"Hank Gillette" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

I'm not in favor of requiring safety equipment that hasn't been
proven.

You're not? You seemed to be before.

I'm sorry that I gave that impression. My point was supposed to be that
mandatory safety equipment is not inherently bad. I also assumed that
it
was a given that it should be proven to work before being required.

Then how do you reconcile this with supporting the Sawstop non-product
folks?

Because I don't think they are evil just because the tried for the
government regulation. I don't know their true motivation. While I'm
sure that they would have been happy to get the regulation enacted, that
may not have been their primary motive. They may have been looking for
the publicity to get their product noticed. In that, they seemed to have
had some success.

My assumption was also that the government would not be so stupid as to
make a requirement for something unless it had been proven to be
available and reliable, and that the regulation would not be written in
such a way that would preclude the use of an alternate product should
one be developed.

that's really a bad assumption, in a lot of cases

As for their 'non-product' status, they are trying to get a complete
quality machine made, starting from scratch. If some of the existing
manufacturers had decided to license the product, it probably would have
been available much sooner.

--
Hank Gillette

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:45:20 -0500, Hank Gillette wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

Then how do you reconcile this with supporting the Sawstop non-product
folks?

Because I don't think they are evil just because the tried for the
government regulation. I don't know their true motivation. While I'm
sure that they would have been happy to get the regulation enacted, that
may not have been their primary motive. They may have been looking for
the publicity to get their product noticed. In that, they seemed to have
had some success.

Yes, but now that I've noticed them for this reason, I'm not inclined
to look favorably on them. Even their "waah, we're not shipping yet
because our supplier has several out-of-control processes" letter would
have been enough to turn me off from them, but trying to force me to buy
something that doesn't work, well, I don't like that.

My assumption was also that the government would not be so stupid as to
make a requirement for something unless it had been proven to be
available and reliable,

Google "smart guns" and "legislation" some time. I think your faith in
government not doing stupid things is ...misguided...

As for their 'non-product' status, they are trying to get a complete
quality machine made, starting from scratch.

I thought they were outsourcing it to a low-cost country.

If some of the existing
manufacturers had decided to license the product, it probably would have
been available much sooner.

And yet, the people who make a living making saws don't like it either.
Hm.

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

Personally I don't like anybody who lobbies for legislation that will
restrict my activities and give him a personal reward at the same time.

I can understand and empathize with that feeling to a certain extent. I
have a libertarian streak when it comes to things that are a personal
choice and do not affect other people. The recreational drug laws in
this country are (IMO) counter-productive and a restraint on personal
freedom. They also benefit those companies that sell legal recreational
drugs (alcohol and tobacco).

Are you using Linux? You're probably aware that Microsoft has tried to
get the government to ban open source software, claiming that it is not
as good as the stuff they are selling.

In some cases, I feel that if certain things are not required by law,
they are not going to happen to the detriment of nearly everyone. For
example, most coal companies did not repair the damage they did while
strip mining until the law forced them to do it. Timber companies seem
to be pretty good about replanting trees these days, but there was a lot
of clear-cutting of forests in the past.

--
Hank Gillette

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

I remember reading a few years ago that a survey conducted by AAA showed that
somewhere in the vicinity of 80% of motorists think that they are better
drivers than average.

Another poll found that 19% of Americans believe that their income put
them in the top 1%.

--
Hank Gillette

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Hinz
wrote:

Yup. I visit them regularly in ditches. The majority are drunk and/or
inexperienced, but I bet they think they're _all_ better than average
drivers.

I remember reading a few years ago that a survey conducted by AAA showed
that
somewhere in the vicinity of 80% of motorists think that they are better
drivers than average.

Apparently only 3/8's of them were right.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:45:20 -0500, Hank Gillette
wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

Then how do you reconcile this with supporting the Sawstop non-product
folks?

Because I don't think they are evil just because the tried for the
government regulation. I don't know their true motivation. While I'm
sure that they would have been happy to get the regulation enacted, that
may not have been their primary motive. They may have been looking for
the publicity to get their product noticed. In that, they seemed to have
had some success.

