Sawstop

On 4/24/2014 2:43 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 2:06 PM, Leon wrote:
>
>> A key fob that only has to be in your pocket or purse. Typically they
>> work just like keyless entry, the interior lights up when you get near
>> the vehicle and the door unlocks when you touch the door handle, you
>> relock by touching another unique spot on the handle, get in and push a
>> button to start the engine. None of this works with out the key fob
>> being very close by.
>
> Not just any pocket. I have found that it will not work if you come home
> from work and change into shorts, leaving the fob in your other pants in
> the bedroom. I've done extensive research on that.
>
That has not happened to me yet. What about your purses? ;~)

On 4/24/2014 3:35 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 16:29:12 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> Numbers of idiots do not make good reason for stupid laws. Those same
>> idiots will always be idiots.
>
> Mike, there isn't a person *anywhere* that can say they haven't done
> something really dumb or stupid.
>

LOL. This newsgroup is loaded with them! Perhaps there is not a person
anywhere that has not done something really dumb or stupid.

On 4/24/2014 2:26 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 1:54 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 4/24/2014 12:42 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>> On 04/24/2014 10:28 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2014 12:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 4/24/2014 11:20 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it
>>>>>> looks
>>>>>> like a other expense down the road.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
>>>>>> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meh ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm neutral on them. I had tires replaced and they left the stems in
>>>>> place. Would have been about $12 to $15 each if they had to be
>>>>> replaced. The first really cold ay the light lit and I had to bump
>>>>> the
>>>>> pressure a little and it was OK since. Another cold day it went off,
>>>>> but this time it was because I picked up a nail in the tire.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From what I understand, nitrogen filled tires will be less susceptible
>>>> to pressure changes caused by temperature changes.
>>>
>>> Here's an interesting article:
>>>
>>> <http://www.edmunds.com/car-care/should-you-fill-your-cars-tires-with-nitrogen.html>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> It is not the answer to everything. My biggest association is the upper
>> end dealers include the nitrogen on all of the cars, so while not
>> charging extra for it on the sticker it is affecting the price in some
>> fashion and or being the little extra feature that another dealer offers.
>>
>> Every dealer that I have visited, with this feature, have stated that if
>> you have to add air bring the vehicle back in and they will deflate and
>> re-inflate with nitrogen at no charge. It is a perk that they build
>> into the price of the car like free oil changes for life, free loaner
>> cars, transportation to and from the dealer when your vehicle is in the
>> service department etc.
>>
>> I certainly would not pay extra unless I was having issues with
>> inflation pressures. I would certainly not expect any monetary return
>> on my investment other than inconvenience.
> I have a problem with the dealer servicing my car. They constantly
> deflate the tire pressure to 28lbs.. I boost it back up . Don't know why
> they think I want a soft ride.
>
> I now boost my tires to 40lbs , used to be 32 but after talking with you
> guys, I now do 40 and love the feel.
>

Just keep an eye on your tread wear. If it starts wearing slightly more
in the middle you may want to back off a few pounds.

On 4/24/2014 9:15 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 4/24/2014 8:42 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Having said all of that, all new cars sold in the US in 2018 will
>>>> all have back up cameras. I wonder who is to be blamed for that?
>>>
>>> The same soccer-mom thinking idiots that brought us mandatory TPMS.
>>>
>> TPMS?
>
> Tire Pressure Monitoring System. That beauty adds $200 to the cost of new
> tires since valves are typically replaced with tires, and TMPS valves
> average around $50 each on the aftermarket. In some cases, significantly
> more - and in some cases replacement valves have to be matched to the car's
> computer by the dealer.
>
> All of this so an idiot light can light up on your dash if your tire
> pressure drops.
>


Since the first vehicle for me that had this was my Tundra, I
immediately wondered about the replacement of valve stems, having been
in the tire business, managed my own store at 21.
I'm not sure about all but the stems on both of our vehicles are all
metal on the outside. Typically a stem is replaced when it is all
rubber on the outside because of deterioration of the rubber. It is a
good chance it could break off before the second set of tires has been
worn out. Steel stems OTOH don't break off. They can leak but the real
danger is with the rubber stems.

Anyway none of the stems on my Tundra were replaced when I put new tires on.

My concern however is how long that battery is going to last. I can
easily see a $30+ bill to have one replaced.

The idiot light is a PIA, the one on our Camry not so much as it does
give pressure readings on each tire so you at least know if the tire is
dangerously low or not. Now if only it could tell you which tire was 5
lbs low. ;~)

On 4/24/2014 9:32 AM, Leon wrote:

>
> The idiot light is a PIA, the one on our Camry not so much as it does
> give pressure readings on each tire so you at least know if the tire is
> dangerously low or not. Now if only it could tell you which tire was 5
> lbs low. ;~)

Never had a vehicle with this much high tech until the 2013 RAM, which
has a screen that shows the TP of each individual tire (except the spare).


NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it looks
like a other expense down the road.

Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.

Meh ...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
> Markem wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:42:31 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> http://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/01/why-i-bought-a-sawstop-table-saw/
>> Wonder where his is going to sell that Unisaw?
>
> It doesn't say that he is "a paid endorser", but I suspect it should.
> Does anyone believe that he is not getting paid? I wouldn't be the least
> bit surprised if he got a free saw (not that I begrudge him that).

Did you not read in the article where he stated clearly that he paid full
retail price and received nothing from Sawstop?

--
www.ewoodshop.com (Mobile)

On 4/24/2014 12:09 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/23/2014 10:36 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Markem wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:42:31 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/01/why-i-bought-a-sawstop-table-saw/
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Wonder where his is going to sell that Unisaw?
>>
>> It doesn't say that he is "a paid endorser", but I suspect it should.
>> Does anyone believe that he is not getting paid? I wouldn't be the
>> least bit surprised if he got a free saw (not that I begrudge him that).
>
> I can believe it. My voice is on a radio commercial for a local
> supermarket with my "endorsement" of why I shop there. My only
> compensation was a thank you by the guy making the recording outside the
> store.

Aw, come on now. You are now a local celebrity, that has to be worth
something in notoriety. LOL

FWIW these free endorsements of a product do help to keep the product
cost down and being non paid for they hold a bit more weight with me.

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Just such a shame that we have to put all this technology into a car and
> overcomplicate/over expense things, simply to make life easier for stupid
> people. I mean really - how hard has it ever been to look at a tire to
> see if it needs a little checking? How hard is it to back up without
> turning your head, or looking in three different mirrors? Next will come
> an alarm for the idiots that aren't looking at the camera display in the
> dash and are about to back over something.
>
I can think of one "idiot alarm" I would like to see. And it would not be
that expensive either.

Problem; You are in a parking lot. You look both ways before backing up.
You begin to back up. some idiot RUNS across the back of the car. Often
running from one blind spot to another.

My present solution. Look both ways twice. Back up very slowly. Just
operate like there are suicidal people in the parking lot who want to die
and get me into trouble.

Ideal Solution: Just run the bastards over, repeatedly. However the law
would take a dim view of such remedies. Although Darwin would approve, many
others would not.

Idiot Alarm Solution: A small radar device would be activated when backing
up. If somebody were to step in front of a backwards moving vehicle, a
sharp, piercing alarm would go off. Ideally loud enough to cause severe
pain and discomfort.

Another feature that I would approve of would be to spray the offender with
some kind of dye that does not wash out for a few days. It would be the
designated "idiot Color" That way every body would know they were idiots
and were caught and sprayed by the idiot alarm.

Oh, well....., I can dream can't I?

On 04/24/2014 10:28 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 12:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 4/24/2014 11:20 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it looks
>>> like a other expense down the road.
>>>
>>> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
>>> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>>>
>>> Meh ...
>>>
>>
>> I'm neutral on them. I had tires replaced and they left the stems in
>> place. Would have been about $12 to $15 each if they had to be
>> replaced. The first really cold ay the light lit and I had to bump the
>> pressure a little and it was OK since. Another cold day it went off,
>> but this time it was because I picked up a nail in the tire.
>
>
> From what I understand, nitrogen filled tires will be less susceptible
> to pressure changes caused by temperature changes.

Here's an interesting article:

<http://www.edmunds.com/car-care/should-you-fill-your-cars-tires-with-nitrogen.html>


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

Leon wrote:

> I agree, more so from the convenience aspect. And as I previously
> mentioned, keyless ignition and entry. You really don't realize how
> nice that is until you walk up to your other vehicle to unlock the
> doors or trunk with out keyless and dig around in your pocket for
> the keys in the rain.
-----------------------------------------------
Rain?

You drive in the rain?

Lew

woodchucker wrote:

> Mike, what if this were not pushed by soccer moms, but by tire
> manufacturers to cover their asses.
>
> The firestone tires on the explorers that were failing...
> I wonder if these are tied into the computer to show you have not
> been
> taking care of your tires...
------------------------------------------------------
Solved the Firestone problem back in the 70's.

Simply refused to accept delivery of a new company car if it had
Firestone tires on it.

Basically, everybody in the district did the same thing.

