On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:07:47 -0800, "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.


not improvements so much as attempts to compensate for the saw trying
to self destruct while stopping the blade.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:21:30 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

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


oh, there will be plenty of other suckers....

Leon wrote:


"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.

Those "cures" require a tremendous amount of cutting edge research and then
elaborate clinical trials and an extensive government approval process.
The Sawstop has already been demonstrated, and the only thing the
government wants to know about it is how much tax the manufacturer owes.

Some
things simply take years to develop, some things take a blink of an eye.

So, you admit that the Sawstop is so flawed that it is going to take years
of research to make it work adequately if in fact it can be made to do so?
If not, then what _are_ you suggesting?

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

"ted harris" wrote in message
...
In typed:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 00:04:33 -0800, "ted harris"
wrote:

Who says sawstop does not work? You?

no, underwriter's laboratories.

UL did NOT say it did not work. They said it needed more testing...well,
why aren't they testing it? That is what they do, no?

Yep, you pay them, they test it. Perhaps they are not being paid?

-j

"ted harris" wrote in message
...
In news:J. Clarke typed:
Leon wrote:


"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.

Those "cures" require a tremendous amount of cutting edge research and
then elaborate clinical trials and an extensive government approval
process. The Sawstop has already been demonstrated, and the only thing
the
government wants to know about it is how much tax the manufacturer owes.

Some
things simply take years to develop, some things take a blink of an
eye.

So, you admit that the Sawstop is so flawed that it is going to take
years
of research to make it work adequately if in fact it can be made to do
so?
If not, then what _are_ you suggesting?

It seems to me that he is saying that some things, no matter how simple
they
appear, may take longer to develop than something that appears 1000 times
more complicated. Such is the case with Apple computer...he faced no
opposition, no competition, no corporate behemoth, etc.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

I don't see this as being a valid analogy. Computers existed before the
Apple. IBM existed before the apple. Where is the corporate behemoth that is
squashing sawstop? It is, like most analogies, false.

-j

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Gotcha. Why did I think you're from MKE then I wonder? Did you used to
have an execpc address?

No execpc addr. Maybe I mentioned flying into Mitchell to visit my family
when "Elkhorn International Airport" is closed. Runway 36L is especially
"iffy" during corn season.

In article , "ted harris" wrote:
In news:J. Clarke typed:
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.

I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE FACT
that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you drunk!

OTOH, fatal traffic accidents caused by drivers under the influence of tobacco
are, as far as I know, extremely rare events.

--
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 , "ted harris" wrote:
In news:J. Clarke typed:
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.

Steve Jobs had no one fighting him tootj and nail.

Neither does SawStop. The existing manufacturers declined to use that product;
that is not the same as "fighting tooth and nail" to prevent it coming to
market.


--
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 typed:
The website state clearly that it is a bigger, heavier machine than
anything offered today. With heavier bearings, and many other
improvements.


not improvements so much as attempts to compensate for the saw trying
to self destruct while stopping the blade.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? The spindle
disengages when it is activated...so there is no additional stress on the
motor, bearing or any other part of the machine except for the blade.
Thanks for playing.......XXXXXXXXX!!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

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

Who says sawstop does not work? You?

no, underwriter's laboratories.

UL did NOT say it did not work. They said it needed more testing...well,
why aren't they testing it? That is what they do, no?

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....

Now there's some real brain food!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "ted harris"
wrote:
In news:J. Clarke typed:
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.

Steve Jobs had no one fighting him tootj and nail.

Neither does SawStop. The existing manufacturers declined to use that
product; that is not the same as "fighting tooth and nail" to prevent it
coming to market.

Further, there is an almost exact parallel. The Apple prototype was
constructed after hours in HP's laboratories. When it was complete, the
two Steves went to their supervisor with it, demonstrated it, and asked if
this was a product that HP wanted to market. After going through whatever
process they go through, HP decided that it wasn't and granted the two
Steves a waiver of any rights that they had to it, at which point they
started their own company to sell the thing and the rest is history.

So HP was "fighting tooth and nail" just as hard as Delta and Jet are
fighting against Sawstop.