Yes, but now that I've noticed them for this reason, I'm not inclined
to look favorably on them. Even their "waah, we're not shipping yet
because our supplier has several out-of-control processes" letter would
have been enough to turn me off from them, but trying to force me to buy
something that doesn't work, well, I don't like that.

My assumption was also that the government would not be so stupid as to
make a requirement for something unless it had been proven to be
available and reliable,

Google "smart guns" and "legislation" some time. I think your faith in
government not doing stupid things is ...misguided...

As for their 'non-product' status, they are trying to get a complete
quality machine made, starting from scratch.

I thought they were outsourcing it to a low-cost country.

and it would be silly to not use already existing cabinet and top designs.

If some of the existing
manufacturers had decided to license the product, it probably would have
been available much sooner.

And yet, the people who make a living making saws don't like it either.
Hm.

Charles Spitzer wrote:


"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:45:20 -0500, Hank Gillette
wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

Then how do you reconcile this with supporting the Sawstop non-product
folks?

Because I don't think they are evil just because the tried for the
government regulation. I don't know their true motivation. While I'm
sure that they would have been happy to get the regulation enacted, that
may not have been their primary motive. They may have been looking for
the publicity to get their product noticed. In that, they seemed to have
had some success.

Yes, but now that I've noticed them for this reason, I'm not inclined
to look favorably on them. Even their "waah, we're not shipping yet
because our supplier has several out-of-control processes" letter would
have been enough to turn me off from them, but trying to force me to buy
something that doesn't work, well, I don't like that.

My assumption was also that the government would not be so stupid as to
make a requirement for something unless it had been proven to be
available and reliable,

Google "smart guns" and "legislation" some time. I think your faith in
government not doing stupid things is ...misguided...

As for their 'non-product' status, they are trying to get a complete
quality machine made, starting from scratch.

I thought they were outsourcing it to a low-cost country.

and it would be silly to not use already existing cabinet and top designs.

Really depends. If they can reduce the manufacturing cost by changing the
cabinet and/or top designs to accomodate the Sawstop at lower cost than by
using the existing designs then it would be silly to use the already
existing designs.

If some of the existing
manufacturers had decided to license the product, it probably would have
been available much sooner.

And yet, the people who make a living making saws don't like it either.
Hm.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
'
"Charles Spitzer" wrote in message
...

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:45:20 -0500, Hank Gillette

wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

Then how do you reconcile this with supporting the Sawstop non-product
folks?

Because I don't think they are evil just because the tried for the
government regulation. I don't know their true motivation. While I'm
sure that they would have been happy to get the regulation enacted,
that
may not have been their primary motive. They may have been looking for
the publicity to get their product noticed. In that, they seemed to
have
had some success.

Yes, but now that I've noticed them for this reason, I'm not inclined
to look favorably on them. Even their "waah, we're not shipping yet
because our supplier has several out-of-control processes" letter would
have been enough to turn me off from them, but trying to force me to buy
something that doesn't work, well, I don't like that.

My assumption was also that the government would not be so stupid as to
make a requirement for something unless it had been proven to be
available and reliable,

Google "smart guns" and "legislation" some time. I think your faith in
government not doing stupid things is ...misguided...

As for their 'non-product' status, they are trying to get a complete
quality machine made, starting from scratch.

I thought they were outsourcing it to a low-cost country.

and it would be silly to not use already existing cabinet and top designs.


The saw shown on their website is a typical taiwanese cabinet saw. I'm sure
if you wanted to order a number of units you could have your name on it too.
All that sawstop is adding is the control device and some changes to the way
the blade/motor assembly is put together. The rest is straight out of the
catalog.

-j

"Leon" wrote in message
. com...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , Dave Hinz
wrote:

Yup. I visit them regularly in ditches. The majority are drunk and/or
inexperienced, but I bet they think they're _all_ better than average
drivers.

I remember reading a few years ago that a survey conducted by AAA showed
that
somewhere in the vicinity of 80% of motorists think that they are better
drivers than average.

Apparently only 3/8's of them were right.

I have heard quoted that 90% of male drivers believe they are in the top 10%
in driving skills.