Can't comment on Bridgestone.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:

>> Solved the Firestone problem back in the 70's.
>>
>> Simply refused to accept delivery of a new company car if it had
>> Firestone tires on it.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:

> So you were not a Ford man?
------------------------------------------
Actually usually drove Fords, just not with Firestone installed.

FoMoCo was a major account.


Lew

On 04/24/2014 06:31 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 4/24/2014 4:29 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> There should not be the need for a law. Anyone driving a car with a
>> camera knows the value of them and will pay the cost.
>
> As I believe it should be.
>
>>
>> Have you driven a car with one? Have you backed out of your garage or
>> driveway when kids and dogs were around? I've been driving many
>> miles a year for 53 years and now that I have the camera and use it
>> daily, I won't buy a car without. It really is a great device.
>
> I probably should have said earlier, that despite my own thoughts on the
> camera, I do respect people like yourself and Karl who have voiced their
> support for them. I don't want the harshness of things I've said to imply
> anything different. I believe if you find them valuable, then it's a great
> thing that the technology is there for you to take advantage of. My
> objection is to options like this becoming mandated by law.
>
> I have not driven a car with a backup camera yet, though I've riden in them,
> so I'm familiar with the technology. Certainly I have backed out of my
> garage, parking spots at church and at stores, etc. where kids were all
> around. Yes - I'm cautious and perhaps even a bit paranoid backing in those
> situations. I'm one of those who backs out very slowly, constantly scanning
> across all three mirrors while I do so. Not just for kids - for other cars
> in parking lots for example, that the drivers think they're driving down a
> road instead of in a parking lot.
>
> So - I might find the technology to be something I would call useful - I
> just don't like stuff like this being legislated. What I have seen of it so
> far though doesn't impress me that much. It doesn't seem to take much to
> obscure the camera and create uninteligible images. I am also concerned for
> a false sense of security that technology like this can create - and then
> people begin to drop longstanding safe practices such as actually looking.
>

Hey, we have a ton of folks who VOTE before looking! Seems to me to be
a much more dangerous situation.


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

"Doug Winterburn" wrote:

> Hey, we have a ton of folks who VOTE before looking! Seems to me to
> be a much more dangerous situation.
-----------------------------------------------------
And fortunately their candidate lost the last presidential election.

Lew

On 4/23/2014 10:36 PM, Bill wrote:
> Markem wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:42:31 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> http://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/01/why-i-bought-a-sawstop-table-saw/
>>>
>> Wonder where his is going to sell that Unisaw?
>
> It doesn't say that he is "a paid endorser", but I suspect it should.
> Does anyone believe that he is not getting paid? I wouldn't be the
> least bit surprised if he got a free saw (not that I begrudge him that).

He specifically says he is not.
So I believe that. Says he paid full, tax, and shipping.



--
Jeff

On 4/24/2014 11:09 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/24/2014 9:32 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The idiot light is a PIA, the one on our Camry not so much as it does
>>> give pressure readings on each tire so you at least know if the tire
>>> is dangerously low or not. Now if only it could tell you which tire
>>> was 5 lbs low. ;~)
>>
>> Never had a vehicle with this much high tech until the 2013 RAM, which
>> has a screen that shows the TP of each individual tire (except the
>> spare).
>>
>> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it
>> looks like a other expense down the road.
>>
>> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
>> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>>
>> Meh ...
>
> Just such a shame that we have to put all this technology into a car and
> overcomplicate/over expense things, simply to make life easier for stupid
> people. I mean really - how hard has it ever been to look at a tire to see
> if it needs a little checking? How hard is it to back up without turning
> your head, or looking in three different mirrors? Next will come an alarm
> for the idiots that aren't looking at the camera display in the dash and are
> about to back over something.
>
> Talk about fixing problems that don't really exist...
>
> Ok - rant off...
>


I will say that I probably will never buy another vehicle with out the
back up camera. It makes placing the vehicle at just the right depth
anywhere in the garage very simple and works well when backing out of a
parking space between to panel vans. The one on my wife's car has a
pretty wide field of vision. I absolutely still use mirrors but the
camera is great for the above mentioned and for seeing the areas that
you simply can't see with the mirrors and or getting out of the vehicle
to visually inspect. A 30" tall concrete column that originally had,
but no longer has, a light pole on it comes to mind.

But I feel that all of this stuff should be an option and not required.

And while on this soap box LOL,,, the keyless ignition and entry option
is pretty darn slick. Remember the days when you could remove the dash
mounted ignition key at the off position before it reached the lock
position. You could start the vehicle with out a key and who locked
their cars back then?

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:33:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>I agree, more so from the convenience aspect. And as I previously
>mentioned, keyless ignition and entry. You really don't realize how
>nice that is until you walk up to your other vehicle to unlock the doors
>or trunk with out keyless and dig around in your pocket for the keys in
>the rain.

Since it's been awhile since I owned a car, I have to ask. What's the
safety method to keep those keyless cars from being stolen?

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 16:29:12 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>Numbers of idiots do not make good reason for stupid laws. Those same
>idiots will always be idiots.

Mike, there isn't a person *anywhere* that can say they haven't done
something really dumb or stupid.

On 4/24/2014 1:22 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 4/24/2014 1:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2014 9:27 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Having said all of that, all new cars sold in the US in 2018 will
>>>>> all have back up cameras. I wonder who is to be blamed for that?
>>>>
>>>> I'll take a portion of the blame. In a few forums, I've stated I
>>>> will not buy a new car unless it has a camera. I've had one for
>>>> about 18 months and I'd give up seatbelts or airbags before I'd
>>>> give up the camera. IMO, it is one of the best safety devices ever
>>>> in automobiles.
>>>> Perhaps my voice has been heard and it pushed along some congress
>>>> critter to pass a law for them.
>>>
>>> Well - we are all entitled to our own opinions, but I don't feel
>>> that your inability to look and to back out of a parking space, or
>>> to back into a parking space should dictate what everyone else
>>> should pay for. Learn to drive and you won't have to feel so
>>> compelled to dictate the actions of others.
>>>
>>
>> Don'cha wish new cars came with out paint too? ;~)
>
> Well hell yeah! Think of the money I could make satisfying people's
> desires!
>

I figgered you would appreciate more opportunity to paint. LOL

On 4/24/2014 1:28 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 12:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 4/24/2014 11:20 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it looks
>>> like a other expense down the road.
>>>
>>> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
>>> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>>>
>>> Meh ...
>>>
>>
>> I'm neutral on them. I had tires replaced and they left the stems in
>> place. Would have been about $12 to $15 each if they had to be
>> replaced. The first really cold ay the light lit and I had to bump the
>> pressure a little and it was OK since. Another cold day it went off,
>> but this time it was because I picked up a nail in the tire.
>
>
> From what I understand, nitrogen filled tires will be less susceptible
> to pressure changes caused by temperature changes.

Nitrogen is a waste of money. I avoid that BS. I read articles
supporting my belief. Yes it works on airplanes / jets that go to
altitude and probably race cars too, but for the average driver it's a
waste.

--
Jeff

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:42:31 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>http://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/01/why-i-bought-a-sawstop-table-saw/

I really appreciate this.

It is going to be worth a lot when the wife says, "You want to spend
how much for that saw?"

Now all I need is something similar so she will encourage me to
purchase an American Beauty lathe.

Jim

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:42:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 04/24/2014 10:28 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 4/24/2014 12:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2014 11:20 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it looks
>>>> like a other expense down the road.
>>>>
>>>> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
>>>> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>>>>
>>>> Meh ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm neutral on them. I had tires replaced and they left the stems in
>>> place. Would have been about $12 to $15 each if they had to be
>>> replaced. The first really cold ay the light lit and I had to bump the
>>> pressure a little and it was OK since. Another cold day it went off,
>>> but this time it was because I picked up a nail in the tire.
>>
>>
>> From what I understand, nitrogen filled tires will be less susceptible
>> to pressure changes caused by temperature changes.
>
>Here's an interesting article:
>
><http://www.edmunds.com/car-care/should-you-fill-your-cars-tires-with-nitrogen.html>

Recently had tires replaced, the dealer used nitrogen to fill the tire
at no charge. I know that the use of dry nitrogen has been a Nascar
staple for years, but it is to remove the variable of moisture. They
need it we do not.

Mark

On 4/24/2014 12:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/24/2014 9:32 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The idiot light is a PIA, the one on our Camry not so much as it does
>>> give pressure readings on each tire so you at least know if the tire
>>> is dangerously low or not. Now if only it could tell you which tire
>>> was 5 lbs low. ;~)
>>
>> Never had a vehicle with this much high tech until the 2013 RAM, which
>> has a screen that shows the TP of each individual tire (except the
>> spare).
>>
>> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it
>> looks like a other expense down the road.
>>
>> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
>> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>>
>> Meh ...
>
> Just such a shame that we have to put all this technology into a car and
> overcomplicate/over expense things, simply to make life easier for stupid
> people. I mean really - how hard has it ever been to look at a tire to see
> if it needs a little checking? How hard is it to back up without turning
> your head, or looking in three different mirrors? Next will come an alarm
> for the idiots that aren't looking at the camera display in the dash and are
> about to back over something.
>
> Talk about fixing problems that don't really exist...
>
> Ok - rant off...
>
Mike, what if this were not pushed by soccer moms, but by tire
manufacturers to cover their asses.

