ted harris wrote:

In news:Scott Lurndal typed:
Do you just like to hear yourself talk? It's the bottom line that
drives the feature set of any product, including a tablesaw (and the
bottom line is a calculation consisting of "what a customer will pay
for a given set of features" minus "what it costs to produce
a given set of features").

If Saw-stop can't create a market for their product, then it should
be appropriately relegated to a niche - and if they can't survive
in that niche, c'est la vie. They certainly should _not_ rely on
OSHA or any federal or state regulation to create their market for them.

scott

They are not relying on OSHA! No one is regualting anything to create
their
market. They are financing it themselves.

Geez, where have _you_ been for the past several years? The attempts of the
patentholder to persuade the government to require the use of this device
are well documented and have been discussed here many times.

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

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "ted harris"
wrote:

Maybe manufacturers don't want to include it because they don't give a
crap about whether or not you keep your limbs...ever think of that?

If so, it's a peculiar business model, in that amputees are rather less
likely than the general woodworking population to become repeat customers.

So do the math--calculat the number of amputations resulting in inability to
run saw (amputation of tip of pinky-finger for exampled does not count),
calculate the percentage of those who were likely to ever buy your saw,
figure the cost of lost sales, figure the cost of preventing the
amputations, and see which makes you more money.

--
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)

Allen Epps wrote:

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could
be a
profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses
occasionally. Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a
blade.

Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
make up the cost in consumables?

Be interesting to see some market research on that.

If there are 30,000 table-saw related injuries that require a hospital
visit every year (and presumably most of those would have triggered the
sawstop if it was present) how many more were there that did not require
a hospital
visit but would have triggered the sawstop? There seem to be about ten
non-amputations for every amputation, if that carries through to
non-hospital then there would be about 300,000 Sawstop activations a
year. So what is that in terms of percentage of the installed base of
saws?

As someone mentioned it might be a hard sell for the hobbiest. But
think about the pro shop getting an insurance discount for an "Sawstop"
shop. There might be an economic incentive to migrate the tools.

If Delta put the Sawstop on the Unisaw at no change in price, would the
presence of the Sawstop dissuade you from buying it?

Allen
Catonsville, MD

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

In news:Bob typed:
Would you pay $100 for everytime Sawstop fired or misfired to replace
the parts? Would you be comfortable installing safety mechanisms
yourself? Personally, I would answer No to both questions and therein
lies the dilemma for being commercially viable in the hobbyist market.
Bob

In my case it would be $70- for the cartridge, and $110- for the blade...and
I would like to state emphatically "yes" that I would gladly pay that many
times to keep my fingers and limbs intact. Is there really any other way to
look at it? Maybe for someone that was so cheap that they can justify not
spending the money to keep their digits and limbs there is a different
answer...but I don't think so!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

"Brett A. Thomas" wrote in message
...
Scott Lurndal wrote:
Isn't easier to just not put your fingers in the blade rather than add
hardware to stop the blade when you do? A couple of home-made
pushsticks
accomplish the same goals as the Saw-Stop, and the SS can't prevent
all tablesaw injuries (such as those caused by kickback) and may infact
cause more because of operator complacency.

Yeah, that's my biggest concern with the SawStop. I think it's an
interesting idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if, if we ever have a
world where it's mandatory, the net number of injuries stays about
constant, as people depend on the SS to save them instead of being
really aware of what they're doing. The tablesaw is still a dangerous
machine even if it won't cut off your finger.

-BAT

I keep reading that from people, but how many times have you heard anyone
say that they drive more recklessly because they have an airbag in their
car? Or even really had reason to believe they do? It isn't human nature
to behave that way. Whenever I heard that argument the first thought that
comes to my mind is that it's a hollow argument from someone who simply does
not like an idea, but has not real argument against it. Sort of a red
herring. People have a natural tendency to avoid things that will hurt them
whether safety devices are in place or not. The problem comes in if they
don't know about the things that can hurt them or if for some reason they
believe themselves to be immune to the potential for injury. You know -
like we all were when we had our first cars. Before our first accidents...