-j

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:01:18 -0500, Hank Gillette
wrote:

Timber companies seem
to be pretty good about replanting trees these days, but there was a lot
of clear-cutting of forests in the past.


Clear-cutting goes on. And I'd say it's more true that
timber companies are pretty good at convincing people
that they're replanting these days.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:55:03 GMT, Doug Miller
wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz
wrote:

Yup. I visit them regularly in ditches. The majority are drunk
and/or inexperienced, but I bet they think they're _all_ better than
average drivers.

I remember reading a few years ago that a survey conducted by AAA showed that
somewhere in the vicinity of 80% of motorists think that they are better
drivers than average.


That's easy if by "Average" you mean the mean of driving ability.

The "Average" is of a population that includes drivers who are
"newsworthy bad" . . people with 4000 points on their license but who
somehow elude arrest. NO idea how they do that. I get nasty letters
from the town if I'm three seconds late paying a parking violation. If
these guys only took the effort the expend eluding the police into
driving skills they'd be in NASCAR.

Most drivers are "Good Enough" to avoid most accidents.

At the top end, there are very few NASCAR-grade drivers, especially in
comparison with the number of bad drivers.

This drives the mean down, so that, it is reasonable to suppose that
most drivers are indeed "Above Average."

Now, if someone were to ask "Are you above or below the median level of
driving skill?" the notion that 80% being above is ludicrous. But most
people, when they say "average" mean "Mean" so the result isn't all that
surprising.

"J" wrote in message
...

I have heard quoted that 90% of male drivers believe they are in the top
10%
in driving skills.


I know that I am .... ;~)

Charles Krug responds:

Most drivers are "Good Enough" to avoid most accidents.

At the top end, there are very few NASCAR-grade drivers, especially in
comparison with the number of bad drivers.

It's the NASCAR-grade drivers who are the true idiots on the road. They're the
assholes who get on your bumper and stay there, refusing to make a pass in
miles and miles.

Charlie Self
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston
Churchill

In article 9Wlwd.1330$5m3.347@trndny04, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:55:03 GMT, Doug Miller
wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz
wrote:

Yup. I visit them regularly in ditches. The majority are drunk
and/or inexperienced, but I bet they think they're _all_ better than
average drivers.

I remember reading a few years ago that a survey conducted by AAA showed that

somewhere in the vicinity of 80% of motorists think that they are better
drivers than average.


That's easy if by "Average" you mean the mean of driving ability.

The "Average" is of a population that includes drivers who are
"newsworthy bad" . . people with 4000 points on their license but who
somehow elude arrest.

It also includes people like my mother. Mom's been driving for over 40 years,
never had an accident, never had a ticket.

Most drivers are "Good Enough" to avoid most accidents.

Observation would suggest that this is your opinion, not a proven fact. :-)

At the top end, there are very few NASCAR-grade drivers, especially in
comparison with the number of bad drivers.

This drives the mean down, so that, it is reasonable to suppose that
most drivers are indeed "Above Average."

And I suppose you've done the research to back up these claims? Sorry, but I
just don't buy it. The population of drivers is large enough that it's
statistically unlikely that the bad ones can drag the average down so much
that substantially more than half of the total are above average. If you have
evidence that the distribution of driving abilities across the population is
as far from a normal curve as it would have to be for you to be right, I'd
like to see a cite.


Now, if someone were to ask "Are you above or below the median level of
driving skill?" the notion that 80% being above is ludicrous. But most
people, when they say "average" mean "Mean" so the result isn't all that
surprising.

That is, of course, what "average" means.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , otforme (Charlie Self) wrote:
Charles Krug responds:

Most drivers are "Good Enough" to avoid most accidents.

At the top end, there are very few NASCAR-grade drivers, especially in
comparison with the number of bad drivers.

It's the NASCAR-grade drivers who are the true idiots on the road. They're the
assholes who get on your bumper and stay there, refusing to make a pass in
miles and miles.

Saw a bumper sticker a while back that I wish I'd bought:
WARNING: I brake for tailgaters!