The firestone tires on the explorers that were failing...
I wonder if these are tied into the computer to show you have not been
taking care of your tires...

If you didn't maintain pressure, no warranty..

Just a thought.

--
Jeff

On 4/24/2014 8:42 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> Having said all of that, all new cars sold in the US in 2018 will all
>> have back up cameras. I wonder who is to be blamed for that?
>
> The same soccer-mom thinking idiots that brought us mandatory TPMS.
>
TPMS?

On 4/24/2014 12:12 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Just such a shame that we have to put all this technology into a car
>> and overcomplicate/over expense things, simply to make life easier for
>> stupid people. I mean really - how hard has it ever been to look at a
>> tire to see if it needs a little checking? How hard is it to back up
>> without turning your head, or looking in three different mirrors?
>> Next will come an alarm for the idiots that aren't looking at the
>> camera display in the dash and are about to back over something.
>>
> I can think of one "idiot alarm" I would like to see. And it would not
> be that expensive either.
>
> Problem; You are in a parking lot. You look both ways before backing
> up. You begin to back up. some idiot RUNS across the back of the car.
> Often running from one blind spot to another.

Most back up cameras give you a "several car in each direction" view
from a couple of inches back of your bumper.



> My present solution. Look both ways twice. Back up very slowly. Just
> operate like there are suicidal people in the parking lot who want to
> die and get me into trouble.




>
> Ideal Solution: Just run the bastards over, repeatedly. However the
> law would take a dim view of such remedies. Although Darwin would
> approve, many others would not.
>
> Idiot Alarm Solution: A small radar device would be activated when
> backing up. If somebody were to step in front of a backwards moving
> vehicle, a sharp, piercing alarm would go off. Ideally loud enough to
> cause severe pain and discomfort.


That has been around for quite a few years but not quite as well thought
out ans your example. ;~)

>
> Another feature that I would approve of would be to spray the offender
> with some kind of dye that does not wash out for a few days. It would
> be the designated "idiot Color" That way every body would know they
> were idiots and were caught and sprayed by the idiot alarm.
>
> Oh, well....., I can dream can't I?

Idiots or not, moving objects have the right of way over a vehicle
emerging from a parking spot. ;~) But I hear you, they don't have the
right to be speeding or not looking out for their own safety.

On 4/24/2014 8:31 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:27:25 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> Having said all of that, all new cars sold in the US in 2018 will all
>> have back up cameras. I wonder who is to be blamed for that?
>
> I'm just wondering in what form the first lawsuit will be about the
> use or operation of those cameras.
>


I immediately thought about that to. And in at least on the case of
many, if it is or has been raining the view is often totally distorted.

I think that back up camera and the sonar warning should be used
together to back each other up.

On 4/24/2014 1:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 4/24/2014 9:27 AM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Having said all of that, all new cars sold in the US in 2018 will all
>>> have back up cameras. I wonder who is to be blamed for that?
>>
>> I'll take a portion of the blame. In a few forums, I've stated I will
>> not buy a new car unless it has a camera. I've had one for about 18
>> months and I'd give up seatbelts or airbags before I'd give up the
>> camera. IMO, it is one of the best safety devices ever in
>> automobiles.
>> Perhaps my voice has been heard and it pushed along some congress
>> critter to pass a law for them.
>
> Well - we are all entitled to our own opinions, but I don't feel that your
> inability to look and to back out of a parking space, or to back into a
> parking space should dictate what everyone else should pay for. Learn to
> drive and you won't have to feel so compelled to dictate the actions of
> others.
>

Don'cha wish new cars came with out paint too? ;~)

On 4/24/2014 1:43 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 12:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:12:22 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>>> Idiot Alarm Solution: A small radar device would be activated when
>>> backing
>>> up. If somebody were to step in front of a backwards moving vehicle, a
>>> sharp, piercing alarm would go off. Ideally loud enough to cause severe
>>> pain and discomfort.
>>
>> Hell, don't you think it should be called Darwin's radar device? When
>> it detects someone walking behind the car, a sharp, piercing alarm
>> goes off and the driver unintentionally stomps on the gas pedal. The
>> car speeds in reverse and removes the idiot behind the car from the
>> human gene pool.
>>
>
>
> Now that is all mean! The device should detect the idiot. Then it
> triggers your deck lid to open and out pops a telescoping 4 fingered
> hand that places a Dunces hat on the offender and another telescoping
> feature with a boot to kick him across the parking lot.
>
> Add to that the optional sound effects heard on cartoons 50 years ago.
>
> The sounds from Roadrunner and Wiley Coyote come to mind.
>
> If you were in a parking lot at night you would swear you were at the
> drive in theater.
>
>
> ;~)
+1

--
Jeff

On 4/24/2014 2:10 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 12:49 PM, woodchucker wrote:
>> On 4/24/2014 12:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2014 9:32 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The idiot light is a PIA, the one on our Camry not so much as it does
>>>>> give pressure readings on each tire so you at least know if the tire
>>>>> is dangerously low or not. Now if only it could tell you which tire
>>>>> was 5 lbs low. ;~)
>>>>
>>>> Never had a vehicle with this much high tech until the 2013 RAM, which
>>>> has a screen that shows the TP of each individual tire (except the
>>>> spare).
>>>>
>>>> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it
>>>> looks like a other expense down the road.
>>>>
>>>> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
>>>> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>>>>
>>>> Meh ...
>>>
>>> Just such a shame that we have to put all this technology into a car and
>>> overcomplicate/over expense things, simply to make life easier for
>>> stupid
>>> people. I mean really - how hard has it ever been to look at a tire
>>> to see
>>> if it needs a little checking? How hard is it to back up without
>>> turning
>>> your head, or looking in three different mirrors? Next will come an
>>> alarm
>>> for the idiots that aren't looking at the camera display in the dash
>>> and are
>>> about to back over something.
>>>
>>> Talk about fixing problems that don't really exist...
>>>
>>> Ok - rant off...
>>>
>> Mike, what if this were not pushed by soccer moms, but by tire
>> manufacturers to cover their asses.
>>
>> The firestone tires on the explorers that were failing...
>> I wonder if these are tied into the computer to show you have not been
>> taking care of your tires...
>>
>> If you didn't maintain pressure, no warranty..
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
> Probably not, having been in the tire business there are obvious
> indicators that point to under inflation being the reason for premature
> failure.

Yes but now fully documented.


--
Jeff

On 4/24/2014 10:13 PM, Morgans wrote:
>
>
> "woodchucker" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> Mike, what if this were not pushed by soccer moms, but by tire
>> manufacturers to cover their asses.
>>
> Probably more by Ford to keep people from driving expeditions suv's
> around with under inflated tires, that cause them to roll over.
> Remember that?


For certain it is a government requirement now.

BUT the SUV's were rolling over because of tire failure caused by under
inflation vs simply being under inflated. IIRC this was a big problem
in the Middle East. After a day if playing around in the sand dunes
with under inflated tires the tires were failing, on the way home, from
under inflation at highway speeds.

On 4/23/2014 9:36 PM, Bill wrote:
> Markem wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:42:31 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> http://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/01/why-i-bought-a-sawstop-table-saw/
>>>
>> Wonder where his is going to sell that Unisaw?
>
> It doesn't say that he is "a paid endorser", but I suspect it should.
> Does anyone believe that he is not getting paid? I wouldn't be the
> least bit surprised if he got a free saw (not that I begrudge him that).


Actually, Sawstop saws are all sold for the same price to everyone. No
one gets a better deal than some one else. SawStop is so well known,
even to those that only know about the hot dog cutting saw, that they do
not have to give any one any breaks. There are many many more
testimonies from more credible pro's, meaning they make their living
mostly from using the product rather than writing about the product.
His single endorsement is a only one of probably thousands.
And since he is better know for his paid articles than the volume of
work produced on the saw, his endorsement probably means less to people
that believe like you.


So no, I don't believe that he is being paid either, in this case.

On 4/24/2014 9:01 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 8:42 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Having said all of that, all new cars sold in the US in 2018 will all
>>> have back up cameras. I wonder who is to be blamed for that?
>>
>> The same soccer-mom thinking idiots that brought us mandatory TPMS.
>>
> TPMS?
>

OH yeah never mind. googled it.

On 4/24/2014 9:31 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

>

>
> So - I might find the technology to be something I would call useful - I
> just don't like stuff like this being legislated. What I have seen of it so
> far though doesn't impress me that much. It doesn't seem to take much to
> obscure the camera and create uninteligible images. I am also concerned for
> a false sense of security that technology like this can create - and then
> people begin to drop longstanding safe practices such as actually looking.
>

I can only speak for my car/camera. As for the images, after driving in
snow, slush and the like, it does blur a bit, but you can still tell
something is in the field of vision. Just a rub of the finger across
the lens clears it for next time.