--
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.

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

In news:J. Clarke typed:
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.

I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE FACT
that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you drunk!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke typed:
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.

Steve Jobs had no one fighting him tootj and nail. I'd like to see someone
try to do what he has done today, in a developed computer world. Your
argumnent is quite simply not apples to apples...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Lobby Dosser typed:
I'm putting my money on Sawstop...any takers?

Just what percentage of the company did they sell you?

I wish I had money to invest...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

"J" writes:

"ted harris" wrote in message
...

It seems to me that he is saying that some things, no matter how simple
they
appear, may take longer to develop than something that appears 1000 times
more complicated. Such is the case with Apple computer...he faced no
opposition, no competition, no corporate behemoth, etc.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

I don't see this as being a valid analogy. Computers existed before the
Apple. IBM existed before the apple. Where is the corporate behemoth that is
squashing sawstop? It is, like most analogies, false.

Ayup. Remember the IBM 5100? Nifty little portable computer (very
small screen) with rom-based basic and APL interpreters. Predated even the
Apple II.

scott

"ted harris" writes:
In news:J. Clarke typed:
ted harris wrote:

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.

I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE FACT
that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you drunk!

And it is a SIMPLE FACT that if you smoke (by yourself, in your car, home
or workplace) you are only affecting yourself. Again, your analogy
falls down.

scott

(Of course, if you're drunk, and kill someone in a car wreck, you are
affecting someone else, true?)

In news:Charlie Self typed:
Bridger responds:

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....

Ah well. Point him at a little but difficult tome called The True
Believer. Eric Hoffer write it, I think sometime in the middle or late
'50s, and our society is becoming permeated with them, on one topic or
another. And sometimes on all.

Charlie Self
"Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power." Eric Hoffer

Just who are you acusing of being alienated? Is it possible that the mass
movement against sawstop is the very group that is in fact alienated?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

"ted harris" writes:
In news:J. Clarke typed:
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.

Steve Jobs had no one fighting him tootj and nail. I'd like to see someone
try to do what he has done today, in a developed computer world. Your
argumnent is quite simply not apples to apples...

Shall we talk about Dell, or Compaq? Or Extreme Networks and Brocade?

Or Egenera? Fabric 7?

all examples of companies starting in the face of entrenched competitors
but with differentiated product. Most would argue that they were and
are successful at it.

scott

In news:J. Clarke typed:
Leon wrote:


"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.

Those "cures" require a tremendous amount of cutting edge research and
then elaborate clinical trials and an extensive government approval
process. The Sawstop has already been demonstrated, and the only thing the
government wants to know about it is how much tax the manufacturer owes.

Some
things simply take years to develop, some things take a blink of an eye.

So, you admit that the Sawstop is so flawed that it is going to take years
of research to make it work adequately if in fact it can be made to do so?
If not, then what _are_ you suggesting?

It seems to me that he is saying that some things, no matter how simple they
appear, may take longer to develop than something that appears 1000 times
more complicated. Such is the case with Apple computer...he faced no
opposition, no competition, no corporate behemoth, etc.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

"ted harris" writes:
In news:Charlie Self typed:
Bridger responds:

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....

Ah well. Point him at a little but difficult tome called The True
Believer. Eric Hoffer write it, I think sometime in the middle or late
'50s, and our society is becoming permeated with them, on one topic or
another. And sometimes on all.

Charlie Self
"Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power." Eric Hoffer

Just who are you acusing of being alienated? Is it possible that the mass
movement against sawstop is the very group that is in fact alienated?

Trying hard as I can to read it into Charlie's prose, I can't find whre
he accused anyone of being alienated.

scott

(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "ted harris"
wrote:
In news:J. Clarke typed:
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.

I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE
FACT that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you
drunk!

OTOH, fatal traffic accidents caused by drivers under the influence of
tobacco are, as far as I know, extremely rare events.

Not too rare. Ever seen a driver drop a lit ciggie in his lap?


--
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 news:QxKwd.389
OTOH, fatal traffic accidents caused by drivers under the influence of
tobacco
are, as far as I know, extremely rare events.