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article 9Wlwd.1330$5m3.347@trndny04, wrote:
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:55:03 GMT, Doug Miller
wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz
wrote:

Yup. I visit them regularly in ditches. The majority are drunk
and/or inexperienced, but I bet they think they're _all_ better than
average drivers.

I remember reading a few years ago that a survey conducted by AAA showed
that

somewhere in the vicinity of 80% of motorists think that they are better
drivers than average.


That's easy if by "Average" you mean the mean of driving ability.

The "Average" is of a population that includes drivers who are
"newsworthy bad" . . people with 4000 points on their license but who
somehow elude arrest.

It also includes people like my mother. Mom's been driving for over 40
years,
never had an accident, never had a ticket.

well, i've seen accidents and near accidents caused by the proverbial little
old lady who never gets a ticket in the situation, but was the proximate
cause.

Most drivers are "Good Enough" to avoid most accidents.

Observation would suggest that this is your opinion, not a proven fact.
:-)

At the top end, there are very few NASCAR-grade drivers, especially in
comparison with the number of bad drivers.

This drives the mean down, so that, it is reasonable to suppose that
most drivers are indeed "Above Average."

And I suppose you've done the research to back up these claims? Sorry, but
I
just don't buy it. The population of drivers is large enough that it's
statistically unlikely that the bad ones can drag the average down so much
that substantially more than half of the total are above average. If you
have
evidence that the distribution of driving abilities across the population
is
as far from a normal curve as it would have to be for you to be right, I'd
like to see a cite.


Now, if someone were to ask "Are you above or below the median level of
driving skill?" the notion that 80% being above is ludicrous. But most
people, when they say "average" mean "Mean" so the result isn't all that
surprising.

That is, of course, what "average" means.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:11:07 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


You might be surprised. I used to work with an engineer who had passed the
bar--engineering paid better. I used to have a secretary who had passed
the bar. A friend of mine is married to a graduate of Yale Law School who
has successfully defended asbestos suits. He hasn't worked in about ten
years. There was a time when everybody who could went to law school
planning to get rich quick, with the result that lawyers became a glut on
the market. Not saying that Gass is one of the starving ones, but "passed
the bar" != "well off financially".


Passing the bar *never* equated with "well off financially."

GregP writes:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:01:18 -0500, Hank Gillette
wrote:

Timber companies seem
to be pretty good about replanting trees these days, but there was a lot
of clear-cutting of forests in the past.


Clear-cutting goes on. And I'd say it's more true that
timber companies are pretty good at convincing people
that they're replanting these days.


And you base your opinion on what data, exactly?

scott

Charlie Self wrote:

Charles Krug responds:

Most drivers are "Good Enough" to avoid most accidents.

At the top end, there are very few NASCAR-grade drivers, especially in
comparison with the number of bad drivers.

It's the NASCAR-grade drivers who are the true idiots on the road. They're
the assholes who get on your bumper and stay there, refusing to make a
pass in miles and miles.

Why would one do that? Drafting you to save gas?

I remember the last time somebody did that to me. I had just gotten my
Corvette, he was driving a Toyota Supra. I changed lanes, slowed down, did
everything reasonable to induce him to pass. Then I said "Oh, to Hell with
it" and started accelerating in 5 mph increments. At 125 he was just
starting to lose ground. So I dropped it down two gears and took off,
leaving a little chirp of Gatorback in the process.

I don't usually drive 150 on the Interstate, but that one time it was worth
it just to annoy the twit.

Charlie Self
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir
Winston Churchill

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:32:31 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:

That's easy if by "Average" you mean the mean of driving ability.

The "Average" is of a population that includes drivers who are
"newsworthy bad" . . people with 4000 points on their license but who
somehow elude arrest.

It also includes people like my mother. Mom's been driving for over 40 years,
never had an accident, never had a ticket.

Most drivers are "Good Enough" to avoid most accidents.

Observation would suggest that this is your opinion, not a proven fact. :-)

At the top end, there are very few NASCAR-grade drivers, especially in
comparison with the number of bad drivers.

This drives the mean down, so that, it is reasonable to suppose that
most drivers are indeed "Above Average."