The side vision is limited. You still have to look to see if a car is
coming down the street you are backing into. It does not replace your
eyes, but it certainly enhances your vision directly in back of you, the
most important place if kids are in your driveway. .

On 4/24/2014 9:27 AM, Leon wrote:

>
> Having said all of that, all new cars sold in the US in 2018 will all
> have back up cameras. I wonder who is to be blamed for that?

I'll take a portion of the blame. In a few forums, I've stated I will
not buy a new car unless it has a camera. I've had one for about 18
months and I'd give up seatbelts or airbags before I'd give up the
camera. IMO, it is one of the best safety devices ever in automobiles.

Perhaps my voice has been heard and it pushed along some congress
critter to pass a law for them.

On 4/24/2014 4:01 PM, woodchucker wrote:

> I live on a country road, so I like a tire that handles the turns well.
> There are a lot of them here. If it squeels on a slight turn it's a
> crappy tire. The Toyo's are fantastic at just sitting right there.
>
>

Best tire I've had is what I put on last November.
Nokian WRG3 a true 4 season tire.

On 4/24/2014 12:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:33:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> I agree, more so from the convenience aspect. And as I previously
>> mentioned, keyless ignition and entry. You really don't realize how
>> nice that is until you walk up to your other vehicle to unlock the doors
>> or trunk with out keyless and dig around in your pocket for the keys in
>> the rain.
>
> Since it's been awhile since I owned a car, I have to ask. What's the
> safety method to keep those keyless cars from being stolen?
>


A key fob that only has to be in your pocket or purse. Typically they
work just like keyless entry, the interior lights up when you get near
the vehicle and the door unlocks when you touch the door handle, you
relock by touching another unique spot on the handle, get in and push a
button to start the engine. None of this works with out the key fob
being very close by. Additionally if you leave the key fob in the
vehicle you cannot lock the doors from out side the vehicle. Drop the
key fob inside the trunk and you can't close the deck lid.

Additionally the key fob has the usual buttons to use if you choose to
do all of this manually or want to double check that you locked the
vehicle with out walking all the way back to the parking spot. AND the
key fob has an internal emergency key that will pull out and unlock the
drivers door.

The biggest learning curve to this keyless ignition and unlock option is
to remember to not pull your keys out.

On 4/24/2014 12:49 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 12:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Swingman wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2014 9:32 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The idiot light is a PIA, the one on our Camry not so much as it does
>>>> give pressure readings on each tire so you at least know if the tire
>>>> is dangerously low or not. Now if only it could tell you which tire
>>>> was 5 lbs low. ;~)
>>>
>>> Never had a vehicle with this much high tech until the 2013 RAM, which
>>> has a screen that shows the TP of each individual tire (except the
>>> spare).
>>>
>>> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it
>>> looks like a other expense down the road.
>>>
>>> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
>>> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>>>
>>> Meh ...
>>
>> Just such a shame that we have to put all this technology into a car and
>> overcomplicate/over expense things, simply to make life easier for stupid
>> people. I mean really - how hard has it ever been to look at a tire
>> to see
>> if it needs a little checking? How hard is it to back up without turning
>> your head, or looking in three different mirrors? Next will come an
>> alarm
>> for the idiots that aren't looking at the camera display in the dash
>> and are
>> about to back over something.
>>
>> Talk about fixing problems that don't really exist...
>>
>> Ok - rant off...
>>
> Mike, what if this were not pushed by soccer moms, but by tire
> manufacturers to cover their asses.
>
> The firestone tires on the explorers that were failing...
> I wonder if these are tied into the computer to show you have not been
> taking care of your tires...
>
> If you didn't maintain pressure, no warranty..
>
> Just a thought.
>
Probably not, having been in the tire business there are obvious
indicators that point to under inflation being the reason for premature
failure.

On 4/24/2014 3:05 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> I have the best luck with Michelin, Dunlop, and Falkin.
>
> Not so much of a Michelin guy myself but my truck likes Dunlop - good for
> plowing, pulling, driving. Great tire for the truck in my opion. Never
> experienced - or even heard of Falkin. On the car - Cooper has done very
> well. Performs well on dry roads, rain, and snow.
>

I had the worst experience with cooper on my car and van. What a
mistake... noisy, soft sidewall that the wind would cause havoc with.
Not very good traction, it was an all weather tire that didn't like the
rain or snow... and wasn't very good on dry either.

I had it's cousin (can't remember it's name Master something) on my
truck and that was good.

I like Toyo lately. quiet, really good in the turns, not great in snow,
just ok.

Michelin ok... mixed feelings but a long time since I had them.

My older Camry came with Bridgestones and they were way better than the
coopers...

Haven't had dunlops in years..

Do not like Goodyears... noisy shits, that don't do that well...

I live on a country road, so I like a tire that handles the turns well.
There are a lot of them here. If it squeels on a slight turn it's a
crappy tire. The Toyo's are fantastic at just sitting right there.


--
Jeff

On 4/24/2014 12:19 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 9:27 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> Having said all of that, all new cars sold in the US in 2018 will all
>> have back up cameras. I wonder who is to be blamed for that?
>
> I'll take a portion of the blame. In a few forums, I've stated I will
> not buy a new car unless it has a camera. I've had one for about 18
> months and I'd give up seatbelts or airbags before I'd give up the
> camera. IMO, it is one of the best safety devices ever in automobiles.
>
> Perhaps my voice has been heard and it pushed along some congress
> critter to pass a law for them.


I agree, more so from the convenience aspect. And as I previously
mentioned, keyless ignition and entry. You really don't realize how
nice that is until you walk up to your other vehicle to unlock the doors
or trunk with out keyless and dig around in your pocket for the keys in
the rain.

On 4/23/2014 10:36 PM, Bill wrote:
> Markem wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:42:31 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> http://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/01/why-i-bought-a-sawstop-table-saw/
>>>
>> Wonder where his is going to sell that Unisaw?
>
> It doesn't say that he is "a paid endorser", but I suspect it should.
> Does anyone believe that he is not getting paid? I wouldn't be the
> least bit surprised if he got a free saw (not that I begrudge him that).

I can believe it. My voice is on a radio commercial for a local
supermarket with my "endorsement" of why I shop there. My only
compensation was a thank you by the guy making the recording outside the
store.

My endorsement of "System 2000 oil fired boilers is on their website.
No compensation for that either. I'm just happy I'm saving 39% of my
heating cost. They did verify that too.

Over many years I've written letters that have been posted in a store
about a product I used and only once was I given a token gift by one
with a value of perhaps $5. I also will write when I am not satisfied
with a product and have usually been "made whole" if there was a loss on
myh part.

On 4/24/2014 5:17 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 2:43 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 4/24/2014 2:06 PM, Leon wrote:
>>
>>> A key fob that only has to be in your pocket or purse. Typically they
>>> work just like keyless entry, the interior lights up when you get near
>>> the vehicle and the door unlocks when you touch the door handle, you
>>> relock by touching another unique spot on the handle, get in and push a
>>> button to start the engine. None of this works with out the key fob
>>> being very close by.
>>
>> Not just any pocket. I have found that it will not work if you come home
>> from work and change into shorts, leaving the fob in your other pants in
>> the bedroom. I've done extensive research on that.
>>
> That has not happened to me yet. What about your purses? ;~)


The pearls seem to block the signal

On 4/24/2014 1:42 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:

>>
>>
>> From what I understand, nitrogen filled tires will be less susceptible
>> to pressure changes caused by temperature changes.
>
> Here's an interesting article:
>
> <http://www.edmunds.com/car-care/should-you-fill-your-cars-tires-with-nitrogen.html>
>

I have a special compressor at home. I can fill my tires with 78%
nitrogen.

On 4/24/2014 1:14 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 4/24/2014 11:20 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it
>>> looks like a other expense down the road.
>>>
>>> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
>>> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>>>
>>> Meh ...
>>>
>>
>> I'm neutral on them. I had tires replaced and they left the stems in
>> place. Would have been about $12 to $15 each if they had to be
>> replaced. The first really cold ay the light lit and I had to bump
>> the pressure a little and it was OK since. Another cold day it went
>> off, but this time it was because I picked up a nail in the tire.
>
> If you found a place to replace TPMS stems for $12-$15, then you better
> stick with them. Publish that site on the newsgoup. the going rate
> anywhere on the net starts at $50 each, and goes up depending on the vehicle
> and the amount of dealer involvement. Not all cars will take the
> aftermarket stems - it depends on the relationship between the sensor and
> the computer. Best to look a little more...
>

$7.99 each here

http://shop.advanceautoparts.com/p/dorman-oe-solutions-replacement-tpms-clamp-in-valve-stem-for-dorman-sensors-974-000/26949851-P?searchTerm=tpms+sensor&zoneAssigned=1


Exact fits on both vehicles that I have owned and every other one that I
checked.

