that is capable of it.
And show us any motor where you can stop it in around 1 ms, like
the SawStop does, to prevent injury, by just shorting it.
Or even where you can stop it with the proposed addition
of a capacitor. It would have to be one hell of a cap to
stop a saw instantly.

You are talking two different problems - a motor brake will cut the
spin-down to 10 seconds instead of over a minute. Not meant to be
instant.

The Saw Stop is milliseconds - Close enough to Instant Stop for all
practical purposes. TWO DIFFERNT THINGS!
But beyond that, why on earth would you? *The energy
that it would take to keep the SawStop system active for
a minute during spin-down following loss of power has
to be tiny compared to what it would take for the electric
motor braking approach.

Firing the SawStop mechanism is a one-shot event. *After you clean
your shorts, you get to replace the mechanism and the blade. *Dynamic
braking is a freebie and can be done every power cycle.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The proposal as I understood it wasn't to replace the SawStop, but
to supplement it if power fails. But I'll say it again, no
reasonable,
practical dynamic braking is going to stop a table saw in anywhere
near the time it takes to prevent injury. You'd need a huge power
store of some kind.

Dynamic braking gets you that 5 to 10-second stop when the saw is shut
down normally or the power fails. And it can repeat that daily for
decades.

The SawStop is using a small explosive charge to fire a big chunk of
Aluminum into the path of the blade as a chock, and the wedging action
of the block against the blade causes the blade to kick back and down
away from the finger.

After that, you go buy a new stopper cartridge, and a new blade for
the saw, and possibly other pieces that broke or bent when it went
off.

-- Bruce --

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message

My 8" grinder keeps the light illuminated for a some seconds after
it
is turned off. Clearly it would slow down faster into a dead short.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Good idea. I tried it by unplugging the extension cord and the light
went out immediately.
jsw

On Dec 8, 1:22*pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
*"Jim Wilkins" wrote:

wrote
.... *I don't buy that all you have to do is disconnect power,
-short the leads and the saw stops very quickly. *That may
-have some effect, but I'd bet to stop it in even a few rotations
-requires some external power source.

-If anyone has an spec sheets or examples of saws, motors,
-etc with that feature I'd be interested in seeing them.

I just went down to the shop, turned on my grinder, then pulled the
plug and jammed the prongs against the metal outlet plate. There was
no spark or effect on the slowly decelerating wheel.
jsw

The open time was probably too long - humans are just not fast enough.

I highly doubt that. I've yet to see a system for braking that
works by just shorting an induction motor. The systems typically
require an external power source. So, I'm not at all suprised
that it didn't work.


One classic way to rapidly stop an induction motor is to pass DC through
the windings. *The DC establishes a field, causing large currents to be
induced in the squirrel cage. *The DC source must be able to handle the
AC generated by the squirrel. *About 10% of the nameplate AC voltage is
typical. *This has the advantage of being insensitive to open time.

Joe Gwinn


Which of course is exactly what I've been saying. It uses
an external power source.

On Dec 8, 3:40*pm, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Dec 8, 6:49 am, "J. Clarke" wrote:



In article ,
says...

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

I then simply
posed the question about conservatives. Virtually all of them
extole the virtues of self reliance, taking personal responsibility..
So, none of them have table saw accidents, right?

Everyone has accidents, but not purchasing medical and disability
insurance is a choice. Why should a successful business be punished by
having to cover the deadbeats?

Because according to the idiots, that would make you bad person

Frankly I don't have a problem with people donating to private charity
to
help the needy
But when the government starts picking your pocket to do it, I have a
problem
One only has to look at how UNsuccessfull government is about solving
the
problem
All their "welfare" programs are spiraling out of control BECAUSE of ALL
the
leaches that are hanging on to the tit.
And these idiots want to attract even more leeches

The problem with Welfare isn't the people recieving Welfare. The
"leeches" are the ever expanding legions of government bureaucrats who
are there to try to keep anybody from cheating the system.

In its first few years Welfare had a real effect. In the 40 or so years
since the budget has increased radically but the number of people being
helped and the degree to which they are being helped has remained
substantially unchanged.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

#
# Oh what a pile of total BS. *Show us any evidence that
# this is true. *That the overwhelming percentage of welfare
# money is not actually going to recipients. *As for the bureaucrats
# checking up for fraud, there should be more of them.
# When is the last time you saw anyone prosecuted for
# welfare fraud?

sigh
Another fine demonstration of absence of logic
A bunch of bureaucrats pushing paper to "insure lack of fraud" does NOT
necessarily and automatically lead to prosecution for welfare fraud.
It just guarantees more bureaucrats to push more paper, as has been the case

Meanwhile we have undeniable evidence of the unraveling of the social fabric
of inner city residents who also happen to be the least employed and most
welfare dependent
Just look at the increase of single parent families, women never married
with multiple fathers for their brood of kids, crime and gang issues, to
name a few.