LOL.. IIRC a dope smoker is also not likely to be in an accident. Too
paranoid and overly cautious.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Those "cures" require a tremendous amount of cutting edge research and
then
elaborate clinical trials and an extensive government approval process.

No actually many do not. Many are widely available in other countries.
The government slows this process down. I could never figure how the FDA
can claim that it is protecting us from buying the same drug in Canada that
we buy in the U.S.

Some
things simply take years to develop, some things take a blink of an eye.

So, you admit that the Sawstop is so flawed that it is going to take years
of research to make it work adequately if in fact it can be made to do so?
If not, then what _are_ you suggesting?

Nope that is what you said. I made no such statement. I simply think that
some things take longer to bring to market because of lack of funds to speed
the process or the government impedes the progress.

"ted harris" wrote in message
...

Steve Jobs had no one fighting him tootj and nail. I'd like to see
someone
try to do what he has done today, in a developed computer world. Your
argumnent is quite simply not apples to apples...


Actually Apple would be like the Commodore had Microsoft not bought it.
Gone. Apple did fine until it had competition. Steve Jobs fallacy was his
insisting that Apple manufacture everything including the software. It was
simply out paced by the enormous number of other choices.

In article , "J. Clarke" wrote:

Further, there is an almost exact parallel. The Apple prototype was
constructed after hours in HP's laboratories. When it was complete, the
two Steves went to their supervisor with it, demonstrated it, and asked if
this was a product that HP wanted to market. After going through whatever
process they go through, HP decided that it wasn't and granted the two
Steves a waiver of any rights that they had to it, at which point they
started their own company to sell the thing and the rest is history.

Strangely enough, HP made _exactly_the_same_ blunder a few years later, when a
couple of their engineers, Jimmy Treybig and one other guy whose name escapes
me, came to management with an idea for a fault-tolerant computer. Management
wasn't interested, so they quit and formed their own company, Tandem
Computers, and made a pot of money selling machines that simply don't go down.

In an odd twist of fate, Tandem was bought in the late 1990s by Compaq, which
was then bought a few years later by... HP.

--
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 4hMwd.260$1U6.105@trnddc09, Lobby Dosser wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:


OTOH, fatal traffic accidents caused by drivers under the influence of
tobacco are, as far as I know, extremely rare events.

Not too rare. Ever seen a driver drop a lit ciggie in his lap?

I'm aware of such incidents. But I'm sure you're not contending that they are
anywhere near as common as PI or fatality crashes caused by drunks.

--
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.

ted harris wrote:

In news:J. Clarke typed:
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.

I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE FACT
that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you drunk!

I find it quite in character that you don't understand the SIMPLE FACT that
drunk drivers kill other people, not statistically 40 years down the road
but up close and personal.

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

Leon wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Those "cures" require a tremendous amount of cutting edge research and
then
elaborate clinical trials and an extensive government approval process.

No actually many do not. Many are widely available in other countries.
The government slows this process down. I could never figure how the FDA
can claim that it is protecting us from buying the same drug in Canada
that we buy in the U.S.

One word. Thalidomide.

Some
things simply take years to develop, some things take a blink of an eye.

So, you admit that the Sawstop is so flawed that it is going to take
years of research to make it work adequately if in fact it can be made to
do so? If not, then what _are_ you suggesting?

Nope that is what you said. I made no such statement. I simply think
that some things take longer to bring to market because of lack of funds
to speed the process or the government impedes the progress.

Well, now, what specific action do you believe that the government has taken
to "impede the progress" of sawstop and how is it that a couple of college
dropouts managed to raise enough capital to get their company started when
Mr. Smart Patent Attorney can't?

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

Leon wrote:


"ted harris" wrote in message
...

Steve Jobs had no one fighting him tootj and nail. I'd like to see
someone
try to do what he has done today, in a developed computer world. Your
argumnent is quite simply not apples to apples...


Actually Apple would be like the Commodore had Microsoft not bought it.

Bought _what_? Microsoft owns neither Commodore nor Apple so what the Hell
are you talking about?