On 4/24/2014 2:00 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> $7.99 each here
>>
>> http://shop.advanceautoparts.com/p/dorman-oe-solutions-replacement-tpms-clamp-in-valve-stem-for-dorman-sensors-974-000/26949851-P?searchTerm=tpms+sensor&zoneAssigned=1
>>
>>
>> Exact fits on both vehicles that I have owned and every other one
>> that I checked.
>
> That is indeed a recent development. A year ago I did an exhaustive lookup
> on this very same valve and it was $50 each at the lowest. Goes to show
> what a year will do...
>


yeah! There is still the detail of having the tire broke down, parts
swapped, and remounted. That is going to be the kicker if one goes bad.

On 4/24/2014 1:59 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

> Technology just can't fix stupid.

Only one thing fixes stupid and it's against the law.

On 4/24/2014 1:33 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> woodchucker wrote:
>
>> Mike, what if this were not pushed by soccer moms, but by tire
>> manufacturers to cover their asses.
>>
>> The firestone tires on the explorers that were failing...
>> I wonder if these are tied into the computer to show you have not
>> been
>> taking care of your tires...
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Solved the Firestone problem back in the 70's.
>
> Simply refused to accept delivery of a new company car if it had
> Firestone tires on it.

So you were not a Ford man? ;~)


> Basically, everybody in the district did the same thing.

During that time if you bought a new vehicle you could take it to a BFG
dealer and they would replace what ever brand tire it had for free.

>
> Can't comment on Bridgestone.

I steer clear of Bridgestone too.

I have the best luck with Michelin, Dunlop, and Falkin.

On 4/24/2014 11:20 AM, Swingman wrote:

>
> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it looks
> like a other expense down the road.
>
> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>
> Meh ...
>

I'm neutral on them. I had tires replaced and they left the stems in
place. Would have been about $12 to $15 each if they had to be
replaced. The first really cold ay the light lit and I had to bump the
pressure a little and it was OK since. Another cold day it went off,
but this time it was because I picked up a nail in the tire.

On 4/24/2014 4:29 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

> Yup - and then after those same idiots get used to their cameras in their
> cars and ignore them just like they ignore the obvious now... well you go
> tell them how it's not their fault - there should have been some technology
> that spared them from themselves.
>
> Numbers of idiots do not make good reason for stupid laws. Those same
> idiots will always be idiots.
>

There should not be the need for a law. Anyone driving a car with a
camera knows the value of them and will pay the cost.

Have you driven a car with one? Have you backed out of your garage or
driveway when kids and dogs were around? I've been driving many miles a
year for 53 years and now that I have the camera and use it daily, I
won't buy a car without. It really is a great device.

On 4/24/2014 1:54 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 12:42 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>> On 04/24/2014 10:28 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2014 12:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 4/24/2014 11:20 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it
>>>>> looks
>>>>> like a other expense down the road.
>>>>>
>>>>> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
>>>>> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meh ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm neutral on them. I had tires replaced and they left the stems in
>>>> place. Would have been about $12 to $15 each if they had to be
>>>> replaced. The first really cold ay the light lit and I had to bump the
>>>> pressure a little and it was OK since. Another cold day it went off,
>>>> but this time it was because I picked up a nail in the tire.
>>>
>>>
>>> From what I understand, nitrogen filled tires will be less susceptible
>>> to pressure changes caused by temperature changes.
>>
>> Here's an interesting article:
>>
>> <http://www.edmunds.com/car-care/should-you-fill-your-cars-tires-with-nitrogen.html>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> It is not the answer to everything. My biggest association is the upper
> end dealers include the nitrogen on all of the cars, so while not
> charging extra for it on the sticker it is affecting the price in some
> fashion and or being the little extra feature that another dealer offers.
>
> Every dealer that I have visited, with this feature, have stated that if
> you have to add air bring the vehicle back in and they will deflate and
> re-inflate with nitrogen at no charge. It is a perk that they build
> into the price of the car like free oil changes for life, free loaner
> cars, transportation to and from the dealer when your vehicle is in the
> service department etc.
>
> I certainly would not pay extra unless I was having issues with
> inflation pressures. I would certainly not expect any monetary return
> on my investment other than inconvenience.
I have a problem with the dealer servicing my car. They constantly
deflate the tire pressure to 28lbs.. I boost it back up . Don't know why
they think I want a soft ride.

I now boost my tires to 40lbs , used to be 32 but after talking with you
guys, I now do 40 and love the feel.

--
Jeff

On 4/24/2014 12:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 11:20 AM, Swingman wrote:
>
>>
>> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it looks
>> like a other expense down the road.
>>
>> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
>> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>>
>> Meh ...
>>
>
> I'm neutral on them. I had tires replaced and they left the stems in
> place. Would have been about $12 to $15 each if they had to be
> replaced. The first really cold ay the light lit and I had to bump the
> pressure a little and it was OK since. Another cold day it went off,
> but this time it was because I picked up a nail in the tire.


From what I understand, nitrogen filled tires will be less susceptible
to pressure changes caused by temperature changes.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:05:46 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>I think you're on to something here Lee. Maybe a really stinky sort of
>spray. I'm all in on this idea...

They could market it as 'Skunk parking protection'. :)

On 4/24/2014 12:53 AM, Bill wrote:

> At the end of his article he wrote,
> P.S. I have disabled the comments on this post. I have no desire to hear
> the same histrionics that pollute the message boards.


Don't blame him a bit ... commentards abound who are convinced they know
best and can point out the error of your ways; and worse - that someone
will actually believe what they spew.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:11:48 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>Aw, come on now. You are now a local celebrity, that has to be worth
>something in notoriety. LOL

Yeah, but he's already a local celebrity here. Why would he need to be
one anywhere else? :)

On 4/24/2014 3:29 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Numbers of idiots do not make good reason for stupid laws. Those same
> idiots will always be idiots.

Laws protecting idiots ultimately increase the number of idiots.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:18:40 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Neighbor with an adjacent driveway has two children under ten, and we
>have neighbors on both sides of the street with children under five who
>constantly use the sidewalks.
>
>Anything to keep from running over a kid, or someone's pet ... adults
>are on their own.

Fully agree. Can't think of too many things more devastating than
running over a kid, or even worse, running over your own kid.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:27:25 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>Having said all of that, all new cars sold in the US in 2018 will all
>have back up cameras. I wonder who is to be blamed for that?

I'm just wondering in what form the first lawsuit will be about the
use or operation of those cameras.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:12:22 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>Idiot Alarm Solution: A small radar device would be activated when backing
>up. If somebody were to step in front of a backwards moving vehicle, a
>sharp, piercing alarm would go off. Ideally loud enough to cause severe
>pain and discomfort.

Hell, don't you think it should be called Darwin's radar device? When
it detects someone walking behind the car, a sharp, piercing alarm
goes off and the driver unintentionally stomps on the gas pedal. The
car speeds in reverse and removes the idiot behind the car from the
human gene pool.

On 4/24/2014 12:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:12:22 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>> Idiot Alarm Solution: A small radar device would be activated when backing
>> up. If somebody were to step in front of a backwards moving vehicle, a
>> sharp, piercing alarm would go off. Ideally loud enough to cause severe
>> pain and discomfort.
>
> Hell, don't you think it should be called Darwin's radar device? When
> it detects someone walking behind the car, a sharp, piercing alarm
> goes off and the driver unintentionally stomps on the gas pedal. The
> car speeds in reverse and removes the idiot behind the car from the
> human gene pool.
>


Now that is all mean! The device should detect the idiot. Then it
triggers your deck lid to open and out pops a telescoping 4 fingered
hand that places a Dunces hat on the offender and another telescoping
feature with a boot to kick him across the parking lot.

Add to that the optional sound effects heard on cartoons 50 years ago.

The sounds from Roadrunner and Wiley Coyote come to mind.

If you were in a parking lot at night you would swear you were at the
drive in theater.


;~)

Markem wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:42:31 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> http://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/01/why-i-bought-a-sawstop-table-saw/
> Wonder where his is going to sell that Unisaw?

It doesn't say that he is "a paid endorser", but I suspect it should.
Does anyone believe that he is not getting paid? I wouldn't be the
least bit surprised if he got a free saw (not that I begrudge him that).

Swingman wrote:
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Markem wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:42:31 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/01/why-i-bought-a-sawstop-table-saw/
>>> Wonder where his is going to sell that Unisaw?
>> It doesn't say that he is "a paid endorser", but I suspect it should.
>> Does anyone believe that he is not getting paid? I wouldn't be the least
>> bit surprised if he got a free saw (not that I begrudge him that).
> Did you not read in the article where he stated clearly that he paid full
> retail price and received nothing from Sawstop?

I received an email message today from Highland Woodworking revealing
Schwartz' new saw. It even had his picture.
Surely they must push a few cut-offs his way?

Bill


>

Swingman wrote:
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Markem wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:42:31 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/01/why-i-bought-a-sawstop-table-saw/
>>> Wonder where his is going to sell that Unisaw?
>> It doesn't say that he is "a paid endorser", but I suspect it should.
>> Does anyone believe that he is not getting paid? I wouldn't be the least
>> bit surprised if he got a free saw (not that I begrudge him that).
> Did you not read in the article where he stated clearly that he paid full
> retail price and received nothing from Sawstop?
>


At the end of his article he wrote,
P.S. I have disabled the comments on this post. I have no desire to hear
the same histrionics that pollute the message boards.