--

-Mike-

"Hank Gillette" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

It just occurred to me that the replacement parts for the Sawstop could
be a
profit center for saw manufacturers. Especially if it falses
occasionally.
Probably be able to make as much margin on those as on a blade.

Wonder if he tried to sell it that way? The razor and blades approach.
Give away the sawstop and figure enough people are hamfingered enough to
make up the cost in consumables?

I may be overly suspicious, but I think the saw manufacturers don't want
to put it on their saws because in effect they would be admitting that
their previous saws were unsafe.


Not unsafe - dangerous. There is a big difference. Table saws have always
been acknowledged as being dangerous. I suspect it's more of a combination
of a few things. 1) Cost - always the big decider. 2) They may like the
idea but are now working on their own version so they are not subject to
redesign just to accommodate a proprietary solution. 3) They may be
resisting yet another government forced solution to a problem that is
sensationalized by an individual who is trumpeting it for his own personal
gain.
--

-Mike-

In news:J typed:
snip nonsense
Would you be willing to
wait for either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center,
fixed and returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for
someone to come out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new blade)?.

Replacing the cartridge is as easy as changing the blade. I don't know
where you get that it has to be shipped here and there and everywhere...

Or would you rather wrap your knuckle in a starbucks napkin and run a few
layers of masking tape over it and get on with your work?

Average reaction time when feeding your hand into a saw blade is 2.5
fingers. At that point you might as well throw them into the garbage.

Sure it is an interesting idea, but it doesn't have practicallity on it's
side. Saw manufacturers want to sell saws. They do not want to have to
deal with servicing saws. Saw buyers want to use saws. They do not want
to wait for service which they can not perform themselves.

-j
Again, where do you get this idea from? Have you been to their website and
read it thoroughly?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

"tzipple" wrote in message
...
Not quite true, but even if it was, so what? The "free market" would
allow or reject many things that are not in the common good. If SawStop
can make a buck by using existing government mechanism that are designed
to protect the common good, what is the harm?


Where is the "common good"? What is the "common good"?
--

-Mike-

In news:J typed:
OK, so if it is self service, customers don't want to have to have a
replacement module and extra saw blade if they don't need to. I'm not
saying sawstop is a bad thing. I'm just trying to give some reasons why
manufacturers might not want to include it.

-j

Do you just like to hear yourself talk? Why don't you do some research
before you perpetuate this crap? It is people like you that hold up the
evolutionary process.
Maybe manufacturers don't want to include it because they don't give a crap
about whether or not you keep your limbs...ever think of that?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Makinwoodchips typed:
Have you taken a look at their website? http://www.sawstop.com/

They're pushing their own line of contractor saws and cabinet saws now and
tehy've got sawstop for bandsaws. What's next? A sawstop for my tv
remote, to keep me from injuring my finger while channel surfing , maybe?

Here is text taken directly from their FAQ page;
http://www.sawstop.com/faq.htm#1

Can the SawStop system be used with other types of woodworking equipment?

The SawStop system can be used with practically any type of woodworking
equipment, such as miter saws, chop saws, radial arm saws, circular saws,
sliding table saws, jointers, band saws, shapers and the like. The
electronics, detection and firing systems are the same, with the brake
mechanism tending to vary between different types of woodworking equipment.

CSounds great to me...can't wait to order mine!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke typed:
But who said that the cartridge has to be universal? Could be like
batteries for cordless tools. And there's a much better case for it being
that way than there is with cordless tools.

Frank

More unresearched supposition...
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In article ,
"Vic Baron" wrote:

I may have some of the facts screwed up a bit but the gist of it is the
same. All in all, it is NOT a product I'd have any interest in. I'm 67 years
old and have been making noise and sawdust for over 40 years - still have
all ten complete digits.

I've been driving for nearly 40 years and have never been in an accident
where having a seat belt saved my life. Yet, I'm still glad that my car
has them.