Gone. Apple did fine until it had competition.

Apple had competition on the day that they sold their first machine.
Intel-based S-100 micros were already well established in the market--Apple
with their 6502 was fighting the trend. Successfully. Wasn't until IBM
came in that Apple ran into a serious competitor, but they've managed to
maintain market share right along.

Steve Jobs fallacy was
his
insisting that Apple manufacture everything including the software. It
was simply out paced by the enormous number of other choices.

Apple still manufactures everything including much of the software. Seems
that that strategy actually worked pretty well.


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

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Further, there is an almost exact parallel. The Apple prototype was
constructed after hours in HP's laboratories. When it was complete, the
two Steves went to their supervisor with it, demonstrated it, and asked if
this was a product that HP wanted to market. After going through whatever
process they go through, HP decided that it wasn't and granted the two
Steves a waiver of any rights that they had to it, at which point they
started their own company to sell the thing and the rest is history.

Strangely enough, HP made _exactly_the_same_ blunder a few years later,
when a couple of their engineers, Jimmy Treybig and one other guy whose
name escapes me, came to management with an idea for a fault-tolerant
computer. Management wasn't interested, so they quit and formed their own
company, Tandem Computers, and made a pot of money selling machines that
simply don't go down.

Wasn't really a blunder. Even Jobs admits that at the time it wasn't a good
match for HP's marketing model. Remember, HP was an instrumentation
company with computers a sideline.

In an odd twist of fate, Tandem was bought in the late 1990s by Compaq,
which was then bought a few years later by... HP.

--
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.

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

Well, now, what specific action do you believe that the government has
taken
to "impede the progress" of sawstop and how is it that a couple of college
dropouts managed to raise enough capital to get their company started when
Mr. Smart Patent Attorney can't?

I have not really thought about it and have no reason to think that they
have in this instance. but it is entirely possible.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Bought _what_? Microsoft owns neither Commodore nor Apple so what the
Hell
are you talking about?

Ok, the giant bail out. Apple would probably be gone had Microoft not
dumped millions into Apple.

Gone. Apple did fine until it had competition.

Apple had competition on the day that they sold their first machine.
Intel-based S-100 micros were already well established in the
market--Apple
with their 6502 was fighting the trend. Successfully. Wasn't until IBM
came in that Apple ran into a serious competitor, but they've managed to
maintain market share right along.

No they lost market share. Their share is squat compared to what it was
before the PC came along.

Steve Jobs fallacy was
his
insisting that Apple manufacture everything including the software. It
was simply out paced by the enormous number of other choices.

Apple still manufactures everything including much of the software. Seems
that that strategy actually worked pretty well.

No, there is now hardware and software available for an Apple not produced
by Apple.

(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article 4hMwd.260$1U6.105@trnddc09, Lobby Dosser
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:


OTOH, fatal traffic accidents caused by drivers under the influence
of tobacco are, as far as I know, extremely rare events.

Not too rare. Ever seen a driver drop a lit ciggie in his lap?

I'm aware of such incidents. But I'm sure you're not contending that
they are anywhere near as common as PI or fatality crashes caused by
drunks.

Nor cell phone users, newspaper readers, breakfast eaters, or hairdo
artistes. All of whom I've seen doing 70 or better on freeways.


--
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.

Leon wrote:




Well, now, what specific action do you believe that the government has
taken
to "impede the progress" of sawstop and how is it that a couple of
college dropouts managed to raise enough capital to get their company
started when Mr. Smart Patent Attorney can't?

I have not really thought about it and have no reason to think that they
have in this instance. but it is entirely possible.

So what _is_ your explanation for the delay?

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

In news:Scott Lurndal typed:
"ted harris" writes:
In news:Charlie Self typed:
Bridger responds:

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....

Ah well. Point him at a little but difficult tome called The True
Believer. Eric Hoffer write it, I think sometime in the middle or late
'50s, and our society is becoming permeated with them, on one topic or
another. And sometimes on all.

Charlie Self
"Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power." Eric Hoffer

Just who are you acusing of being alienated? Is it possible that the mass
movement against sawstop is the very group that is in fact alienated?