But he had a choice about whether to make an "announcement" at all.
Evidently he felt the need.

Actually, when one of the ww tool sellers took some interest in photos
of my "shop to be", I mentioned how nice the finished pictures
would look if it had some of their machinery in it...for a discounted
price. They didn't bite, but if my name was Schwarz they might have...
And Schwarz is more business savvy than me and has track a record which
proves it.

Bill wrote:
> Markem wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:42:31 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> http://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/01/why-i-bought-a-sawstop-table-saw/
>> Wonder where his is going to sell that Unisaw?
>
> It doesn't say that he is "a paid endorser", but I suspect it should.
> Does anyone believe that he is not getting paid? I wouldn't be the
> least bit surprised if he got a free saw (not that I begrudge him
> that).

Yeah - I believe he's doing this on his own, so there's at least one here
who believes he's not getting paid.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Leon wrote:

>
> Having said all of that, all new cars sold in the US in 2018 will all
> have back up cameras. I wonder who is to be blamed for that?

The same soccer-mom thinking idiots that brought us mandatory TPMS.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Leon wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 8:42 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Having said all of that, all new cars sold in the US in 2018 will
>>> all have back up cameras. I wonder who is to be blamed for that?
>>
>> The same soccer-mom thinking idiots that brought us mandatory TPMS.
>>
> TPMS?

Tire Pressure Monitoring System. That beauty adds $200 to the cost of new
tires since valves are typically replaced with tires, and TMPS valves
average around $50 each on the aftermarket. In some cases, significantly
more - and in some cases replacement valves have to be matched to the car's
computer by the dealer.

All of this so an idiot light can light up on your dash if your tire
pressure drops.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Swingman wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 9:32 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> The idiot light is a PIA, the one on our Camry not so much as it does
>> give pressure readings on each tire so you at least know if the tire
>> is dangerously low or not. Now if only it could tell you which tire
>> was 5 lbs low. ;~)
>
> Never had a vehicle with this much high tech until the 2013 RAM, which
> has a screen that shows the TP of each individual tire (except the
> spare).
>
> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it
> looks like a other expense down the road.
>
> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>
> Meh ...

Just such a shame that we have to put all this technology into a car and
overcomplicate/over expense things, simply to make life easier for stupid
people. I mean really - how hard has it ever been to look at a tire to see
if it needs a little checking? How hard is it to back up without turning
your head, or looking in three different mirrors? Next will come an alarm
for the idiots that aren't looking at the camera display in the dash and are
about to back over something.

Talk about fixing problems that don't really exist...

Ok - rant off...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 4/24/2014 1:12 PM, Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Just such a shame that we have to put all this technology into a car
>> and overcomplicate/over expense things, simply to make life easier for
>> stupid people. I mean really - how hard has it ever been to look at a
>> tire to see if it needs a little checking? How hard is it to back up
>> without turning your head, or looking in three different mirrors?
>> Next will come an alarm for the idiots that aren't looking at the
>> camera display in the dash and are about to back over something.
>>
> I can think of one "idiot alarm" I would like to see. And it would not
> be that expensive either.
>
> Problem; You are in a parking lot. You look both ways before backing
> up. You begin to back up. some idiot RUNS across the back of the car.
> Often running from one blind spot to another.
>
> My present solution. Look both ways twice. Back up very slowly. Just
> operate like there are suicidal people in the parking lot who want to
> die and get me into trouble.
>
> Ideal Solution: Just run the bastards over, repeatedly. However the
> law would take a dim view of such remedies. Although Darwin would
> approve, many others would not.
>
> Idiot Alarm Solution: A small radar device would be activated when
> backing up. If somebody were to step in front of a backwards moving
> vehicle, a sharp, piercing alarm would go off. Ideally loud enough to
> cause severe pain and discomfort.
>
> Another feature that I would approve of would be to spray the offender
> with some kind of dye that does not wash out for a few days. It would
> be the designated "idiot Color" That way every body would know they
> were idiots and were caught and sprayed by the idiot alarm.
>
> Oh, well....., I can dream can't I?
>
As usual Dave Barry gets it:

:http://www.miamiherald.com/2009/01/11/830169/sticking-it-to-bad-drivers.html

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

On 4/24/2014 1:37 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:33:31 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> I agree, more so from the convenience aspect. And as I previously
>> mentioned, keyless ignition and entry. You really don't realize how
>> nice that is until you walk up to your other vehicle to unlock the doors
>> or trunk with out keyless and dig around in your pocket for the keys in
>> the rain.
>
> Since it's been awhile since I owned a car, I have to ask. What's the
> safety method to keep those keyless cars from being stolen?
>
There is a fob, it must be within a certain distance of the car or it
will not start.

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:09:59 -0400, "Mike Marlow"

>> Just such a shame that we have to put all this technology into a car
>> and overcomplicate/over expense things, simply to make life easier
>> for stupid people. I mean really - how hard has it ever been to
>> look at a tire to see if it needs a little checking? How hard is it
>> to back up without turning your head, or looking in three different
>> mirrors? Next will come an alarm for the idiots that aren't looking
>> at the camera display in the dash and are about to back over
>> something
>
> I'm not saying I approve any of these things, but the real fact is
> that there's a large number of people who do not, will not, or refuse
> to pay attention to all those things. You might call them stupid, I
> blame it on the values that our current society attempts to instill in
> everybody from the very young to the very old.

I agree - and that's the underlying reason for why i believe this kind of
crap can't work. Stupid people are anxious to embrace things like
technology that they believe will help them in their stupidity, but in the
end they simply ignore it and live in their stupid worlds. Technology just
can't fix stupid. So - shortly after cameras are installed in cars, stupid
people will stop looking at the display screen in the same manner that they
stopped looking in their mirrors.

>
> Another part of the problem is that in this technological age, there's
> a rush to stuff anything and everything with something electronic. ~
> more to make a buck than safety motivated I'd say.

I agree.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Lee Michaels wrote:

>
> Another feature that I would approve of would be to spray the
> offender with some kind of dye that does not wash out for a few days.
> It would be the designated "idiot Color" That way every body would
> know they were idiots and were caught and sprayed by the idiot alarm.
>

I think you're on to something here Lee. Maybe a really stinky sort of
spray. I'm all in on this idea...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 9:27 AM, Leon wrote:
>
>>
>> Having said all of that, all new cars sold in the US in 2018 will all
>> have back up cameras. I wonder who is to be blamed for that?
>
> I'll take a portion of the blame. In a few forums, I've stated I will
> not buy a new car unless it has a camera. I've had one for about 18
> months and I'd give up seatbelts or airbags before I'd give up the
> camera. IMO, it is one of the best safety devices ever in
> automobiles.
> Perhaps my voice has been heard and it pushed along some congress
> critter to pass a law for them.

Well - we are all entitled to our own opinions, but I don't feel that your
inability to look and to back out of a parking space, or to back into a
parking space should dictate what everyone else should pay for. Learn to
drive and you won't have to feel so compelled to dictate the actions of
others.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 11:20 AM, Swingman wrote:
>
>>
>> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it
>> looks like a other expense down the road.
>>
>> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
>> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>>
>> Meh ...
>>
>
> I'm neutral on them. I had tires replaced and they left the stems in
> place. Would have been about $12 to $15 each if they had to be
> replaced. The first really cold ay the light lit and I had to bump
> the pressure a little and it was OK since. Another cold day it went
> off, but this time it was because I picked up a nail in the tire.

If you found a place to replace TPMS stems for $12-$15, then you better
stick with them. Publish that site on the newsgoup. the going rate
anywhere on the net starts at $50 each, and goes up depending on the vehicle
and the amount of dealer involvement. Not all cars will take the
aftermarket stems - it depends on the relationship between the sensor and
the computer. Best to look a little more...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

woodchucker wrote:

>>
> Mike, what if this were not pushed by soccer moms, but by tire
> manufacturers to cover their asses.
>
> The firestone tires on the explorers that were failing...
> I wonder if these are tied into the computer to show you have not been
> taking care of your tires...
>
> If you didn't maintain pressure, no warranty..
>
> Just a thought.

Ok - I'll give you that. Either way - same effect... someone with an agenda
pushing a law on everyone else. And... in the end the same stupid
soccer-mom mentality falls in line behind the thinking.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Leon wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 1:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2014 9:27 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Having said all of that, all new cars sold in the US in 2018 will
>>>> all have back up cameras. I wonder who is to be blamed for that?
>>>
>>> I'll take a portion of the blame. In a few forums, I've stated I
>>> will not buy a new car unless it has a camera. I've had one for
>>> about 18 months and I'd give up seatbelts or airbags before I'd
>>> give up the camera. IMO, it is one of the best safety devices ever
>>> in automobiles.
>>> Perhaps my voice has been heard and it pushed along some congress
>>> critter to pass a law for them.
>>
>> Well - we are all entitled to our own opinions, but I don't feel
>> that your inability to look and to back out of a parking space, or
>> to back into a parking space should dictate what everyone else
>> should pay for. Learn to drive and you won't have to feel so
>> compelled to dictate the actions of others.
>>
>
> Don'cha wish new cars came with out paint too? ;~)

Well hell yeah! Think of the money I could make satisfying people's
desires!