And I suppose you've done the research to back up these claims? Sorry, but I
just don't buy it. The population of drivers is large enough that it's
statistically unlikely that the bad ones can drag the average down so much
that substantially more than half of the total are above average. If you have
evidence that the distribution of driving abilities across the population is
as far from a normal curve as it would have to be for you to be right, I'd
like to see a cite.


Nah . . . this is all 'Sposin . . back of an envelope type reasoning.

I've never seen any objective discussion of driving ability aside from
this old saw. I imagine the actuaries who work for auto insurance
companies would know for certain. Any actuaries here? Any who can say
a little about what they know?

The fact that insurers make money writing auto liability policies
demonstrates that the information must be available.

I imagine that driving ability is either unimodal or multimodal, but
that many more drivers are clustered about "average" than in a true
"Normal" distribution. I also imagine that the Very Worst and Very Best
are MUCH better and MUCH worse than average.

That coorelates with my RL driving experience, but I've no raw data on
this.

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:21:43 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:


Clear-cutting goes on. And I'd say it's more true that
timber companies are pretty good at convincing people
that they're replanting these days.


And you base your opinion on what data, exactly?


I'm basing it on first-hand observation. And you base
your objections on what data, exactly ?

GregP writes:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:21:43 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:


Clear-cutting goes on. And I'd say it's more true that
timber companies are pretty good at convincing people
that they're replanting these days.


And you base your opinion on what data, exactly?


I'm basing it on first-hand observation. And you base
your objections on what data, exactly ?


Excuse me? What objection? I was just curious whether you
had any data that backed up your assertion. I see you don't.


scott

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 01:20:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:


Excuse me? What objection? I was just curious whether you
had any data that backed up your assertion. I see you don't.


And you clearly have none to back yours, unless those commercials
you've been swallowing hook, line, and sinker made some up for
you.

In newsave Hinz typed:
Yes, but now that I've noticed them for this reason, I'm not inclined
to look favorably on them. Even their "waah, we're not shipping yet
because our supplier has several out-of-control processes" letter would
have been enough to turn me off from them, but trying to force me to buy
something that doesn't work, well, I don't like that.

Who says sawstop does not work? You?

I thought they were outsourcing it to a low-cost country.

As do Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, and many others? In fact, is there a
single saw made in the US?

And yet, the people who make a living making saws don't like it either.
Hm.

Of course not, because it is a better product. And by the looks of the
machinery they are making, it will be a better product as well.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J typed:
The saw shown on their website is a typical taiwanese cabinet saw. I'm
sure if you wanted to order a number of units you could have your name on
it too. All that sawstop is adding is the control device and some changes
to the way the blade/motor assembly is put together. The rest is straight
out of the catalog.

-j

There you go again, telling total white lies...assumptions! You do read the
articles, right?
The website state clearly that it is a bigger, heavier machine than anything
offered today. With heavier bearings, and many other improvements.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Hank Gillette typed:
I can understand and empathize with that feeling to a certain extent. I
have a libertarian streak when it comes to things that are a personal
choice and do not affect other people. The recreational drug laws in
this country are (IMO) counter-productive and a restraint on personal
freedom. They also benefit those companies that sell legal recreational
drugs (alcohol and tobacco).


Are you implying that tobacco use does not affect other people?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In newsoug Miller typed:
Which was my point, WRT ted harris's over-the-top bulls**t.

Have you ever started your own business from nothing more than an idea, that
no one has ever done ever in the entire history of the world?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In newsave Hinz typed:
WHAT technology, Ted? It doesn't ****ing work. They can't ship units.
They want to force people to use something that they can't even
manufacture.

Man I can't believe this crap...
Shipping units and having a product that works is two different things.
First of all, it looks to me like sawstops strategy has changed from the
initial concept. Now they have to build, market, and deliver a new, better
product against the will of corporate America. Is that supposed to be a
hanger? I don't think so...

I cannot believe the **** I am reading here...
Sawstop was apparently invented around 1998 or so. This guy and his
employees have been fought around every corner for the last 7 yeays by
skeptical woodworkers, and muscled by the manufacturers.