But hey, naturally, according to you, those are not problems. the act that
no one got prosecuted for fraud is far more critical- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


When you have some actual data that shows that today,
something is different and
the vast majority of welfare payments are not going to those
on the programs, but is instead being consumed by
bureaucrats, let us know. But as usual, I suspect that
won't be forthcoming, will it. Profanity will.

In article
,
" wrote:

On Dec 8, 1:22*pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
*"Jim Wilkins" wrote:

wrote
.... *I don't buy that all you have to do is disconnect power,
-short the leads and the saw stops very quickly. *That may
-have some effect, but I'd bet to stop it in even a few rotations
-requires some external power source.

-If anyone has an spec sheets or examples of saws, motors,
-etc with that feature I'd be interested in seeing them.

I just went down to the shop, turned on my grinder, then pulled the
plug and jammed the prongs against the metal outlet plate. There was
no spark or effect on the slowly decelerating wheel.
jsw

The open time was probably too long - humans are just not fast enough.

I highly doubt that. I've yet to see a system for braking that
works by just shorting an induction motor. The systems typically
require an external power source. So, I'm not at all suprised
that it didn't work.

There are people in the off-grid green power crowd that make an ordinary
induction motor act as an AC generator. The process is regenerative.
It's a bit tricky to get it started, but can be done. See next.

I imagine that some types of motor are better as regenerative generators
than others, most likely determined by how long field collapse takes.


One classic way to rapidly stop an induction motor is to pass DC through
the windings. *The DC establishes a field, causing large currents to be
induced in the squirrel cage. *The DC source must be able to handle the
AC generated by the squirrel. *About 10% of the nameplate AC voltage is
typical. *This has the advantage of being insensitive to open time.

Joe Gwinn


Which of course is exactly what I've been saying. It uses
an external power source.

This is a different approach than just shorting the windings. But they
are based on the same basic principle - making the motor act as a
heavily-loaded generator.

I suppose the DC could come from a big capacitor that's charged while
the motor runs, and is discharged into the windings when power is
removed. I wonder how the mitre-saw coasting stop works? Does anybody
have cites?

Joe Gwinn


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

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
"Michael A. Terrell" on Sat, 08 Dec 2012
11:22:23 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

" wrote:

On Dec 8, 10:03 am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do. The jury knows the story.
And that story, in sum, is not that the woman refused to accept
responsibility for her actions, but that McD's refused to accept
responsibility for theirs.

Now, you want to throw out the jury system, you're gonna have to go
bigger than usenet.

I agree with you on this one. I think a lot of the people just
jump to the conclusion with very little of the facts. I looked
into it a bit and here are some of the facts:

McDonald's Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its
coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and
whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result
in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim
for many months, and in some cases, years;

She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body,
necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for
debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for
more than two years.

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-
mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on
burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the
specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years - the risk was
brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to
no avail;

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many
receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs,
and buttocks;

McDonald's admitted at trial that its coffee is "not fit for
consumption" when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or
drunk;

Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the
worst scald burns he had ever seen.
McDonald's did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area,
and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees
cooler.

In my world, the jury decision was fully justified and the right one.
Arguing that it was her fault because she spilled it on herself
doesn't
absolve McDonalds. McDonalds knows perfectly well what customers
who purchase their products at a drive-through do with them. A
large percentage of the customers will be opening the container
in a car, shortly after receiving it. They knew other people had
been burned. It would have been very easy for
them to simply serve the coffee at a lower temperature. Even if
you buy the argument that the woman bears responsibility, at most
it's just some of the responsibility. Maybe 20% her fault, I could
see that kind of verdict too. But not one that absolves McD for
most of what happened.


Even though the money awarded was reduced, and the case was appealed.

The problem with suing a company with an in house Legal Firm and
also keeps Legal Firms on retainer. Their pockets are deeper than
yours.


Not a big issue in the States where anyone can start a lawsuit for just
about any trivial reason with very little downside risk except for the
filing costs

If the US brought in a system like in Canada, where the loser pays, it would
reduce some of the really stupid lawsuits
It it also required judges to review a case BEFORE it went to jury, that
would also eliminate many flawed cases that rely on jury ignorance or
sympathy instead of good law.

On Sat, 8 Dec 2012 14:22:15 -0800, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:



I agree 100%. It's all been said a thousand times over, so why say
anything else?

In article -
september.org, says...

In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do.

So there's more to the story than was in the trial transcript?

The jury knows the story.

So?

And that story, in sum, is not that the woman refused to accept
responsibility for her actions, but that McD's refused to accept
responsibility for theirs.

McD had committed no action for which they should "accept
responsibility".

Now, you want to throw out the jury system, you're gonna have to go
bigger than usenet.

Throwing out the jury system is not the solution. Throwing out the
ability of the lawyers to ensure that nobody with a brain ever sits on a
jury is the solution.