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Leon wrote:

>
> $7.99 each here
>
> http://shop.advanceautoparts.com/p/dorman-oe-solutions-replacement-tpms-clamp-in-valve-stem-for-dorman-sensors-974-000/26949851-P?searchTerm=tpms+sensor&zoneAssigned=1
>
>
> Exact fits on both vehicles that I have owned and every other one
> that I checked.

That is indeed a recent development. A year ago I did an exhaustive lookup
on this very same valve and it was $50 each at the lowest. Goes to show
what a year will do...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Leon wrote:

>
> I have the best luck with Michelin, Dunlop, and Falkin.

Not so much of a Michelin guy myself but my truck likes Dunlop - good for
plowing, pulling, driving. Great tire for the truck in my opion. Never
experienced - or even heard of Falkin. On the car - Cooper has done very
well. Performs well on dry roads, rain, and snow.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 12:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>
>> Just such a shame that we have to put all this technology into a car
>> and overcomplicate/over expense things, simply to make life easier
>> for stupid people. I mean really - how hard has it ever been to
>> look at a tire to see if it needs a little checking? How hard is it
>> to back up without turning your head, or looking in three different
>> mirrors? Next will come an alarm for the idiots that aren't looking
>> at the camera display in the dash and are about to back over
>> something. Talk about fixing problems that don't really exist...
>>
>> Ok - rant off...
>>
>
>
> Tell that to one of the many parents that backed up and killed their
> kid. Happens a couple of hundred times a year.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/tipsandadvice/11/03/backover/
> http://www.kidsandcars.org/back-overs.html
>
> Fact Sheet
>
> In the U.S. at least fifty children are being backed over by vehicles
> EVERY week. Forty-eight (48) are treated in hospital emergency rooms
> and at least two (2) children are fatally injured every WEEK.
>
> • The predominant age of victims is one year olds. (12‐23 months)
>
> • Over 60% of backing up incidents involved a larger size vehicle.
> (truck, van, SUV)
>
> • Tragically, in over 70% of these incidents, a parent or close
> relative is behind the wheel.
>
> The last car I owned that gave a good view of the rear was my '91
> Regal. Many cars give you no idea of what is behind the back glass. Most
> SUV's have poor rear visibility.
>
> My present car has a camera, as will every car I own in the future.
> Unless you buy me a Lamborghini without one.
>
> Oh, many low profile tires can be low on pressure and have little
> visual impact. Not like the old fat tires that could drop 4" and
> fell kind of mushy.

Yup - and then after those same idiots get used to their cameras in their
cars and ignore them just like they ignore the obvious now... well you go
tell them how it's not their fault - there should have been some technology
that spared them from themselves.

Numbers of idiots do not make good reason for stupid laws. Those same
idiots will always be idiots.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 16:29:12 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> Numbers of idiots do not make good reason for stupid laws. Those
>> same idiots will always be idiots.
>
> Mike, there isn't a person *anywhere* that can say they haven't done
> something really dumb or stupid.

I agree. But that does not make a reason to create laws in attempt to
prevent everything people will do. That's putting a false security in the
power of that law.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/23/2014 10:36 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Markem wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:42:31 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/01/why-i-bought-a-sawstop-table-saw/
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Wonder where his is going to sell that Unisaw?
>>
>> It doesn't say that he is "a paid endorser", but I suspect it should.
>> Does anyone believe that he is not getting paid? I wouldn't be the
>> least bit surprised if he got a free saw (not that I begrudge him that).
>
> I can believe it. My voice is on a radio commercial for a local
> supermarket with my "endorsement" of why I shop there. My only
> compensation was a thank you by the guy making the recording outside
> the store.
>
> My endorsement of "System 2000 oil fired boilers is on their website.
> No compensation for that either. I'm just happy I'm saving 39% of my
> heating cost. They did verify that too.
>
> Over many years I've written letters that have been posted in a store
> about a product I used and only once was I given a token gift by one
> with a value of perhaps $5. I also will write when I am not satisfied
> with a product and have usually been "made whole" if there was a loss
> on myh part.

I guess my "charity" of this sort (or lack thereof) shows up in the
reviews I write at Amazon.com.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 4:29 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>

>
> There should not be the need for a law. Anyone driving a car with a
> camera knows the value of them and will pay the cost.

As I believe it should be.

>
> Have you driven a car with one? Have you backed out of your garage or
> driveway when kids and dogs were around? I've been driving many
> miles a year for 53 years and now that I have the camera and use it
> daily, I won't buy a car without. It really is a great device.

I probably should have said earlier, that despite my own thoughts on the
camera, I do respect people like yourself and Karl who have voiced their
support for them. I don't want the harshness of things I've said to imply
anything different. I believe if you find them valuable, then it's a great
thing that the technology is there for you to take advantage of. My
objection is to options like this becoming mandated by law.

I have not driven a car with a backup camera yet, though I've riden in them,
so I'm familiar with the technology. Certainly I have backed out of my
garage, parking spots at church and at stores, etc. where kids were all
around. Yes - I'm cautious and perhaps even a bit paranoid backing in those
situations. I'm one of those who backs out very slowly, constantly scanning
across all three mirrors while I do so. Not just for kids - for other cars
in parking lots for example, that the drivers think they're driving down a
road instead of in a parking lot.

So - I might find the technology to be something I would call useful - I
just don't like stuff like this being legislated. What I have seen of it so
far though doesn't impress me that much. It doesn't seem to take much to
obscure the camera and create uninteligible images. I am also concerned for
a false sense of security that technology like this can create - and then
people begin to drop longstanding safe practices such as actually looking.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote

> Just such a shame that we have to put all this technology into a car and
> overcomplicate/over expense things, simply to make life easier for stupid
> people. I mean really - how hard has it ever been to look at a tire to
> see if it needs a little checking? How hard is it to back up without
> turning your head, or looking in three different mirrors? Next will come
> an alarm for the idiots that aren't looking at the camera display in the
> dash and are about to back over something.
>
> Talk about fixing problems that don't really exist...
>
> Ok - rant off...

I agree with the premise of your rant, but disagree on the result of the
tech.

Quick story. Went to a place to get registered as a recognized flyer, so
the shoes can stay on, the computer stays in the bag along with the liquids,
and no backscatter x-ray. You all ought to check it out if you fly often.
Anyway, brother in law, sister me and my better half in the mini van, and we
stopped to eat on the way home. Came out, and B-I-L says, hey you have a
flat tire. Mostly flat, prolly about 15 pounds left in it. Luck had it
that there was a tire shop across the street so we went and got it fixed.
The problem?

A twig. No crap. About 3/16" in diameter, went right through about a half
depth tread, steel belted radial. WTF?

It was lucky that it was noticed. Probably would have been noticed after we
got up to speed. We would not have been in front of a tire shop, then. The
tire might have been ruined from driving on it. A tire pressure monitor
would have caught the problem as soon as it went through, or at least before
we put ourselves in any danger on the road
--
Jim in NC


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

"woodchucker" <[email protected]> wrote

> Mike, what if this were not pushed by soccer moms, but by tire
> manufacturers to cover their asses.
>
Probably more by Ford to keep people from driving expeditions suv's around
with under inflated tires, that cause them to roll over. Remember that?
--
Jim in NC


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 23:34:03 -0400, woodchucker wrote:

> I think Obama was good in getting Osama Bin Laden.
> I think he has been useless otherwise, oh let me correct that.
> He has been very harmful to the future of the country.

And you think a guy who doesn't even know how many cars he owns would
have been a better choice?

Oh well, the Koch brothers will just buy the next one.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:42:31 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>http://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/01/why-i-bought-a-sawstop-table-saw/

Wonder where his is going to sell that Unisaw?

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:09:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>I also will write when I am not satisfied >with a product and have
>usually been "made whole" if there was a loss on my part.

That reminds me of a news blurb I saw recently. A women was going
around to a number of local restaurants and after eating a significant
portion of her meal, would complain about it. She would not be charged
for what she just ate and frequently would be given a voucher for a
free meal the next time she visited ~ All of this of course, was her
taking advantage of customer service.

It worked fine until the restaurants started talking to each other and
then her face was splashed all over the news.

Making a valid complaint is fine, the businesses appreciate that, but
complaints are frequently made with the purpose of profiting somehow.
I've been known to make a complaint or two, but I also make sure to
pay compliments too when I experience something that I appreciate.

On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 22:36:03 -0400, Bill <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Markem wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:42:31 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> http://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/01/why-i-bought-a-sawstop-table-saw/
>> Wonder where his is going to sell that Unisaw?
>
>It doesn't say that he is "a paid endorser", but I suspect it should.
>Does anyone believe that he is not getting paid? I wouldn't be the
>least bit surprised if he got a free saw (not that I begrudge him that).

He paid full retail on the saw is what he wrote.