If they can't get a workable product in 7 years, they either don't know
what they're doing, or they're trying to do something impossible.

If corporate America has it;s way, it is impossible.

Looks to me like
he has devoted his life to getting this thing going. Now, after almost a
decade of rejection, sawstop is delivering saws as we speak.

To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not a
"shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and good,
but where's the beef?

I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

"ted harris" wrote:

In newsave Hinz typed:
WHAT technology, Ted? It doesn't ****ing work. They can't ship
units. They want to force people to use something that they can't
even manufacture.

Man I can't believe this crap...
Shipping units and having a product that works is two different
things. First of all, it looks to me like sawstops strategy has
changed from the initial concept. Now they have to build, market, and
deliver a new, better product against the will of corporate America.
Is that supposed to be a hanger? I don't think so...

I cannot believe the **** I am reading here...
Sawstop was apparently invented around 1998 or so. This guy and his
employees have been fought around every corner for the last 7 yeays
by skeptical woodworkers, and muscled by the manufacturers.

If they can't get a workable product in 7 years, they either don't
know what they're doing, or they're trying to do something
impossible.

If corporate America has it;s way, it is impossible.

Looks to me like
he has devoted his life to getting this thing going. Now, after
almost a decade of rejection, sawstop is delivering saws as we
speak.

To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not
a "shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and
good, but where's the beef?

I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?

Just what percentage of the company did they sell you?

ted harris wrote:

In newsave Hinz typed:
WHAT technology, Ted? It doesn't ****ing work. They can't ship units.
They want to force people to use something that they can't even
manufacture.

Man I can't believe this crap...
Shipping units and having a product that works is two different things.
First of all, it looks to me like sawstops strategy has changed from the
initial concept. Now they have to build, market, and deliver a new,
better
product against the will of corporate America. Is that supposed to be a
hanger? I don't think so...

Now let's see, there are any number of companies having working saws made in
the Far East, so it's pretty clear that there are places in the Far East
that know how to make a saw that works. So what's different about the
Sawstop saw? The Sawstop. So if they're having problems delivering
product, it doesn't seem likely to be the saw part of it that is the
problem.

I cannot believe the **** I am reading here...
Sawstop was apparently invented around 1998 or so. This guy and his
employees have been fought around every corner for the last 7 yeays by
skeptical woodworkers, and muscled by the manufacturers.

If they can't get a workable product in 7 years, they either don't know
what they're doing, or they're trying to do something impossible.

If corporate America has it;s way, it is impossible.

Huh? How is "corporate America" involved with this? Are they bribing the
Chinese to break his saws or something?

Looks to me like
he has devoted his life to getting this thing going. Now, after almost
a decade of rejection, sawstop is delivering saws as we speak.

To whom, exactly? All I see on the website is a pre-order form, not a
"shipping today" saw. Hand-assembled demo units are all well and good,
but where's the beef?

I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?

Yeah, Sawstop.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

ted harris wrote:

In news:J typed:
The saw shown on their website is a typical taiwanese cabinet saw. I'm
sure if you wanted to order a number of units you could have your name on
it too. All that sawstop is adding is the control device and some changes
to the way the blade/motor assembly is put together. The rest is straight
out of the catalog.

-j

There you go again, telling total white lies...assumptions! You do read
the articles, right?
The website state clearly that it is a bigger, heavier machine than
anything
offered today. With heavier bearings, and many other improvements.

The bigger bearings is the only "improvement", the others are just bundled
accessories. One suspects that the bigger bearings are there because the
gadget was breaking the little ones. And given the price, one would _hope_
that it's a premium-quality saw.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

ted harris wrote:

In news:Hank Gillette typed:
I can understand and empathize with that feeling to a certain extent. I
have a libertarian streak when it comes to things that are a personal
choice and do not affect other people. The recreational drug laws in
this country are (IMO) counter-productive and a restraint on personal
freedom. They also benefit those companies that sell legal recreational
drugs (alcohol and tobacco).


Are you implying that tobacco use does not affect other people?