In article ,
says...

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
"Michael A. Terrell" on Sat, 08 Dec 2012
11:22:23 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

" wrote:

On Dec 8, 10:03 am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do. The jury knows the story.
And that story, in sum, is not that the woman refused to accept
responsibility for her actions, but that McD's refused to accept
responsibility for theirs.

Now, you want to throw out the jury system, you're gonna have to go
bigger than usenet.

I agree with you on this one. I think a lot of the people just
jump to the conclusion with very little of the facts. I looked
into it a bit and here are some of the facts:

McDonald's Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its
coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and
whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result
in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim
for many months, and in some cases, years;

She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body,
necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for
debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for
more than two years.

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-
mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on
burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the
specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years - the risk was
brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to
no avail;

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many
receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs,
and buttocks;

McDonald's admitted at trial that its coffee is "not fit for
consumption" when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or
drunk;

Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the
worst scald burns he had ever seen.
McDonald's did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area,
and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees
cooler.

In my world, the jury decision was fully justified and the right one.
Arguing that it was her fault because she spilled it on herself
doesn't
absolve McDonalds. McDonalds knows perfectly well what customers
who purchase their products at a drive-through do with them. A
large percentage of the customers will be opening the container
in a car, shortly after receiving it. They knew other people had
been burned. It would have been very easy for
them to simply serve the coffee at a lower temperature. Even if
you buy the argument that the woman bears responsibility, at most
it's just some of the responsibility. Maybe 20% her fault, I could
see that kind of verdict too. But not one that absolves McD for
most of what happened.


Even though the money awarded was reduced, and the case was appealed.

The problem with suing a company with an in house Legal Firm and
also keeps Legal Firms on retainer. Their pockets are deeper than
yours.


Not a big issue in the States where anyone can start a lawsuit for just
about any trivial reason with very little downside risk except for the
filing costs

If the US brought in a system like in Canada, where the loser pays, it would
reduce some of the really stupid lawsuits
It it also required judges to review a case BEFORE it went to jury, that
would also eliminate many flawed cases that rely on jury ignorance or
sympathy instead of good law.

I'd like to see a system where the suit _must_ go to trial once brought.
The current system is profitable for the plaintiffs because on an
individual basis it is cheaper to settle than to go to court, even if
the case is winnable.

On Dec 8, 11:15*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article -
september.org, says...



In article ocal,
*"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do.

So there's more to the story than was in the trial transcript?

The jury knows the story.

So?

And that story, in sum, is not that the woman refused to accept
responsibility for her actions, but that McD's refused to accept
responsibility for theirs.

McD had committed no action for which they should "accept
responsibility".

They certainly did. The basic facts:

McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its
coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;

Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-
mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on
burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the
specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was
brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to
no avail;

From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many
receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs,
and buttocks;

Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been
burned by McDonald’s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to
inadvertent spillage by McDonald’s employees;

McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for
consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or
drunk;

Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the
worst scald burns he had ever seen.

McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area,
and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees
cooler.

Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published
warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were
unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above
130 degrees Fahrenheit. In refusing to grant a new trial in the case,
Judge Robert Scott called McDonald’s behavior “callous.”



Pretty damning. The part where McD admitted that the coffee was not
fit for consumption as served because it was so hot,
is particularly interesting. As is that their
coffee was 30 - 40 deg hotter than similar establishments in the area,
and that was by their own survey.



Now, you want to throw out the jury system, you're gonna have to go
bigger than usenet.

Throwing out the jury system is not the solution. *Throwing out the
ability of the lawyers to ensure that nobody with a brain ever sits on a
jury is the solution.

I've been on juries, gone through the selection process.
People get tossed for a wide variety of reasons. And the
resulting jury appeared in every way as educated as the
starting pool.

wrote in message
...
On Dec 8, 11:15 pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article -
september.org, says...



In article ocal,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Yeah, we all know the story.

Apparently you don't, you just think you do.

So there's more to the story than was in the trial transcript?

The jury knows the story.

So?

And that story, in sum, is not that the woman refused to accept
responsibility for her actions, but that McD's refused to accept
responsibility for theirs.

McD had committed no action for which they should "accept
responsibility".
#
# They certainly did. The basic facts:
#
# McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its
# coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
#
# Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the
# worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;

Yes but normal sane people do not go around putting cups of hot coffee
between their legs in a car
There is no reason for Macdonals to be responsible for THAT STUPID ACTION
(Except in the minds of children - who are not responsible)

#
# The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-
# mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this
# risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on
# burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the
# specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;

And who defined the Chairman of the Dept of Mech Eng. at the U of Texas as
an arbiter of what is acceptable or unacceptable harm ?

#
#McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns
# from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was
# brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to
# no avail;

And ?


Repeating yourself like a parrot just makes you a parrot