Trying hard as I can to read it into Charlie's prose, I can't find whre
he accused anyone of being alienated.

scott

Perhaps you should read the book then.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Scott Lurndal typed:
"ted harris" writes:
In news:J. Clarke typed:
ted harris wrote:

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.

I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE FACT
that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you drunk!

And it is a SIMPLE FACT that if you smoke (by yourself, in your car, home
or workplace) you are only affecting yourself. Again, your analogy
falls down.

I personally don't care if you smoke and want to kill yourself, that is
fine. If you smoke anywhere in the presence of another person, you are now
affecting them. So how does my analogy fall down?

(Of course, if you're drunk, and kill someone in a car wreck, you are
affecting someone else, true?)

Yeah, but then you have to face the law...where are the laws to protect
non-smokers?

This debate is about sawstop, not smoking. Should we debate the smoking
issue as well?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke typed:
ted harris wrote:

In news:J. Clarke typed:
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.

I find it abolutely unbelievable that you don't understand the SIMPLE
FACT that when you drink, it does not make everyone else around you
drunk!

I find it quite in character that you don't understand the SIMPLE FACT
that drunk drivers kill other people, not statistically 40 years down the
road but up close and personal.

One person should not have the right to assault another, no matter the
circumstances.
But, according to your theory, it would be okay for someone to walk into a
public place and shove a needle in your arm, or pour alcohol down their
throat. That clears it up for me...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Leon wrote:

So what _is_ your explanation for the delay?

What delay? I have no explanation as I do not know much about the company.
As you also do not. As far as every one knows, they may be right on
schedule. The first time I saw a Bosch 1617EVS at a tool show was in 1996
IIRC. I was unable to buy it until August of 1998. Bosch, an old company
took 2 years to make available a product that they were showing. For a
start up company it some time takes many years for the ptoduct to come in to
being. I just think you have a "Hard-On" against the Saw Stop and do not
know it. You fight it with unreasonable resistance.




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

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
Leon responds:

Apple still manufactures everything including much of the software.
Seems
that that strategy actually worked pretty well.

No, there is now hardware and software available for an Apple not produced
by Apple.

I think these days almost all the Mac software is from outside, with the
OS
being the main Apple software product. But I could be wrong. My Mac
languishes
in a corner.

If you go to Apple's web site and do a search for Microsoft you get tons of
hits. Apparently Microsoft Office is a product Apple is pushing to run on
the Apple.

Leon wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Bought _what_? Microsoft owns neither Commodore nor Apple so what the
Hell
are you talking about?

Ok, the giant bail out. Apple would probably be gone had Microoft not
dumped millions into Apple.

At the time of the "giant bail out" Microsoft purchased 150 million dollars
worth of Apple preferred stock. "Preferred" stock is non-voting. At the
time Apple has 1.5 billion dollars in "cash and cash equivalents" on hand.
Yeah, they were _really_ in trouble. I should be so poor.

Gone. Apple did fine until it had competition.

Apple had competition on the day that they sold their first machine.
Intel-based S-100 micros were already well established in the
market--Apple
with their 6502 was fighting the trend. Successfully. Wasn't until IBM
came in that Apple ran into a serious competitor, but they've managed to
maintain market share right along.

No they lost market share. Their share is squat compared to what it was
before the PC came along.

Everybody lost share to IBM. But Apple did not lose as much as their
competitors. What other computer hardware company that was in business the
day the IBM PC shipped is still in business? The only ones that come to
mind are Rat Shack and Cray.

Steve Jobs fallacy was
his
insisting that Apple manufacture everything including the software. It
was simply out paced by the enormous number of other choices.

Apple still manufactures everything including much of the software.
Seems that that strategy actually worked pretty well.

No, there is now hardware and software available for an Apple not produced
by Apple.

There was always hardware and software available for an Apple not produced
by Apple. Remember Visicalc? Remember the coprocessor boards that let
Apples run CP/M? I can't remember now what all was available, but
accessorizing the Apple was an industry in itself.

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