No, he's implying that if Marijuana was legal it would likely hurt tobacco
sales and thus the tobacco companies have a vested interest in keeping it
illegal. Please do try to follow the argument.

I find it interesting that you single out tobacco use as 'affecting other
people' but seem to ignore the effects of drunk driving.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

ted harris wrote:

In newsoug Miller typed:
Which was my point, WRT ted harris's over-the-top bulls**t.

Have you ever started your own business from nothing more than an idea,
that no one has ever done ever in the entire history of the world?

Well, let's see, it took Steve Jobs less time to go from an idea to a
billion-dollar corporation than it has taken this guy to go from an idea to
an ad on web site. Maybe he should see if Jobs will consult eg.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

No.

You can't stop the car without brakes (unless you're Fred Flintstone).

You can avoid cutting your fingers off without a sawstop.

Renata

On Mon, 13 Dec 2004 17:37:43 GMT, "BobS" wrote:

Fred said......

The problem with this device is people becoming dependent on it and being
careless, and then at a most inopportune moment, the device fails.

Sorta like brakes on a vehicle then....?

-snip-

Bob S.

Well now, that 'splains a lot about some voting patterns then.

Renata

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:04:13 -0500, Hank Gillette
wrote:

Another poll found that 19% of Americans believe that their income put
them in the top 1%.

If clear cutting is done correctly, it mimics the natural mosaic pattern that
fires create. I'm talking about natural fires in forests that do not have
too much fuel caused by years of over aggressive fire suppression. The
mosaic pattern gives new trees room to mature and also creates wildlife
habitat (for all the furry thing huggers out there!). Unfortunately, there
are many examples where improper clear cutting was done. The usual mosaic
pattern is on the order of a few or less acres in size, not hundreds of acres
that were clear cut in the past. Good forest management allows everyone
(tree huggers, loggers, hunters, animal lovers, etc.) to all benefit from the
same piece of land.

soapbox mode off

Grant



GregP wrote:

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:01:18 -0500, Hank Gillette
wrote:

Timber companies seem
to be pretty good about replanting trees these days, but there was a lot
of clear-cutting of forests in the past.

Clear-cutting goes on. And I'd say it's more true that
timber companies are pretty good at convincing people
that they're replanting these days.

But they are improving their gas mileage! :^)



Charlie Self wrote:

Charles Krug responds:

Most drivers are "Good Enough" to avoid most accidents.

At the top end, there are very few NASCAR-grade drivers, especially in
comparison with the number of bad drivers.

It's the NASCAR-grade drivers who are the true idiots on the road. They're the
assholes who get on your bumper and stay there, refusing to make a pass in
miles and miles.

Charlie Self
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." Sir Winston
Churchill

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Well, let's see, it took Steve Jobs less time to go from an idea to a
billion-dollar corporation than it has taken this guy to go from an idea
to
an ad on web site. Maybe he should see if Jobs will consult eg.

Maybe the drug companies should see Steve Jobs about speeding up development
on some of the cures that they have been working on for decades. Some
things simply take years to develop, some things take a blink of an eye.

"ted harris" wrote in message
...
In newsave Hinz typed:
WHAT technology, Ted? It doesn't ****ing work. They can't ship units.
They want to force people to use something that they can't even
manufacture.


You might as sell give up Ted. There are many people in this world that
lock on to their impression of something and will never change their minds
even if they are obviously dead wrong. I guess humble pie does not set well
with them and they continue to deny.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:04:33 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

In newsave Hinz typed:
Yes, but now that I've noticed them for this reason, I'm not inclined
to look favorably on them. Even their "waah, we're not shipping yet
because our supplier has several out-of-control processes" letter would
have been enough to turn me off from them, but trying to force me to buy
something that doesn't work, well, I don't like that.

Who says sawstop does not work? You?

no, underwriter's laboratories.

I thought they were outsourcing it to a low-cost country.

As do Delta, Powermatic, Grizzly, and many others? In fact, is there a
single saw made in the US?

And yet, the people who make a living making saws don't like it either.
Hm.

Of course not, because it is a better product. And by the looks of the
machinery they are making, it will be a better product as well.


yeah, right....