--
Hank Gillette

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "ted harris"
wrote:
In newsoug Miller typed:
In article , "ted harris"
wrote:

Sounds great to me...can't wait to order mine!

You can *order* one any time you like, no waiting.

It's actually *getting* one that you have to wait for.

No, they are being delivered as we speak!!

Are they really? Or is that more of their hype?


C'mon Doug - didn't Steve Gass say he has two of them in the field... even
as we speak?
--

-Mike-

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

What "false dilemma"? If one has a saw equipped with a Sawstop, then
the
choice is to replace the cartridge for 100 bucks, replace the saw for
whatever is the price of a new saw, defeat the absent cartridge, or
don't
saw. I don't see another option.


That is the point he is making.

What is the point?

The false dillema is what you are not understanding. That's OK, not
everyone does.


You'd happily pay $100 or more if it save
your finger from being amputated. Yes, you'd be very PO'd on a false
reaction, but I'd put $1000 in the till if it saves a finger.

Don't presume to tell me what I would do, sir.

I apologize. It was very presumptuous of me to assume that everyone would
be willing to pay $100 to avoid having a finger cut off. I guess there are
exceptions. My fingers are worth that much to me, but your are worth how
much?

"ted harris" wrote in message
...
In newsoug Miller typed:
In article , "ted harris"
wrote:

Sounds great to me...can't wait to order mine!

You can *order* one any time you like, no waiting.

It's actually *getting* one that you have to wait for.

No, they are being delivered as we speak!!

If they are Ted, there's no such indication on the web site. Everything on
the web site is pre-order only.
--

-Mike-

In news:Scott Lurndal typed:
Do you just like to hear yourself talk? It's the bottom line that
drives the feature set of any product, including a tablesaw (and the
bottom line is a calculation consisting of "what a customer will pay
for a given set of features" minus "what it costs to produce
a given set of features").

If Saw-stop can't create a market for their product, then it should
be appropriately relegated to a niche - and if they can't survive
in that niche, c'est la vie. They certainly should _not_ rely on
OSHA or any federal or state regulation to create their market for them.

scott

They are not relying on OSHA! No one is regualting anything to create their
market. They are financing it themselves.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In newsoug Miller typed:
In article , "ted harris"
wrote:

Sounds great to me...can't wait to order mine!

You can *order* one any time you like, no waiting.

It's actually *getting* one that you have to wait for.

No, they are being delivered as we speak!!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message

What "false dilemma"? If one has a saw equipped with a Sawstop, then
the
choice is to replace the cartridge for 100 bucks, replace the saw for
whatever is the price of a new saw, defeat the absent cartridge, or
don't
saw. I don't see another option.


That is the point he is making.

What is the point?

The false dillema is what you are not understanding. That's OK, not
everyone does.

There is no "false dilemma". If your saw doesn't work then you have to do
something about it and the only real solution that does not involve fixing
the saw is to get a new saw.

You can play word games about "false dilemmas" until Hell freezes over and
it won't alter the fact.

You'd happily pay $100 or more if it save
your finger from being amputated. Yes, you'd be very PO'd on a false
reaction, but I'd put $1000 in the till if it saves a finger.

Don't presume to tell me what I would do, sir.

I apologize. It was very presumptuous of me to assume that everyone would
be willing to pay $100 to avoid having a finger cut off. I guess there
are
exceptions. My fingers are worth that much to me, but your are worth how
much?

You assume that the alternatives are to pay $100 or to get a finger cut off.
Talk about "false dilemmas".

--
--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. Clarke typed:
ted harris wrote:
Geez, where have _you_ been for the past several years? The attempts of
the patentholder to persuade the government to require the use of this
device are well documented and have been discussed here many times.

Wasn't that over "the last several years" as you yourself stated?
Once again, the skeptics are referring to the past...not the present!

You mean he has stopped doing that? And your source for this information
is?