On 4/24/2014 12:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:

>
> Just such a shame that we have to put all this technology into a car and
> overcomplicate/over expense things, simply to make life easier for stupid
> people. I mean really - how hard has it ever been to look at a tire to see
> if it needs a little checking? How hard is it to back up without turning
> your head, or looking in three different mirrors? Next will come an alarm
> for the idiots that aren't looking at the camera display in the dash and are
> about to back over something.
>
> Talk about fixing problems that don't really exist...
>
> Ok - rant off...
>


Tell that to one of the many parents that backed up and killed their
kid. Happens a couple of hundred times a year.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/tipsandadvice/11/03/backover/
http://www.kidsandcars.org/back-overs.html

Fact Sheet

In the U.S. at least fifty children are being backed over by vehicles
EVERY week. Forty-eight (48) are treated in hospital emergency rooms and
at least two (2) children are fatally injured every WEEK.

• The predominant age of victims is one year olds. (12‐23 months)

• Over 60% of backing up incidents involved a larger size vehicle.
(truck, van, SUV)

• Tragically, in over 70% of these incidents, a parent or close relative
is behind the wheel.

The last car I owned that gave a good view of the rear was my '91 Regal.
Many cars give you no idea of what is behind the back glass. Most
SUV's have poor rear visibility.

My present car has a camera, as will every car I own in the future.
Unless you buy me a Lamborghini without one.

Oh, many low profile tires can be low on pressure and have little visual
impact. Not like the old fat tires that could drop 4" and fell kind of
mushy.

On 4/24/2014 4:03 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 2:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:18:40 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Neighbor with an adjacent driveway has two children under ten, and we
>>> have neighbors on both sides of the street with children under five who
>>> constantly use the sidewalks.
>>>
>>> Anything to keep from running over a kid, or someone's pet ... adults
>>> are on their own.
>>
>> Fully agree. Can't think of too many things more devastating than
>> running over a kid, or even worse, running over your own kid.
>
> Unfortunately, I've seen first hand the devastation that caused, and the
> memory is enough to give me involuntarily shudders to this day.
>
> Back when I'd just returned from the service and was totally fed up with
> the world, and basically being as worthless as possible, a friend, who
> worked with me shoeing horses, was leaving his home to meet me at a
> stables and backed over and killed his 3 year old son playing in the
> driveway, an only child. A whole lot more than that precious little boy
> died that morning.
>

Yea, that would take the life out of most NORMAL parents. It generally
leads to divorce and two sad people who never recover.


--
Jeff

On 4/25/2014 8:10 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/24/2014 3:29 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Numbers of idiots do not make good reason for stupid laws. Those same
>> idiots will always be idiots.
>
> Laws protecting idiots ultimately increase the number of idiots.
>

The trophy business has never been better!

On 4/24/2014 12:42 PM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
> On 04/24/2014 10:28 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 4/24/2014 12:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2014 11:20 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> NOT something I need, or even want, and not wowed by it, since it looks
>>>> like a other expense down the road.
>>>>
>>>> Haven't verified the readings with a tire gauge, but the values
>>>> certainly change when the tires are warmed up after driving.
>>>>
>>>> Meh ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm neutral on them. I had tires replaced and they left the stems in
>>> place. Would have been about $12 to $15 each if they had to be
>>> replaced. The first really cold ay the light lit and I had to bump the
>>> pressure a little and it was OK since. Another cold day it went off,
>>> but this time it was because I picked up a nail in the tire.
>>
>>
>> From what I understand, nitrogen filled tires will be less susceptible
>> to pressure changes caused by temperature changes.
>
> Here's an interesting article:
>
> <http://www.edmunds.com/car-care/should-you-fill-your-cars-tires-with-nitrogen.html>
>
>
>
It is not the answer to everything. My biggest association is the upper
end dealers include the nitrogen on all of the cars, so while not
charging extra for it on the sticker it is affecting the price in some
fashion and or being the little extra feature that another dealer offers.

Every dealer that I have visited, with this feature, have stated that if
you have to add air bring the vehicle back in and they will deflate and
re-inflate with nitrogen at no charge. It is a perk that they build
into the price of the car like free oil changes for life, free loaner
cars, transportation to and from the dealer when your vehicle is in the
service department etc.

I certainly would not pay extra unless I was having issues with
inflation pressures. I would certainly not expect any monetary return
on my investment other than inconvenience.

On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 12:09:59 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>Just such a shame that we have to put all this technology into a car and
>overcomplicate/over expense things, simply to make life easier for stupid
>people. I mean really - how hard has it ever been to look at a tire to see
>if it needs a little checking? How hard is it to back up without turning
>your head, or looking in three different mirrors? Next will come an alarm
>for the idiots that aren't looking at the camera display in the dash and are
>about to back over something

I'm not saying I approve any of these things, but the real fact is
that there's a large number of people who do not, will not, or refuse
to pay attention to all those things. You might call them stupid, I
blame it on the values that our current society attempts to instill in
everybody from the very young to the very old.

Another part of the problem is that in this technological age, there's
a rush to stuff anything and everything with something electronic. ~
more to make a buck than safety motivated I'd say.

On 4/23/2014 7:42 PM, Swingman wrote:
> http://blog.lostartpress.com/2013/08/01/why-i-bought-a-sawstop-table-saw/
>

Chris said,

After all, the company has been working quite successfully to make its
technology de rigueur on all table saws via legal and political
channels. (And to be fair, many of the other machinery manufacturers
have been working just as hard on the other side of the issue in the
political and legislative world. There are no good guys or bad guys in
this debate.)


I often suspected that there was a flip side to the story. I hope that
he did indeed find that there was at least equal opposition being
provided by his competition.

I mentioned more than once in the past that while Gass, being in the
spot light, did not use the best of practices to bring his product to
market, he was doing nothing wrong. Many feel that his caring for our
safety was not so genuine as him wanting to make a fortune. On the flip
side his competition still wants to make a fortune too and have chosen
to not make their saws safer in this way.


Having said all of that, all new cars sold in the US in 2018 will all
have back up cameras. I wonder who is to be blamed for that?

On 4/24/2014 2:06 PM, Leon wrote:

> A key fob that only has to be in your pocket or purse. Typically they
> work just like keyless entry, the interior lights up when you get near
> the vehicle and the door unlocks when you touch the door handle, you
> relock by touching another unique spot on the handle, get in and push a
> button to start the engine. None of this works with out the key fob
> being very close by.

Not just any pocket. I have found that it will not work if you come home
from work and change into shorts, leaving the fob in your other pants in
the bedroom. I've done extensive research on that.

On 4/24/2014 10:26 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Doug Winterburn" wrote:
>
>> Hey, we have a ton of folks who VOTE before looking! Seems to me to
>> be a much more dangerous situation.
> -----------------------------------------------------
> And fortunately their candidate lost the last presidential election.
>
> Lew
>
>
>

I think Obama was good in getting Osama Bin Laden.
I think he has been useless otherwise, oh let me correct that.
He has been very harmful to the future of the country.

He said he would protect American Jobs, but many of the things he has
done have been the opposite.

His foreign policy is terrible.
His National policy is terrible.
His Economic policies seem to be non-existent.
I won't discuss Obomination Healtcare.. (get it).


Change? Change for the people who have been on welfare all their lives
maybe.

Did any of the Financial disaster people get brought to trial?
Did Corrzine pay for an obvious theft of customer funds? No he got a walk.

It's more of the same BULLSHIT.

But unfortunately we are a 2 party system. If only Americans realized
that it's not woring. But people are idiots. I hope people start voting
independent.. they have no cohesive party... they wil vote their minds,
not the party line... So what if nothing gets done.. thats better than
what the current idiots are doing in congress.



--
Jeff

On 4/24/2014 2:23 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:18:40 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Neighbor with an adjacent driveway has two children under ten, and we
>> have neighbors on both sides of the street with children under five who
>> constantly use the sidewalks.
>>
>> Anything to keep from running over a kid, or someone's pet ... adults
>> are on their own.
>
> Fully agree. Can't think of too many things more devastating than
> running over a kid, or even worse, running over your own kid.

Unfortunately, I've seen first hand the devastation that caused, and the
memory is enough to give me involuntarily shudders to this day.

Back when I'd just returned from the service and was totally fed up with
the world, and basically being as worthless as possible, a friend, who
worked with me shoeing horses, was leaving his home to meet me at a
stables and backed over and killed his 3 year old son playing in the
driveway, an only child. A whole lot more than that precious little boy
died that morning.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 4/24/2014 12:04 PM, Leon wrote:

> I will say that I probably will never buy another vehicle with out the
> back up camera. It makes placing the vehicle at just the right depth
> anywhere in the garage very simple and works well when backing out of a
> parking space between to panel vans.

Yep.

Hate to sound like a warm and fuzzy liberal, but I'd do it "for the
children" alone.

Neighbor with an adjacent driveway has two children under ten, and we
have neighbors on both sides of the street with children under five who
constantly use the sidewalks.

Anything to keep from running over a kid, or someone's pet ... adults
are on their own.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)