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

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:16:20 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

If Saw-stop can't create a market for their product, then it should
be appropriately relegated to a niche - and if they can't survive
in that niche, c'est la vie. They certainly should _not_ rely on
OSHA or any federal or state regulation to create their market for them.


I think that the best thing for Sawstop could be the insurance
companies. If my agent tells me my workman's comp will be 20% or 30%
lower with Sawstop, I'd certainly take a look at it. Otherwise I'm
not too interested.

Mike

In newsoug Miller typed:
SawStop has petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make
their
proprietary technology *mandatory*. How they finance it is irrelevant. The
problem many of us have with their behavior is that having first failed
in the
marketplace, they are now attempting to use the government to force the
adoption of a product that the free market decided it didn't want.

Right, and the petition was rejected. Now they are manufacturing their own
line of tooling with sawstop. Besides, the free market never decided they
did not want it, it was once again the manufacturers lack of concern for the
safety of the consumer that decided they did not want it. How is that a
failure?
We' shall see if the free market wants it or not.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

Mike Marlow responds:

"tzipple" wrote in message
...
Not quite true, but even if it was, so what? The "free market" would
allow or reject many things that are not in the common good. If SawStop
can make a buck by using existing government mechanism that are designed
to protect the common good, what is the harm?


Where is the "common good"? What is the "common good"?

Good question with the current hullabaloo about medicinal marijuana.

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

In news:J typed:
"ted harris" wrote in message
...
In news:J typed:
snip nonsense
Would you be willing to
wait for either the saw to be shipped to an authorized service center,
fixed and returned (and you still have to buy a new blade) or wait for
someone to come out and fix it (and you still have to buy a new
blade)?.

Replacing the cartridge is as easy as changing the blade. I don't know
where you get that it has to be shipped here and there and everywhere...

If you are here, and the replacement cartridge is there, then how does the
replacement cartridge get to you? Can it walk? Do they have an alternate
method which doesn't involve shipping? It is basic engineering that the
more complex the system, the more opportunities there are for failure.
I'm not making that up.

Don't try and backpedal to try and make us believe that you did not say that
the saw had to be shipped here or there...? I mean, if you know that there
is a possiblity that the sawstop device is going to be activated and you
don't stock an extra cartridge and blade? Well then, maybe you shouldn't be
allowed to operate ANY power tool?

Average reaction time when feeding your hand into a saw blade is 2.5
fingers. At that point you might as well throw them into the garbage.

Is it really? Can you show me where you got this data from, or are you
just making things up?

Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that
"People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before they can
flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than SawStop, so
even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be far less significant
with SawStop than without it."
I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any
statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc.

Again, where do you get this idea from? Have you been to their website
and read it thoroughly?

Yes. Perhaps you can show me where it says that the device is
user-serviceable. Just because it is in a cartridge does not mean that it
is user-serviceable. Their site has a fair amount of speculation to it.
It has been that way for a long time. This makes me think that they are
not progressing well. Since you are so familiar with it, please point out
the part where it says they are user serviceable.
u
-j

You could email them at , instead of speculating here
on the internet, and perpetuating yet another "urban legend" and find out,
but I suspect that you have no interest in the truth anyway. Steve Gass has
stated that it only takes a "few seconds" to change the cartridge when
switching between a regular blade and a dado blade." I don't see why it
would take much longer to change the cartridge when it misfires.
My suspicion is that you don't have the balls to man up and do some research
like Steve Gass has, so just keep putting YOUR spin on this issue, instead
of getting the facts.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 21:06:06 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

If Delta put the Sawstop on the Unisaw at no change in price, would the
presence of the Sawstop dissuade you from buying it?

Delta also puts a splitter on that saw and that didn't stop me from
buying it either. Of course I haven't seen the splitter since the day
I bought the saw.
To answer your question, no. I'm pretty sure though that Sawstop has
some interest in being paid or they would have sent us all one by now.
Most of us could come up with an overpriced product that nobody wants.
Not many of us could sell it and so far, neither can Sawstop.


Mike

In news:J typed:
You are so passionate and your argument is so well reasoned that I'm going
to give it a second look. Do they have one for hammers?

-j

As opposed to your argument that is based on supposition and falsehoods?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:J. Clarke typed:
ted harris wrote:
Geez, where have _you_ been for the past several years? The attempts of
the patentholder to persuade the government to require the use of this
device are well documented and have been discussed here many times.

Wasn't that over "the last several years" as you yourself stated?
Once again, the skeptics are referring to the past...not the present!
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

If the choice was that or 1600 bucks for a new saw, then the answer
is
obvious.

Why would that be the only choice? Do you buy a new saw when you have
an accident on it?

If the accident does $100 worth of damage to the saw then the choice is
to
pay the $100 to fix it or to get a new saw. Same situation.

??? really?

Yes, really. The sawstop fires, you now have a saw that won't run until
you
fix it, same as if anything else went wrong with it.

I thought you said the choice was to buy a new saw for $1600? That is why I
said really.
Which one is it?

An equally valid choice would be pay $100 or have a peanut butter and
jelly sandwich rammed down your throat by a purple titanium robot
while
you are sleeping.

How is that an "equally valid choice"? It makes absolutely no sense as
an analogy.

Hey! That is what I was trying to say!

What is what you were trying to say?

I hate false dilemmas.

What "false dilemma"? If one has a saw equipped with a Sawstop, then
the
choice is to replace the cartridge for 100 bucks, replace the saw for
whatever is the price of a new saw, defeat the absent cartridge, or
don't
saw. I don't see another option.

Now you offer 4 choices. You understand that this proves that the first
post with only two choices was a false dilemma, don't you?

I understand that you seem more interested in the cleverness of your own
argument than in any kind of discourse.

Life's too short.

You started it.

-j

I keep reading that from people, but how many times have you heard anyone
say that they drive more recklessly because they have an airbag in their
car? Or even really had reason to believe they do? It isn't human nature
to behave that way. Whenever I heard that argument the first thought that
comes to my mind is that it's a hollow argument from someone who simply
does
not like an idea, but has not real argument against it. Sort of a red
herring. People have a natural tendency to avoid things that will hurt
them
whether safety devices are in place or not. The problem comes in if they
don't know about the things that can hurt them or if for some reason they
believe themselves to be immune to the potential for injury. You know -
like we all were when we had our first cars. Before our first
accidents...

-Mike-


I don't think that safety devices do this, but "performance accessories"
like a new set of big fat tires or a huge wing on the back DO encourage
reckless driving. As long as tablesaws don't have spoilers or big fart pipes
on the back I think we are all responsible enough not to work dangerously.

-j

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

If there were 300,000 saws that required re-activation and new blades
every year (and you are talking US only) at a cost of several hundred
dollars each, you would see the price of pre-sawstop saws go through
the roof.

You would also likely see a class action suit from users of expensive
sawblades for damage due to false positives.

If in fact the blade is damaged. Does the current version of the
Sawstop
damage the blade?

When I looked at it the answer was yes.

Is that still the case?

I did my research. Your turn.


If you blow a fuse, you do not have a breaker to flip.

Right. This is why I replaced my fused electrical service with a set of
circuit breakers. I still have a box of fuses. If you want them let me know.

You have to unscrew
or unplug the old fuse and put a new one in. If you don't have a
replacement fuse you have to go get one. If this happens on your car at
midnight in a blizzard on a rareley travelled road, then you're screwed.

Actually, since fuses are a dime a piece and there are always some extras
included in the fuse compartment this isn't much of an issue unless you
forget to replace them a number of times. And in the situation where you
really truly don't have a fuse you just take one from something that you
don't need. Power windows for example. I have done this on more than one
occasion. On another occasion I blew a big starter fuse which was unusual
enough that I didn't have a spare and that most auto parts stores don't
carry. I fashioned one out of some wire I had in the trunk.

In none of these cases was I carrying around a spare part which cost a
substantial fraction of the car's original cost.

Sure it is an interesting idea, but it doesn't have practicallity on
it's
side. Saw manufacturers want to sell saws. They do not want to have
to
deal with servicing saws. Saw buyers want to use saws. They do not
want
to
wait for service which they can not perform themselves.

So they put the in themselves. Nobody has said anything about "waiting
for
service".

You disagree with me. That is OK. I'm just glad I don't HAVE to buy one
if
I don't want one.

I don't particularly like the product or the company and probably would
not
make it a consideration in purchasing a saw. I was merely speculating on
a
way that the company might persuade saw manufacturers to use their
product.

But your objections for the most part do not appear to be valid.

Then why didn't the saw makers buy into this device? Why didn't the CPSC
approve their petition? Why aren't people lining up to buy this saw?

Can it all just be conspiracy? Go ask Occam.

-j

"tzipple" wrote in message
...
People had the same worries about airbags in cars. False discharges,
failure to discharge, injuries from discharges... all happened
sometimes. But the odds were (and still are) that they save enough in
injuries to be worthwhile. The big problem for manufacturers is that you
can not retrofit these easily on existing designs. There is a big cost
to redesign to accommodate SawStop.

That being said, if the technology works and is, when in wide use, under
$150 in extra cost, it will be on the large majority of saws within 10
years. The case for reducing the risk of disfiguring, disabling,
painful, expensive injuries would be too compelling for manufacturers or
the feds to ignore.

No doubt. But it appears that they are having trouble that this is the case.

-j

Don't try and backpedal to try and make us believe that you did not say
that
the saw had to be shipped here or there...? I mean, if you know that
there
is a possiblity that the sawstop device is going to be activated and you
don't stock an extra cartridge and blade? Well then, maybe you shouldn't
be
allowed to operate ANY power tool?

So really the cost of this device is twice what it appears?
Regulation about who can use tools based on how well supplied with spares
they are... What a concept. This will reduce the number of contractors in
business by an order of magnitude. On the positive side, no excuse to head
off to the store and then out for a cup of coffee.


Average reaction time when feeding your hand into a saw blade is 2.5
fingers. At that point you might as well throw them into the garbage.

Is it really? Can you show me where you got this data from, or are you
just making things up?

Actually, Steve Gass of sawstop stated in a post on Sawmill Creek that
"People regularly push three fingers right through the blade before they
can
flinch. Human reaction time is about 25-50 times slower than SawStop, so
even if you are going fast, the accident will likely be far less
significant
with SawStop than without it."
I am quite sure that if you email him, he will be glad to support any
statement he has made with research, links, proof, etc.

So you base your statement on hearsay from someone who has a substantial
vested interest in the topic? I'm still trying to figure out how the math
works out from what he said to "2.5 fingers". Word problems... what can you
do!

Again, where do you get this idea from? Have you been to their website
and read it thoroughly?

Yes. Perhaps you can show me where it says that the device is
user-serviceable. Just because it is in a cartridge does not mean that
it
is user-serviceable. Their site has a fair amount of speculation to it.
It has been that way for a long time. This makes me think that they are
not progressing well. Since you are so familiar with it, please point
out
the part where it says they are user serviceable.
u
-j

You could email them at , instead of speculating
here
on the internet, and perpetuating yet another "urban legend" and find out,

No, you claimed it is user serviceable. Perhaps you can stop speculating and
find out.

My suspicion is that you don't have the balls to man up and do some
research
like Steve Gass has, so just keep putting YOUR spin on this issue, instead
of getting the facts.

I'm not interested in the facts. If I was I wouldn't be wasting my time
debating you.

-j

As opposed to your argument that is based on supposition and falsehoods?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

Perhaps you can point out where my argument is false. Be prepared to supply
facts.

-j

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

I don't think that safety devices do this, but "performance accessories"
like a new set of big fat tires or a huge wing on the back DO encourage
reckless driving. As long as tablesaws don't have spoilers or big fart
pipes on the back I think we are all responsible enough not to work
dangerously.

-j

So that explains the 3,000 amputations every year caused by contact with
the
rotating cutter, huh?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

Yep! Blame that tool time guy.

-j

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 03:23:41 GMT, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "ted harris"
wrote:
In newsoug Miller typed:
In article , "ted harris"
wrote:

Sounds great to me...can't wait to order mine!

You can *order* one any time you like, no waiting.

It's actually *getting* one that you have to wait for.

No, they are being delivered as we speak!!

Are they really? Or is that more of their hype?


C'mon Doug - didn't Steve Gass say he has two of them in the field... even
as we speak?

Meaning what, precisely? That he has two hand-built prototypes out for
testing?

He did not say they were in production. He did not say they were
shipping. He did not say they were in inventory.

This is the kind of statement you need to be very suspicious of. It
sounds like more than it's actually saying.

--RC

Projects expand to fill the clamps available -- plus 20 percent

In news:J typed:

I don't think that safety devices do this, but "performance accessories"
like a new set of big fat tires or a huge wing on the back DO encourage
reckless driving. As long as tablesaws don't have spoilers or big fart
pipes on the back I think we are all responsible enough not to work
dangerously.

-j

So that explains the 3,000 amputations every year caused by contact with the
rotating cutter, huh?
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

In news:Charlie Self otforme typed:
LOL. With the table saw, the unit drops back into the saw's underside, a
particular emphasis and part of the sales pitch. I kind of wonder how
that's going to work with radial arm saws, miter saws, et al. Obviously,
the brake mechanism can be easily varied. But dropping the unit below the
table top? Man, that variation is NOT going to be easy with a radial arm
saw!

Charlie Self

Looks to me like on units where the blade cannot be retracted, such as a
bandsaw
the brake is the only option, such as a bandsaw.
--
Ted Harris
http://www.tedharris.com

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
:
: I keep reading that from people, but how many times have you heard anyone
: say that they drive more recklessly because they have an airbag in their
: car? Or even really had reason to believe they do? It isn't human nature
: to behave that way.

I've seen too many examples of people becoming complacent with their
'equipment' to buy your argument. Perhaps most people won't drive more
recklessly with an airbag but many do with four wheel drive and/or anti-lock
brakes. There will always be a portion of the public that puts too much
faith in safety equipment... I like to think of it as population control.

-Brian

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

I don't think that safety devices do this, but "performance accessories"
like a new set of big fat tires or a huge wing on the back DO encourage
reckless driving. As long as tablesaws don't have spoilers or big fart
pipes on the back I think we are all responsible enough not to work
dangerously.

-j

So that explains the 3,000 amputations every year caused by contact with the
rotating cutter, huh?

Well, clearly some three kilopeople annually are in fact not responsible
enough not to work dangerously. It's somewhat less clear that any
government-mandated safety device is a better means of preserving their digits
than simple responsible safety practices.

--
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 , tzipple wrote:
Not quite true, but even if it was, so what? The "free market" would
allow or reject many things that are not in the common good. If SawStop
can make a buck by using existing government mechanism that are designed
to protect the common good, what is the harm?

"Not quite true" eh? What part, exactly?

What is the harm, you ask? If you don't see the harm in using the power of the
government to force people to buy a product that they don't want, I suppose
there isn't much basis for a continued discussion.



SawStop has petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to make their
proprietary technology *mandatory*. How they finance it is irrelevant. The
problem many of us have with their behavior is that having first failed in
the
marketplace, they are now attempting to use the government to force the
adoption of a product that the free market decided it didn't want.

--
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.



--
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 , "Mike Marlow" wrote:

C'mon Doug - didn't Steve Gass say he has two of them in the field... even
as we speak?

I'm really not interested in what Steve Gass claims, as he's hardly an
unbiased source. I'd put much more stock in a statement by someone not
affiliated with SawStop, who says that he actually has one in his shop.

I haven't seen that yet.

--
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.